Gransnet forums

News & politics

Retaining the Monarchy

(69 Posts)
Dottynan Sun 22-Sep-19 08:33:24

In todays newspaper (22nd) I read that only 29 percent of Labour Party members "believe in retaining the monarchy" and 62 percent say "Britain should become a republic". Good or bad thing ?

EllanVannin Sun 22-Sep-19 08:39:51

God forbid !
Read about some of the Republican countries, and ten to one we'd end up as another Venezuela, mark my words !

Pantglas2 Sun 22-Sep-19 08:40:23

Need to know what will replace it before I can call that one!

aggie Sun 22-Sep-19 08:44:38

Oh yes , great idea , President for 4 years , elections , tv all a dither riots ( well flag burning/waving in a half hearted way ) and the rich cats in the background , not out where we can see them

sodapop Sun 22-Sep-19 09:00:19

Exactly EV & aggie not for me, that way lies destruction oh wait a minute

Anniebach Sun 22-Sep-19 09:04:06

A referendum? another election ? No

annsixty Sun 22-Sep-19 09:47:36

I am for retaining the monarchy with a much slimmed down version than we have presently after the Queen dies.
She has been a model of propriety, and has done her duty and served us well.
We need a more approachable Royal family with less of the hero worship and fans, but that of course is impossible, people with low self esteem will always clamour to know more about their glamorous role models.
European royals seem to live more down to earth lives than ours but still carry on.
No thank you to a President.

Framilode Sun 22-Sep-19 09:49:26

I completely agree with your post Annsixty.

annsixty Sun 22-Sep-19 09:51:14

Well thank you.
That doesn’t often happen.

Gonegirl Sun 22-Sep-19 09:53:32

It would be so boring without them!

And I love the little kiddies.

Alima Sun 22-Sep-19 09:54:10

Also completely agree with annsixty on this.

Anniebach Sun 22-Sep-19 09:54:55

annsixty in what way do you want them to be more approachable?

merlotgran Sun 22-Sep-19 09:59:50

Yes, it would be boring without them.

Definitely No to a republic from me.

William and Kate are on the right track. Saying nuffing about the other two. grin

Alexa Sun 22-Sep-19 10:01:58

The Queen has been an ideal monarch, and I hope the next one will be as good. The monarchy is a lot of fun including all the minor royals. However some of their behaviour is deeply unfashionable and they need to improve their image regarding wasting money, and supporting unpopular causes such as killing things for fun.

Niobe Sun 22-Sep-19 10:02:56

I think Charles wants a 'slimmed down' Royal Family and this has led to disagreement with Andrew who wants his daughters to have a more public role.

The idea of elections for a President every 4 years makes me shudder! Can you imagine the people who would be put forward for that? President Farage for example (Shudder!)

Anniebach Sun 22-Sep-19 10:07:55

Until Australia, Canada, New Zealand and 12 other countries choose to become a republic the queen is monarch of 16 countries . She is head of the commonwealth and the heads of the commonwealth have elected Charles as next head .

EllanVannin Sun 22-Sep-19 10:09:22

The Blair's would love it, Niobe.

GrannyGravy13 Sun 22-Sep-19 10:10:30

Totally against a republic, keep the monarchy.

Anniebach Sun 22-Sep-19 10:11:34

Cherie Blair is a republican

Niobe Sun 22-Sep-19 10:27:44

Ellan Vanin, after I posted my last comment the idea of Tony and Cherie as President and First Lady popped into my head too! I'll take Charles and Camilla followed by William and Kate any day!

paddyann Sun 22-Sep-19 10:37:53

Totally against a hereditary monarchy .....bring on a republic .

henetha Sun 22-Sep-19 10:42:02

Totally against a republic.... keep the monarchy.

merlotgran Sun 22-Sep-19 10:43:29

It's a bit boring on the Royals front at the moment as the major players are still hiding on holiday in Balmoral.

Fear not. Harryward the Woke and Me-again are off to Africa tomorrow with baby Archie who we probably won't see as they don't like us.

Never mind. There will be plenty of outfits to bitch about comment on. grin

It will no doubt be a highly successful trip as Harry loves Africa and apparently wants to live there hmm

annsixty Sun 22-Sep-19 11:02:15

Meghan made the excuse for leaving her first engagement after maternity leave that she had to get home it was feeding time.
I wonder if she left in the middle of pal Serena’s last set or this weekend in the middle of a high profile and highly publicised wedding in Rome?
Of course not.

eazybee Sun 22-Sep-19 11:18:20

And she is taking Archie's old clothes to give away to the 'poor' and colouring books for the children, from Archie.
But to return:
the thought of a republic fills me with dread; President Blair and First Lady Cherie.

GrannyGravy13 Sun 22-Sep-19 11:27:12

I am going to Africa in November and I shall be taking one suitcase full of clothes, pencils, exercise books etc.

Cannot see anything wrong with the Royals donations personally?

Anniebach Sun 22-Sep-19 11:43:56

They will be on the news daily for ten days !

GrannyGravy13 Sun 22-Sep-19 12:03:16

Anniebach if being on the news highlights the plight of African people, orphans etc and results in donations to these charity's increasing surely that is a good thing?

Anniebach Sun 22-Sep-19 12:10:38

Yes a good thing GrannyGravy but I find their hand holding, eye gazing, camera performing draws attention away
from everything else. Sorry but they irritate me.

Witzend Sun 22-Sep-19 12:21:04

Now and then I used to have the odd republican sentiment, but was firmly cured of that when I thought of e.g. Tony Blair as President, with Cherie as First Lady.

I do think he liked to imagine he was more popular than the Queen (esp., naturally enough, around the time of the death of Diana) and thought he was going to make the monarchy second rate, compared to him.

Out of interest, is there any public figure GNers can think of at the moment, who they'd like to see as President?

BradfordLass72 Sun 22-Sep-19 12:27:27

Careful there GrannyGravy13 or you'll be accused of 'virtue signalling'! grin
Good on you, I wish I could do the same and would if I had the dosh.

I've never agreed with the monarchy as an institution and this goes right back to my early teenage years.

But I bear the individual royals no ill will at all. They cannot help who they are and what families they were born into any more than I can.

I'd like to bet many of them find the restrictions imposed upon them quite stifling sometimes and royal protocol has ruined many lives, sadly.

I do resent the sort of money, goods and services they can command when so very many people in their realm are in dire need - but what, practically, can they do about it?

The Queen can't sell off her castles and jewellry to give to the poor.

It's my understanding, although I could be wrong, that pretty much everything she has is owned by 'the country' and not by her personally.

I have simply never understood anyone's hero worship of the royal family, nor of celebrities and the seemingly endless need to know everything possible about their lives.

It is literally beyonf my comprehension.

Australia and New Zealand may have HM Queen as Head of State but she takes no part whatsoever in the way these countries are run.
She or her offspring pop in occasionally to make sure we're still here and we bow and scrape until they fly off again.

Then we go back to governing ourselves quite nicely thankyou.

Anniebach Sun 22-Sep-19 12:39:43

The U.K. has a government too

Jabberwok Sun 22-Sep-19 12:52:51

Witzend - No!!!! Annie - well, sort of!!!!

sarahellenwhitney Sun 22-Sep-19 13:07:59

Take away its monarchy what else would bring in the majority of foreign visitors?Not that they would be invited for afternoon tea with the queen but having witnessed the Household Cavalry in the Mall and the Presenting of the Colours have yet to see any other country better that.

pinkquartz Sun 22-Sep-19 13:13:22

Having given this some thought recently I think it would be best to retain the figurehead of monarchy but in reduced luxury.
I think the European/ Scandi model is much better.
So the Royals would only be supported for the Monarch, and immediate family everyone else ....get a job.

I don't want another elected President figure. We know how rubbish that goes.
After Queenie we could briefly have Charles, then William then George and after that who knows?
We might not need a figure head at all then.

pinkquartz Sun 22-Sep-19 13:15:27

Visitor numbers at Versailles prove you do not need a monarch in residence to bring in tourists......
FFS not going to keep them for showing tourists!

They can choose one permanent residence and perhaps use Buck Palace as just for millions.

pinkquartz Sun 22-Sep-19 13:18:24

I feel totally no sympathy for the Royals. They have it too easy.
Whose life was ruined by the royal Protocol?
I fear more for people I know whose lives are ruined by poverty and illness than for those idolised nimcompoops!

I have spelt idolised wrongly but too tired to correct. sorry.

sarahellenwhitney Sun 22-Sep-19 13:19:28

I can think of many' unworthy's' this country gives to while its own go without and the RF is right at the bottom, if appearing at all. on the list.

annsixty Sun 22-Sep-19 13:33:19

I can’t think of the last time I heard about or read of Princess Margaret’s children.
I assume they are just getting on with their lives. They are after all the GC of a Monarch as are the children of Andrew, Edward and Anne.
Except for the direct heir this in my opinion is how it should be.

jura2 Sun 22-Sep-19 13:36:13

Time to re-read 'The Queen and I' by the wonderful Sue Townsend smile

Anniebach Sun 22-Sep-19 13:51:02

The Queen has 8 grandchildren, only two carry out public duties.

Charles has slimmed down the monarchy, he can’t tell Anne
Edward to retire can he ?

Elegran Sun 22-Sep-19 15:00:18

What can you buy for £1.24?

Anniebach Sun 22-Sep-19 15:09:58

A politician?

Pantglas2 Sun 22-Sep-19 15:12:52

Exactly Anniebach- the Queen is value for money at twice the price, which is more than can be said about any politician, of any party!

Doodledog Sun 22-Sep-19 15:22:07

Why would we need a president if we didn't have a monarchy? What's wrong with just having an elected leader (such as a PM) who can be replaced after an election every few years?

I don't know whether I want a monarchy or not; but I don't see it as one or the other, really.

Anniebach Sun 22-Sep-19 15:31:32

A PM ? Corbyn or Johnson ? No thank you

Doodledog Sun 22-Sep-19 15:34:39

Oh for goodness' sake. Surely it is obvious that that is not what was meant.

'A PM' means 'an elected person who can be replaced by voters if they choose.' Indefinite, rather than definite article. Does everything have to be spelled out?

Anniebach Sun 22-Sep-19 16:25:35

A PM isn’t a Prime Minister ?

GrannyGravy13 Sun 22-Sep-19 16:29:47

BradfordLass72, eldest son is posted to Kenya for two years and as my DIL is not allowed to work her and the other officers wives volunteer in the Masi Mara villages.

I am really looking forward to it and badgering all friends and family to donate to my "suitcase"

Elegran Sun 22-Sep-19 16:50:59

We need a head of state as well as a Prime Minister because a head of state who is NOT replaced every few years gives continuity instead of a seesaw between parties. He/she is expected to be neutral about which party is in power at any given time (this doesn't hold true in countries like the United States, and others, where the elected President can be at odds with the elected representatives of the rest of the population)

It also separates the pomp and glory of a Head of State at official occasions from the nitty gritty of a Prime Minister dealing with the everyday running of the country - preventing an individual from being tempted to turn playing to the audience while dressed up to the nines at state celebrations into getting adoration from the masses and grabbing more power than he/she is entitled to.

Elegran Sun 22-Sep-19 16:52:51

That was a reply to Doodledog*, who was asking why we need both a PM and a president/monarch.

PamelaJ1 Sun 22-Sep-19 16:56:46

We did the royal thing last Christmas as an Aussie niece was visiting. Went to Sandringham on Christmas morning, first time for myDD and me as well as her niece. Well we’ve only lived down the road for nearly 35 years.
Harry talked to her, she loved it! The crowd were lovely, great atmosphere.
Then when in London we went to the changing of the guard.
I couldn’t believe the crowd. The royals were still in Norfolk.
While the Royals are so popular with so many people from so many countries around the world I can’t see the point in getting rid of an institution that seems IMO to work.
Of course it’s not perfect but be careful what you wish for.

Happiyogi Sun 22-Sep-19 16:59:28

I think I need to book an eye test. I read the title of this discussion as "Retraining the Monarchy". Which would be a whole other thread!

merlotgran Sun 22-Sep-19 17:01:44

Nice pics of Prince William accompanying the Queen to church at Balmoral this morning. He's obviously there on his own as George and Charlotte are back at school but how good for her to have the support of her grandson while everything else around her seems to be fraught with worry.

paddyann Sun 22-Sep-19 17:11:35

yes god love her she doesn't know where her next meal will come from or if she can eat AND heat this week...oh and her son might well end up in jail .
Most elderly people I know would swap with Lizzie in a heartbeat ..she's certainly not had a hard life !1

Doodledog Sun 22-Sep-19 17:25:08

A PM isn’t a Prime Minister ?

In the context of this thread, what else could it be? Post Mortem? Post Meridian? Private Message?

Thanks, Elegran. That makes sense; but we don't need one, surely? I know the US isn't the best place to use for comparison these days (specially if there are going to be ad hominem comments); but it usually works for them to have one person in that role.

I think the fact that the last week or two have shown that the Queen has such a limited role is possibly a reason for reducing the wealth that goes with the role (and the power attached to that wealth would then diminish, too).

I don't know, though. I've nothing against the Queen, and it would be unfair to penalise anyone just because of their birth; but I object to the power that people like Prince Andrew have, and haven't patience with a lot of the hangers on.

Anniebach Sun 22-Sep-19 17:33:35

Andrew has no power, he has wealth but no power

Doodledog Sun 22-Sep-19 17:51:10

If the sex abuse case ever comes to court, I will believe that smile.

Anniebach Sun 22-Sep-19 17:57:01

You believe he has power over the American Justice System ?

Elegran Sun 22-Sep-19 18:24:36

I think one argument for having a nominal head of state and a practical one (one for weekdays, one for Sundays and festivals? grin ) is that they would keep an eye on each other. Checks and balances are built into most constitutions, so that too much power doesn't end up concentrated in one place.

Doodledog Sun 22-Sep-19 18:37:13

You believe he has power over the American Justice System ?
Not directly; but I have no doubt at all that strings can be pulled.

If the RF are not powerful/influential, what is the point of them?

I agree with you again, Elegran; but as we have seen recently, the checks and balances are too weak to be of use. The Queen has to agree with her parliament (publicly at least), so has little or no influence over it. Maybe a written constitution is the way forward; but I worry that the country is too divided to each consensus over what it should comprise.

absent Sun 22-Sep-19 20:43:33

Every time this issue is raised on Gransnet it seems that people can only visualise the American model. In fact, that is more an exception than the rule across the world.

Alexa Mon 23-Sep-19 12:28:30

Granny Gravy I think it's not uncommon for people to buy stuff to take in the aeroplane home to Africa . A friend of mine bought a spare part for her Fiat and took it on the plane home to Sierra Leone. I think you do very well to be of practical use to the school.

I take it you are not nearly as rich as some minor royals who really should not try to build their images upon giving such small gifts as are more appropriate for poorer people.

gallusquine Wed 25-Sep-19 17:17:23

If we became a Republic we wouldn't HAVE to replace the Monarchy with anything.

AllotmentLil Wed 25-Sep-19 17:29:20

A slimmed down monarchy please.

Anniebach Wed 25-Sep-19 17:48:30

Who should be pensioned off ?

Elegran Wed 25-Sep-19 18:14:19

The state does not support all the royal family - the ones who receive any money are far fewer than is usually supposed.

Or is it being recommened that they are culled like surplus deer or seals, and shot or clubbed so that no longer exist?

Framilode Wed 25-Sep-19 18:19:08

Somebody said Andrew has no power. This is true but what they all have is a lot of influence which in itself is power.

Anniebach Wed 25-Sep-19 18:24:22

Who or what does Andrew have influence over ?