Oh dear Harry and Meghan

Maybe it's not a binary thing, maybe the " slimming down " idea is the one to go with?

Mind you , there has been a fair bit of slimming already

Goodness knows what will happen to the RF in the future. Lots of people may not even have a future so right now we need stability and familiar institutions to sustain us.

I want the Queen and Prince Philip kept safe at Windsor, ditto Charles and Camilla. William and Kate are stepping up by doing necessary moral boosting visits.

Although I'm a monarchist I don't entirely disagree with those who think it's an outdated institution. I wouldn't want anything to change while the Queen is still with us though. We need our head of state just to be there.

Ok, to all, who would you choose to replace the Queen and
Charles ?

We need our head of state just to be there

Very true. We don’t appreciate what we have until it’s gone. Surely the current crisis emphasises that. I think that when the Queen is no longer here, we cannot imagine what a void will be created in our lives.

And Head of the Commonwealth

Strange that some here want to be rid of a monarchy but more countries want to join the Commonwealth with HM as the Head at the moment.

If Sturgeon ever became President I would most definitely emigrate. She already has her own personalised helicopter hasn't she? Goodness knows how being president would go to her head.

No-one.
To choose a Head of State would lead to more factions; the point of the royal family is that they inherit their role, and there are 'spares', thus continuity. They mostly understand they are there with the consent of the people, and have adapted down the centuries. The surviving European royal families have learned this, unlike the French Russian, German and Greeks.
I think they may become irrelevant, and will recognise the time to disappear quietly, but their wealth will disappear also and there won't be handouts for all the republicans.

eazybee the surviving European families apart from our own- have all made steps to modernise and limit their members, ours remains much as it was in the 19th century and is growing. So in fact they are heading down the same road as the French etc.
I'd like to see the Commonwealth become more in tune with the name and one way of doing that would be to have a head from one of the other countries on a rotating basis. As it is the echo of colonialism remains.

I think they are learning fast, trisher
HM certainly has pointed out the way forward, albeit subtly, so some may not have noticed!

Callistemon
I agree with you, a President would cost the country far more than the monarchy do. We only have to remember the MP’s expenses scandal.

Personally I would rather pay for someone who is answerable to the electorate for their actions and their expenses than pay for someone who is untouchable, and whose expenses are unaccountable. The MPs expenses scandal was at least brought out in the open and dealt with. The numbers of people employed to keep this RF (like the Lord Chamberlain's Committee) and this RF are just plain unaffordable. We need a rapid reorganisation with a second chamber that is elected and a Head of State who is answerable to both Houses.

I don’t want a politician has head of state.

It’s made me think about the cost of a monarchy as opposed to an elected president so I’ve tried to look a few things up on Google.

Two things I’ve learned so far:

The cost of the American presidential elections run into billions. Batak Obama spent 730,000,000 on his campaign. I know it’s donated, not state funded but still! What a waste of money that could have been donated elsewhere and what a forum for corrupt d visions once in a position of power.
So I definitely wouldn’t want a head of state who was also a head of government.
Even if they were separate there would be a cost to the election of a head of state. Funded by the state or by donations?

Also interesting was where the money paid to the Royal Family comes from. The Queen takes a grant from the Crown Estate but quite a lot of money from that estate goes into the public purse. In other words we make a profit from it. Would she legally be entitled to take back the lands that were ceded to to Government the if the Royal Family was disbanded?

Sorry, Im bored. Probably needs another thread. Think it’s interesting though...

decisions not d visions

and other mistypes.......

Eglantine I too would need to see a complete breakdown of figures and an estimate with future projections before I could decide whether or not an elected Head of State was a more economical option, whether political or a-political like our present system.

In fact, with an elected H of S the potential for corruption could be huge unless they were backed by a certain amount of personal wealth.

People do not seem to realise that the money given to the Monarch is not for personal use, it is to run the whole system.

Their own wealth provides for their private lives.

Unfortunately, some come along from time to time to upset the system and abuse taxpayers' money.

Oh dear, perhaps I'm bored too

Callistemon the problem is that the whole system ioperates on an outdated historical basis. For example until the 1960s the Lord Chamberlain was responsible for regulating theatres and any theatre productions. That was abolished it's now time to look at the role and possible abolish it

Wonder who Momentum and the Unions would campaign for

Elected head of state! Oh what fun!!

The system isnt perfect. But the rf are responding to calls for a slimming down.

If there was a brexit style vote on whether we should keep them or not, I feel confident of the out come.

callistemon your summery is so much more concise than my comment, thanks.

Now I'm bored too

trisher as DS never fails to tell me:

"Always get three quotes"

I knew I should have got out into the garden today!

I think most people admire and respect the queen because it has been duty first with her all the way. She was very wealthy in her own right and could have had a wonderful life similar to that of dukes and duchesses in their stately homes in an era when nannies and countless servants were pretty much the norm for that class of people. Just because she became Queen doesn't mean she had to be as steadfast to a life of duty as she has been. Her uncle wasn't and I wonder what Princess Margaret would have been like if she had been the eldest. People recognise and respect the Queen's steadfast loyalty and exemplary life style.

The thing is though Prince Charles and some of those coming after seem to have feet of clay in comparison to the Queen. We respect her because she seems different to the general population. Charle's affair and divorce make him more like everybody else. We see the same ...or worse with Andrew.

I want to keep a monarch. I don't think the alternatives are great but after the queen goes I don't think the monarchy will ever again have the same gravitas. If the queen comes on tv during the crisis we will mostly be encouraged by her words and it is touching that at 94 she still stands 'ready to do her part'. I honestly can't imagine that, in a national crisis, many of us will be as eager to hear what Charles has to say. Of course we have the Cambridges after him but by then it will probably be the millenium generation who have to decide and I do wonder if there will by then be a monarchy for George to inherit. I, for one, will be sad if there isn't, but my generation and ideas are on the way out.

I think the Queen is a link to the past and where the RF have failed is to connect to the future.
I think shes doesn't rate Charles, they could have worked out something between them.

If she doesn't rate Charles why did she suggest him as Head of the Commonwealth.

Worked what out between them , job share ?