Do we need the monarchy in this day and and age?

DaisyAnne

Freya5

Funny no one on here suggesting what would replace the Monarchy, a constitutional one. Remember Ollie Cromwell, didn’t end well. Unless you go the French /Russian way and have state sponsored murder, be careful what you wish for.

I think they just want a revolution Freya. Very, very boring.

A revolution ? Boring ? Heard it all now

Well said Daisy.

Bungle22

Time for a vote on a Republic. Their immense wealth, including possession of castles, palaces and estates is wrong in this day and age.
The argument that they bring tourists is challenged by the fact that both France and Italy have more tourists than we do.
They are secretive, with the Queen lobbying to keep her wealth private and both she and Charles were named in the data leak Panama papers for their offshore wealth.
Unelected, unaccountable people, with unearned privilege.

I wonder though without the monarchy thing would we get even fewer tourists ?

Germanshepherdsmum

Paddy I think only communism would satisfy you. Perish the thought that some people are rich and others not. I frankly couldn’t give a damn how much money the Queen has or how much property the Crown owns.

Absolutely.

I wouldn't say we need the monarchy but we have one, and I wouldn't like to lose it.

Lucca

Bungle22

Time for a vote on a Republic. Their immense wealth, including possession of castles, palaces and estates is wrong in this day and age.
The argument that they bring tourists is challenged by the fact that both France and Italy have more tourists than we do.
They are secretive, with the Queen lobbying to keep her wealth private and both she and Charles were named in the data leak Panama papers for their offshore wealth.
Unelected, unaccountable people, with unearned privilege.

I wonder though without the monarchy thing would we get even fewer tourists ?

I think the rip of prices in London and Major cities put more tourists off than anything else.

I wonder though without the monarchy thing would we get even fewer tourists?

I would love a thread about what attracts tourists to countries. For the UK it can't be the weather surely, the cuisine is questionable, maybe architecture and buildings? I have a feeling that without royalty we would be worse off, the whole royal thing is invariably on the front of every travel brochure abroad.

At the risk of being very unpopular and wearing my hard hat I would say that we need the Monarchy more than ever.

Yes we do infinitely preferable to a President in my view.

The tourist argument is nonsense- how many tourists see the RF? Hardly any- tourists come for the historic buildings, the art galleries and museums, theatres and shopping NOT cos we have a nice little old lady with a crown. President Johnson would be ghastly as would King Andrew, but President Johnson would have fewer powers than he has now.

Do we need a monarchy? No. We need an elected head of state. How the nominations are decided is another matter.

We should look at how other countries decide nominations.

I would say that France and Germany have been more stable in recent years than the U.K. , which has been in turmoil. Monarchy nothing to do with it. You could still have all the pomp and ceremony you like .

aonk

At the risk of being very unpopular and wearing my hard hat I would say that we need the Monarchy more than ever.

Why do you think that aonk? Sincere interest.

I am a Royalist, our current working Royals have been trimmed down over the last 10-20 years.

I think they are heading more along the lines of Denmark, Sweden etc.

nanna8

No but the tourists like them. At least get rid of all the peripherals and just have the one nuclear family. Divide up their property and assets.

Divide up their property and assets.

If the State did that, what's to stop them nationalising all our homes and assets?
There are some on GN who suggested this might be a good idea but I, for one, do not.

I am quite happy with a slimmed down Monarchy as I think they're as good value as a President might be and the choice of candidates for an apolitical President would seem to extremely limited. The thought of another election every four years makes me want to shout "Not another one!"

If the Royal Family decides it doesn't want to continue serving Britain then I wouldn't blame them either.

Some good questions, Peasblosso

If a separate Head of State to what extent would they also need all the trappings that come with that position. Would it save any taxpayers money?

Well, they'd want a new palace for a start. I can't imagine a President putting up with a leaky palace.
A fleet of bullet-proof cars
A Presidential plane
A Presidential yacht

Meddling in politics?

vegansrock

The tourist argument is nonsense- how many tourists see the RF? Hardly any- tourists come for the historic buildings, the art galleries and museums, theatres and shopping NOT cos we have a nice little old lady with a crown. President Johnson would be ghastly as would King Andrew, but President Johnson would have fewer powers than he has now.

I think you understood my comment vegansrock which was in answer to Lucca and Bungle. What I meant was there would be even fewer tourists to the UK without the RF family, and not that they all flock in the hope of seeing the Queen!

paddyann
We did have an articulate supporter of Scottish independence on GN but she argued that the Scots could still keep the Monarch as Head of State after independence.

But why would you?

Perhaps it could be an additional question on your referendum form?

Callistemon21

Some good questions, Peasblosso

If a separate Head of State to what extent would they also need all the trappings that come with that position. Would it save any taxpayers money?

Well, they'd want a new palace for a start. I can't imagine a President putting up with a leaky palace.
A fleet of bullet-proof cars
A Presidential plane
A Presidential yacht

Meddling in politics?

A wine cellar with 15,000 bottles of the very best wine.

vegansrock

The tourist argument is nonsense- how many tourists see the RF? Hardly any- tourists come for the historic buildings, the art galleries and museums, theatres and shopping NOT cos we have a nice little old lady with a crown. President Johnson would be ghastly as would King Andrew, but President Johnson would have fewer powers than he has now.

Even with fewer powers he'd be a disaster vegansrock
You cannot be serious.
Any more suggestions?

At least Queen Elizabeth II is respected around the world (if not by some posters on Gransnet).

A wine cellar with 15,000 bottles of the very best wine.

They could always send an aide to the Offie with a suitcase!

Genuine question Callistemon21, I'm not trying to tee up an argument. We often hear the idea of a slimmed down monarchy - who or what do you have in mind, Monarch + Children + Grandchildren, Monarch + first n in line to the throne, for some value of n...? Or would it be more ‘fluid’? I can see disadvantages to both my suggestions, for the first one some, especially amongst the grandchildren, would become irrelevant. For the second nearly everyone on the list would be ‘demoted’ at some point as they fell further down the line of succession and potential become ‘non-Royal’.

I've no idea how it works in the remaining 6 monarchies (or 11, I think, if you count Principalities and Duchies) in Europe.

Interesting random fact related to Princes/Elected Presidents: the President of France, in this case of course Macron, is one of the two Princes of Andorra, the other being the Bishop of Urgell. Therefore, the Andorran monarchs are in the first case elected by French citizens and in the second place appointed by the Pope.

I m not too sure what stability the RFamily have given us GSM Margaret went off the rails Anne, Charles and Andrew divorced Diana killed, Harry bunked off, Andrew in a BIG court case More problems than in the average Joe Soaps family
Not a very stable example ???

We know that for sure do we ?

Genuine question Callistemon21, I'm not trying to tee up an argument.

The one we appear to have now is quite well slimmed down.
Those who carry out duties on behalf of the Head of State just get paid expenses.

It surprises me that some people think the Monarch gets loads of money from the taxpayer as if it's a huge salary for her own personal use!
The Sovereign Grant is used for the salaries of staff and upkeep of properties relevant to HM carrying out the affairs of State and duties.