What is the Monarchy For?

but by envy
To add, I have no idea why anyone would envy the Monarch and heir, or indeed to be a member of the Royal Family at all, a burden which few people would choose.

Lathyrus3

Before creating a Republic we should be asking questions don’t you think.

Or is your Repblic the sort of place where that’s not encouraged, we should just accept what we are told and not question.

I’m sorry but you don’t come over as having thought much about how a Republic would work. Just anti Monarchy. Purely emotive. I wouldn’t want to live under a constitution drafted by emotive responses or under the kind of people that would be in favour of that.

Yes it's good to ask questions about what a republic would be like. Well as I said the role would be upholding our constitution, it would be what we have, written down as we are only one of two countries without a written constitution.

Meeting other Heads of State and giving speeches about important matters of the day. Paid a salary and we will know how much. so accountable.

These role of constitutional President is similar yes to what we have but Charles cannot hold government to account.

Freya sounds impressive but in reality

Giving Evidence found royals font help charities much so charities shoukd not seek royal patronage.

Charities help the royals to appear hardworking which they are not.

Giving Evidence Report on Royals and Charities

giving-evidence.com/2020/07/16/royal-findings/

Evidence ? Names of these charities possibly evidence but not nameless charities

FreedomAwaits

I’m happy to have a royal family. I work in the civil service and the royals bring in an absolute ton of money from tourism every year.

Absolutely.

I also think it is good for the nation[even if some people dont think so].
And good for our souls[well the ones I have lived through].
I may have thought diffferently in the 1400's for example.

Annie, google summary (as in the report Samwan has posted) shows that

"Recent research, particularly from Giving Evidence, strongly suggests that royal patronage does not significantly increase a charity's income, with studies finding no material difference in revenue for charities losing royal patrons, and concluding that seeking them for financial gain is often a waste of resources, though other benefits like reputation and morale can exist"

I should also say, I feel very strongly that the royals can pick and choose charities they consider worthwhile - it's hardly fair to charities as a whole, is it?

This aspect imo really should be a thing of the past, although you will see upthread I am not a Republican, but want a more modern monarchy.

(as in the report Samwan has posted)

So not unbiased then, as Samwam, a new poster, would appear to be a devotee of Republic.

Samwam has spoken of the President of Ireland who won the election October 2024 she was described as ‘left wing,pro Palestinian’, as was her predecessor Michael Higgins, he was. Elected twice, 1st time as the Labour Candidate, 2nd as an Independent , 14 years , would he have won if allowed to stand 3 time? we will never know. It’s all very political

Yes, she may be a worthy lady, but she certainly has a very specific and deeply held political stance.

Having read up a bit about her, she does seem to be sincere in what she says. How much influence she then wields to bring the Government and the everyday life of the people of Ireland to her viewpoint I don’t know.

We do not want a political Head of State. Thst would be a dangerous path to follow.

Finding an a-political Head of State would be nigh on impossible, let alone one who was not out to feather their own, their family's and their cronies' nests.
The Monarchy may not be perfect but it is far better than the alternative.

* Wyllow* and Samwam both quoted “Giving Evidence-Com, I can’t find who supports it financially, a problem when politicians are involved?

Anniebach

* Wyllow* and Samwam both quoted “Giving Evidence-Com, I can’t find who supports it financially, a problem when politicians are involved?

Me neither.

Why not quote the sources?

My actual point was that it is unfair charity wise to give some Royal Patronage and others not.

(Except for the British Legion as in supporting ex service men and women)

so if "Giving Evidence" is wrong in its information that Royal Charities dont raise more

and Royal charities do raise more

Then my point is all the more important - an unfair advantage for non royal charities.

I am making a completely separate point to Samwam

so its no good asking us as if we were.

sorry posted too soon

Last Sentences

"I am making separate points to Samwam

so its no good asking us as if we were making the same points".

My actual point was that it is unfair charity wise to give some Royal Patronage and others not.

Why should it be unfair when you yourself have stated that it makes no difference and may even be a waste of resources?:

Recent research, particularly from Giving Evidence, strongly suggests that royal patronage does not significantly increase a charity's income, with studies finding no material difference in revenue for charities losing royal patrons, and concluding that seeking them for financial gain is often a waste of resources

That is a contradiction.

I didn't say it made no difference at all. It may or may not make a difference to income, but the sentence I quoted also said

though other benefits like reputation and morale can exist

ie, a sort of "virtue signalling" by a charity that may or may not deserve a reputation based on Royal Patronage.

Note the giving-evidence.com report was published before "Entitled" which showed Andrew and Sarah Ferguson used their patronage of charities for their own ends. Andrew was also operating one of his own charities in contravention of legal requirements, hardly an appropriate patron.
Charities said it was impossible to get rid of a patron, so even against their better judgement, they were stuck with Andrew and Sarah until they were publicly disgraced.

It's a pity the monarchy isn't so open about it's investments as it is about it's supposed charitable endeavours. Impossible to gauge any conflict of interest.

OldFrill

Note the giving-evidence.com report was published before "Entitled" which showed Andrew and Sarah Ferguson used their patronage of charities for their own ends. Andrew was also operating one of his own charities in contravention of legal requirements, hardly an appropriate patron.
Charities said it was impossible to get rid of a patron, so even against their better judgement, they were stuck with Andrew and Sarah until they were publicly disgraced.

It's a pity the monarchy isn't so open about it's investments as it is about it's supposed charitable endeavours. Impossible to gauge any conflict of interest.

They're a pair of grifters.
Not Royal family any more, thank goodness.

Allira

We do not want a political Head of State. Thst would be a dangerous path to follow.

Finding an a-political Head of State would be nigh on impossible, let alone one who was not out to feather their own, their family's and their cronies' nests.
The Monarchy may not be perfect but it is far better than the alternative.

Just to mention

The Head of State's role is non political.

It would not nessessarily be an MP it wcould be from all walks of life many very inteligent clever people to choose from. Although an MP could be chosen and would abide by the rules of his office as a President should and is accountable.

The royals, Head of State always feather their own nest and their family's always have done it's a corrupt institution. Above the law unaccountable.

If a president doesn’t abide by the rules of office ? another election.
Many intelligent clever people to choose from ? some sales pitch!

The royals, Head of State always feather their own nest and their family's always have done it's a corrupt institution. Above the law unaccountable.

Does this come from the same company you and Wyllow quoted from ?

Anniebach

The royals, Head of State always feather their own nest and their family's always have done it's a corrupt institution. Above the law unaccountable.

Does this come from the same company you and Wyllow quoted from ?

Giving Evidence takes no view on the value of the Royal family generally.

Giving Evidence
Enabling Giving based on Sound Evidence

Caroline Fiennes founded and directs Giving Evidence
A recognised expert in philanthropy.

She has been a Chariry CEO and wrote a book
It ain't what you give its the way that you give it.

In 2020, Giving Evidence published research about Royal patronages of charities: what are they, who gets them, and do they help? This fits within our work of providing robust evidence so that charities and donors can be as effective as possible.

In 2025, Giving Evidence published additional research looking specifically at Prince Andrew, and the effect of all his patronages ending after he “stepped back” from all duties in 2019 after his Newsnight interview.

Both studies find that charities should not seek or retain Royal patronages expecting that they will help much.

This explains about Giving Evidence what it does. There is a link where you could find information you asked for ok.

I am a republican as a few on GN are some monarchists.