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

DaisyAnne

Callistemon21

It's not people who didn't know what they were voting for, paddyann - I'm sure the majority who voted to leave knew perfectly well.

It was those who, as Mollygo says, were too idle or complacent to get their backsides down to the polling stations to vote who I blame.
It wouldn't have taken many of the lazy so and so's for the vote to have gone the other way.

In any other country those who didn't vote in a constitution changing referendum would be considered to be happy with the status quo and a "qualified" majority is used where each registered voter counts, with non voters being counted as against change.

So what did our majority mean? It certainly did not mean a smooth transition or general co-operation. Let's hope that if we do ever vote on the constitutional change from Monarchy to some other form of Head of State we have learned that lesson or we could, indeed end up in civil war.

In some countries voters are fined if they don't bother to vote.

IMO it’s impossible to effect the dissolution of the monarchy without considerable civil unrest (to put it mildly) and the spilling of blood.

Callistemon21

^Love it, your last two paragraphs denote exactly what our Monarchy is about^

Freya ???

No it doesent monarchy has a say in vets legislation for her own private interests so not above politics and both queen and Charles lobby ministers for their own political interests and agenda.
Spend public money freely
The RF are in public office for private gain so monarchy is corrupt.

We don't need the Royal Family.

But there are many things that we have that we don't necessarily need

I doubt the monarchy is going anywhere any time soon. I think we'll all be pushing up daisies before that happens. And that suits me just fine.

Callistemon21

Peasblossom

I think they’d prefer a bloodless revolution.

Oh, I was just getting out my knitting needles and stash.

I might get that jumper finished at last ?

May I suggest using red yarn so the blood doesn’t show?

Maybe we don't need the monarchy, but we presumably would then need a head of state. Personally I would rather we keep the monarch as the head of state than have an election every few years . That would no doubt be open to corruption and accusations and disruption. The monarchy, in spite of recent problems, does bring a sense of continuity and history and is a big asset to this country in many ways.
But I feel very strongly that the monarchy needs thinning out. Just the monarch and spouse and their children should be treated as royal. All their relatives should just work and support themselves, like the rest of us.

Have you noticed that countries such as America love to hear about our monarchy. They journey to see the big occasions and it is obvious they see something in it even if some people here don’t. I would be very sad to see it go. It’s part of our way of life and it also stimulates the economy.

Only the Queen, Charles, Camilla, Anne, Sophie ,Edward, William and Kate are working royals. Which of these should be taken off the list ?

Lovetopaint037

Have you noticed that countries such as America love to hear about our monarchy. They journey to see the big occasions and it is obvious they see something in it even if some people here don’t. I would be very sad to see it go. It’s part of our way of life and it also stimulates the economy.

But have you also noticed that when you ask them the question 'would you like one of your own?' the answer is invariably 'no'.

Petera

Lovetopaint037

Have you noticed that countries such as America love to hear about our monarchy. They journey to see the big occasions and it is obvious they see something in it even if some people here don’t. I would be very sad to see it go. It’s part of our way of life and it also stimulates the economy.

But have you also noticed that when you ask them the question 'would you like one of your own?' the answer is invariably 'no'.

Well, they’ve got H&M now, of course.

Non working though.

Do we want President Tony or President Jeremy instead? No thanks.

NO.

paddyann54
What sheer and utter Nationalist rubbish, you state such ridiculous rubbish and claim it as fact, pathetic really

Peaschblossom, on the first page says it all for me

It never ceases to surprise me that so many people
on so many topics, deride the present position,
of so many things in this life, but never consider or
propose what they would suggest in return

YES We do

Yes but a restricted family receiving our money

You've said it perfectly Gillycats.
I totally agree.

If we wish to forego £595 million in tourist revenue and £1.766 billion from Crown lands, at a cost of £282 million, no. But they are five times more profitable than the Belgian royal family.

no, its crazy to have one family live in luxury & others the opposite, it can't be nice for them cos their lives are at risk from assassins etc

The Queen and immediate family do much for this country. They give publicity to eg Early years development, abusive relationships, green credentials mental health and more. Visits to specific countries helps to seal commercial deals. Tourists flock to this country to see our monarchy in action. Changing of the guard etc. They are being reduced to Queen, Charles and William which is right and proper but to remove them completely is to lose our Unique Selling Point.

Personally, no. The queen, I admire for her dedication, but really, it’s time for an archaic system when people are elevated and fawned over for no other reason than birth, to have its day, surely. People say ‘what would you replace it with? And give horrible examples of ‘president whoever’ but, at least we could vote for and/or remove them. The money they bring in? Would probably come anyway. It’s the history, not the people living (rent free) in those wonderful buildings that are meant to be ours, but we cannot enter, only pay for if things need updating. And we pay them 64 million a year? No. For me, let’s stop it now.

spabbygirl

no, its crazy to have one family live in luxury & others the opposite, it can't be nice for them cos their lives are at risk from assassins etc

It’s ridiculous for any family to live in luxury whilst others need food banks, but it isn’t just the RF where that applies. Removing the RF. would make less impact on poor people than lowering taxes for the lowest incomes.

No we don't 'need' a monarchy but it's better than a washed up politician as a ceremonial president.

They would at least be democratically voted for and could be changed. Personally, who wants half the royals going anywhere!