Gransnet forums

News & politics

Retaining the Monarchy

(70 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 ?

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.