The public should have a debate on the monarchy Billboards

You can keep them and welcome but I wish Australia would grow up as a country and give them the flick. They don’t live here,they’re not interested in us and they cost money.

nanna8

You can keep them and welcome but I wish Australia would grow up as a country and give them the flick. They don’t live here,they’re not interested in us and they cost money.

Australian Republican Movement

Flag of Australia Did you hear the news? The ARM will announce its position on a model in late 2021. To be the first to hear more, sign up for updates: republic.org.au/start #auspol #ausrep

Has it ever occurred to anyone on here that perhaps in the years to come the RF will voluntarily and happily give up the monachy? After all why on earth would any of the younger royals want this position anyway? It's a goldfish bowel existence, everybody worldwide watching for you to make one mistake, criticising, lampooning, constant competition for whose the most popular/ most hated? A thankless task and one I can't see Prince George wanting. Who the dickens would want to live like that? and why should he be condemned to it? How much nicer to gather your wealth and live the life of lets say the D of Westminster and leave this country to the mercies of some third rate President,Trump or Biden will do, Macron,? each one worse than the one before. After all it is really what we all want so don't worry Australia, they'll go anyway probably sooner than you think, heaving one big sigh of relief to be free of you, as you will from them.

I agreed with you quite strongly for about the first 2/3 of that Jabberwok. The fact that we make these people live this way is a great reason for replacing the monarchy with a presidential system. The fact that we laud an old woman for feeling that she has to keep working into her mid-nineties, for instance. (Although she does look very sprightly at the moment).

However, I do disagree with the "third rate president" bit. We haven't actually decided what the role of a president could be, but I would bet my bottom dollar it won't be a system where the Head of State is also the Head of Government, which is what they have in the US. The roles, I think, will be separate. So in all our 70 million people, is there no-one who would represent the people of this country effectively?

Like the US, probably not.

Do you mean Jabberwok that you don't think there is anybody who could represent the people of this country, except an old lady, her quite elderly son, and his son who may or may not prove to be good at the job? And a wee boy who looks cute in a jacket and tie?

I have more faith in the people.

Then we'll have to agree to differ.

I don't think anyone could do a better job TBH than our Queen "an old lad, her quite elderly son and his son" who IMO is already proving he'll be very good at the job.

But it will be a different job.

So let's sum it all up Monarchy v Republic

The queen as our Head of State interferes in politics she has a say on laws and that which affects her private interests Well that's handy is any other person in public office allowed to do that? Isn't that corruption

Royalists say as an argument we don't want elected Head of State interfering in politics, but an elected HoS has to be politically neutral following laws in a written down constitution.

When funding was decided the queen did not want the Duchy Lancaster included. Charles gets over 20 million a year from the Duchy of Cornwall £38,000 an hour the queen gets similar Charles won't follow leaseholder laws tennents are not permitted to buy land.

Security is not mentioned in RF annual financial report. It costs £104 million and rising for ther various 19 homes. Paid for by the met police.

On their visits around the country local councils bare the costs of these visits.

The RF spend public money freely every day of every week with no consideration of the public purse.

An Elected Head of State chosen by us to represent us would have an office and one official residence.

The queen does not have a role to play in our constitution she can only do as the PM asks not in the interests of the people. In fact monarchy is pointless and powerless which gives government a freedom to do what it likes. No checks or balances.

So monarchy is just a spectacle a soap opera, if you prefer that, maybe one day you have a choice to choose what you want in a referendum.

Giving Evidence an independent report found that charities do not benefit from royal patronage.

And Visit Britain found RF has no impact on tourism.

That’s not a summing up Grany, that’s just a personal view, which is an entirely different thing.

So let's sum it all up Monarchy v Republic

Let's keep the monarchy.

Personal views posted on GN are fine as long as they are within guidelines.

Is it within guidelines for a political organisation such as Republic to post so frequently on a social media site which is primarily a chat site for older people?
If so, should they have to go through the proper channels and pay to post their propaganda on the correct forum?

I agree Callistemon. This thread is being driven towards a political goal. Grany has spent a great deal of time and effort trying to persuade everyone that we need to abolish the monarchy. I feel that Gransnet is being used for political ends.

Totally agree with your post Callistemon at 10.10

Republic isn't posting. Grany is. She is entitled to post her views as much as monarchists.
Casdon, her last post was not just a personal view. There were facts.
I think some people object simply because they don't like what she is saying.
If she was supporting anti racism would you object?

Chestnut

So let's sum it all up Monarchy v Republic

Let's keep the monarchy.

I notice time and again that republicans post detailed intelligent argument and monarchists reply with something like the above.
It’s no wonder the royals can do as they like if that is the depth of analysis that monarchists present.

Callistemon

Personal views posted on GN are fine as long as they are within guidelines.

Is it within guidelines for a political organisation such as Republic to post so frequently on a social media site which is primarily a chat site for older people?
If so, should they have to go through the proper channels and pay to post their propaganda on the correct forum?

This is my viewCallistemon This is a post on the politics thread where presumably people who want to debate politics share their differing views. The constitution is important and how our country is run, from the top down. I think it's a good talking point monarchists and republicans can have their say in a friendly polite way.

There is no need to present a deep analysis of why we should favour the monarchy because they has been around for a very long time and there is stacks of information on them. Anyone who wants to find out can access hundreds of books and TV programmes. It is up to the republicans to prove they can offer a better solution.

Thank you nadateturbe and Nothisagain

nadeturbe I stand by what I said, it’s Grany’s interpretation of the facts, spun from a republican perspective. If a royalist took the same issues point by point, their interpretation of the same issues would be entirely different.
I don’t dispute at all that Grany or anybody else has a right to say what they think, but what she posted was definitely not ‘let’s sum it up’ as she put it.

has been around for a very long time and there is stacks of information on them.

That's hardly a cogent argument for a constitution.

Chestnut

There is no need to present a deep analysis of why we should favour the monarchy because they has been around for a very long time and there is stacks of information on them. Anyone who wants to find out can access hundreds of books and TV programmes. It is up to the republicans to prove they can offer a better solution.

Chestnut, do believe all information re the royals is freely available ?
You are naive .
Try to open your mind to some truths that you may not be aware of .
I’ve already posted a link to proof that queen secretly lobbied to keep her finances / tax secret . It is estimated that over 1000 laws have been vetted by the queen. So much for merely being a figurehead.
I doubt you’ll read this link but here is another in case anyone else is interested

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/08/monday-briefing-how-the-queen-lobbied-to-keep-wealth-secret

There is no need to present a deep analysis of why we should favour the monarchy

They used to say similar things about women's suffrage. Thank goodness somebody didn't agree.

I merely asked the questions which I think are pertinent.