Future of Monarchies in the 21st Century

I don't know how it would be chosen.

They must be apolitical for a start
A family with an heir and a spare, not extended to too many hangers-on
A family which has Britain's best interests at heart
A family which could command respect around the world
A family which can entertain and bring in business to the British economy
A family without dubious business interests
A family where the head does not mind working until they drop and should never retire
The ability to live in draughty old houses and a reliance on the taxpayer to mend the leaks
The ability to smile, shake hands and be always dignified and pleasant even if you have a headache and would rather lie down in a darkened room.
The ability to rise above criticism that you're not out on the streets shaking hands with people when all you are trying to do is comfort your bereaved grandchildren

Um, er, can't think, can you?

I'm a republican but I can be realistic at times. I'd like to reduce the hangers on. They're rich in their own right so they don't need our money. Let them get jobs. I know it will be hard for them as they'll only be able to have as many holidays as Princess Beatrice .

One residence owned by the state for business and state occasions. Staff required for the upkeep and running of the residence paid for by the state but private staff (valets, personal maids etc) to be paid for by the person who enjoys their services.

The end of grace and favour residences for hangers on. If they want to live in central London then they should pay the going rate.

There are dangers in both a Presidential and Monarchical system. Main gain for a Presidential one is that you can get rid of them if they turn out to be useless. I don't have a great issue with retaining a much reduced monarchy. Monarch, heir and heir to heir. I don't think their wives/husbands should be given title of King or Queen alongside them. I think it demeans the great kings and queens in their own right we have had over the centuries. Consort is a good enough title.
I do object to the very much wider family being included and paid for. Most, if not all, have good educations and degrees and should be out working like the rest of us.
Like your ideas of how to reduce the expenditure.
I do think it will eventually fizzle out as I think the main reason Elizabeth II is so popular is she has been around for a fair number of us for so long and has done a decent job. Young people I think will see it all as a little less relevant to their lives.

Yes, she has done a sterling job. I think she would have preferred to be a countrywoman with her horses and dogs but has devoted her life to what she believes is her duty.

I just can't think of an alternative that is not open to corruption, political bias, different business interests - and that would not cost us a whole lot more. And one that would put country before self.

The status quo is what works as far as I am concerned.

There are more bedrooms for staff in Buck House as there are rooms in total in the White House.
She doesn't need anything like as big as Buck House.

Please note that the Queen is the Head of State in a number of other countries as well as the UK. These countries would also require some input if such a ballot for a royal family ever took place.

since I suggested it Devorgilla, I had better contribute!
so, if the hered. monarchy did not exist, I would not be rooting for one to be created, while the present Queen has done an amazing job, why would we want to create it all over again.Of course, the monarchy was got rid of briefly here in the 1640's, but was restored[1662?]
I think we would manage well enough as a Republic, other countries seem to.If there was ever a vote though, I do think that more people would vote for a monarchy to continue.

Flipping heck have you seen the Elysée Palace and the Kremlin.

yup, plenty of rooms there!

I agree about the hangers on, only the monarch, consort and heir should be kept by the state, all others in the family made to work for a living like the rest of us. Also no title of Queen to a male monarch's wife, only Queen if she is the reigning monarch.
This reduced state would remove all the need for all those huge royal residences.

If you remove the need for "huge" Buck House and Windsor Castle (Holyrood is not that big) you are still left with a palace and a castle to be maintained at the taxpayer's expense less entry fees that are already charged. You also need somewhere for state banquets, etc.

By all means trim the Royal Family, but don't expect to make huge savings on the upkeep of Grade 1 listed buildings.

Of course, the monarchy was got rid of briefly here in the 1640's, but was restored[1662?]
That period of history was pretty horrendous.
Are we any more civilised nowadays?

(I mean, away from Gransnet in RL )

Well, we managed not to have any more civil wars.

Not one of us will be alive when the truth of the queens alleged affairs will be openly discussed by historians

If there was a referendum I would vote to abolish the monarchy , I have no great admiration for the queen , yes she has always been dignified in public, never rocks the boat and receives a life of luxury for herself , her family and extended family in return , she has never given an interview, we only know what the press and royal biographers tell us.

I used to be a republican but decided that neither we nor people to come have any right to destroy our country's heritage.
How do we feel about Oliver Cromwell vandalising our beautiful churches, or Isis blowing up ancient temples because they, living at that moment, didn't like them?
The monarchy is a big part of our history which we have a duty to pass on. It doesn't matter a damn what any individual monarch does, they are only links in a very long chain.

Oliver Cromwell blasted our lovely castle to bits.

I agree apricot, we are only custodians. It is not up to us to decide in one particular generation what is important or not about the heritage of our country.

'One of the ruins that Cromwell knocked abaht a bit' remember that lovely old song?

You can't compare the Cromwellian period with today. Different times, different rules but it did give a kick start to the democracy we operate under today.

Do tell us about the Queen's alleged affairs, Anniebach; I am obviously missing out on something. And I hope historians in the future will have better things to do than pore pruriently over the alleged affairs of someone who had no actual power over anyone.

grumpa, historians never tire of writing about alleged affairs do they?

Anniebach You're the fount of all knowledge where the Royal Family is concerned so you must surely know all about the Queen's alleged affairs.

Anniebach

What affairs has the Queen had ?

I am intrigued now.

Does anybody know of the 'affairs' the Queen is said to have had?

I have never heard a muttering but a poster must have information or why else state it.

If she did have any, then she must have managed them very discreetly if there is no evidence after all this time, and no-one prepared to kiss and tell. Her choice of paramour must have been far better than most royals who stray from the narrow path of fidelity.