The public should have a debate on the monarchy Billboards

nadateturbe

Who doesn't enjoy the glorious spectacle of a royal event to brighten the spirits and bring people together?

It might brighten someone's spirits very briefly but what does it actually do for them?

What does a movie, ballet, theatre or concert DO for anyone? It brings pleasure and cheer which in turn makes them feel life is enjoyable!

I don't think watching a royal event compares to the experience of a good play, watching ballet or listening to the orchestra.
Why on earth would watching the RF enjoying their extravagant lifestyle and wasting money lift someone's spirits?
I don't understand those who flock to royal weddings etc and say it's just what the country needs. It doesn't change anything.

nadateturbe

I don't think watching a royal event compares to the experience of a good play, watching ballet or listening to the orchestra.
Why on earth would watching the RF enjoying their extravagant lifestyle and wasting money lift someone's spirits?
I don't understand those who flock to royal weddings etc and say it's just what the country needs. It doesn't change anything.

I totally agree with what you said. nadateturbe people are conditioned with fawning media to think that RF is the best we can have without offering a different opinion to challenge this view

Good job Republic can change this.

What kind of Rebulic will Britain have?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=oyfAFja5H5A

I agree that it's good to have a different point of view to challenge whether or not we should have a RF. That said, let's not insult those who wish to leave things as they are and retain our RF, by saying they "are conditioned with fawning media to think that RF is the best we can have".

At least the monarchy don't have self interest or ambition at heart, and are genuinely supportive, totally loyal and passionately interested in the well being of this country. I can't think of one person who could be totally trusted to reflect this especially long term as it would soon descend into who managed to hood wink the public most effectively, that's human nature. It would soon become exactly the same as any other position, run by ambition, greed and self interest. The Dutch seem to have the right attitude, as do the Scandinavian countries and I'm sure our monarchy can, should and probably will do the same. An elected head of state? No thankyou.

I'll take on board and do what Smileless2012 says which I think is the right thing to do.

So I will ask politely Jabberwok; what is it about the Royals that makes you think that uniquely among all the citizens of this country, they are the only ones who show all these admirable characteristics? When they marry commoners, like Catherine, or Sophie, how do those commoners acquire these valued traits? Would they have had them even if they didn't marry Royals?

I think those who support the RF do find it difficult to understand those who dont and perhaps vice versa. I was listening to a political commentator recently who was describing to an American how important it was to the public morale to hear the Queen speak during the pandemic, to me and I mean no disrespect, Joe Wicks had more influence on my morale during lockdown than the Queen, I barely registered that she had spoken.

Jabberwok

At least the monarchy don't have self interest or ambition at heart, and are genuinely supportive, totally loyal and passionately interested in the well being of this country. I can't think of one person who could be totally trusted to reflect this especially long term as it would soon descend into who managed to hood wink the public most effectively, that's human nature. It would soon become exactly the same as any other position, run by ambition, greed and self interest. The Dutch seem to have the right attitude, as do the Scandinavian countries and I'm sure our monarchy can, should and probably will do the same. An elected head of state? No thankyou.

If they were at all interested in the well-being of this country and its people they would pay their taxes. The late Queen mother left between £50 and £70million, because it was left to the Queen there were no death duties. Diana left just over £12 mill but about £4 mill was paid in death duties. Just think how much should have been paid.

Not much in the grand scheme of things.
A drop in the ocean compared to what a president would cost.

Callistemon

Not much in the grand scheme of things.
A drop in the ocean compared to what a president would cost.

How much would a President cost *Callistemon"?

Callistemon that's one example. How much did Philip leave? They also don't pay tax on their business interests. How ever little it is. it is another example of inequality. They are of course paid for the job they do, just as a president would be. Why on earth should they get the tax breaks they do?

Looked it up; the sovereign grant for the queen is 120 million dollars a year. About twice as much as any other head of state, anywhere, except maybe Thailand. And Saudi Arabia who give their king nearly 10 billion dollars, which seems extravagant.

King of Spain gets 300k dollars a year. I'm sure we could save some money with a nice President ?

The Royal are self interested and selfish only interested in their own well being.

The queen and Charles interfer in politics on laws that affect their own interests for their own ends that is corruption

How could they not interfere in secret there is no accability exempt from FOI is that the way you want a HoS to be.

Charles gets over £20 million a year that's £38,000 an hour that's right £38,000 more that people in other countries in the same position get.

How are RF allowed to get away with this? The way Charles runs the Duchy treats his tennents is shameful.

Because the government gets all the power to do as it likes Queen only does what PM asks. So in fact she/he is pointless and powerless.

You know they waste public money day in day out week in week out.

Are royalists happen with this state of affairs would could do a lot better with an elected Head of State

The monarchy costs us all told £345 million a year. A president would be a 19th of that cost or less. A president would only need an office an One official residence.

10th or less

Grany I feel you are using GN to push the republican agenda!

GG13 I think you’re right. It’s important to Grany, so she repeatedly posts about it.
You could always skip the posts.

Grany is passionate about the Republican cause and is never rude. She has as much right to post her views as anyone else. I'm always very interested to read her posts.

I don't agree with anything Grany says and don't think her/his facts are correct in the slightest, but he/she is entitled to express an opinion.

There are perhaps more of us older republicans on GN than one would assume.

Better not to assume anything.

Will the National Parks allowed Billboards

GagaJo

There are perhaps more of us older republicans on GN than one would assume.

I wouldn't have out you amongst the older group on GN, Gagajo!

I've been around long enough to have heard the arguments for decades, am not a fervent royalist but do prefer continuity and stability to constant change.

Put you, not out you.

I've been around long enough to have heard the arguments for decades, am not a fervent royalist but do prefer continuity and stability to constant change
I'd go for constant change any day. Democracy has to include change, how can it not? Does it make life easy? of course not. But the only reason you regard the RF as some sort of constant is because the Queen has lived so long. There was no sense of stability at the time of the abdication or on many other occasions in royal history. It's part of the RF myth. Like the stability and popularity of Victoria when in fact she only just survived assassination attempts and was at one time massively unpopular.