I'm not a royalist, but the cost argument for abolishing them is the wrong one. It's their unelected power you should be concerned about. What needs to be abolished is their constitutional role not them. It is no accident that police, army, MPs etc all swear allegiance to the King not the country.
Despite being a republican, I think you may be right. Even if we accept Republic's figure for the cost (around half a billion) that's still something like 0.04% of public expenditure.
And what about the money we would lose from tourism? We may not like it, but thousands of people from around the world travel to the UK to see the pomp & ceremony & spend millions in this country doing so. Don't attack them, attack their unelected constitutional power & influence.
What about us getting our land back, how those people would feel if slum landlord Will was not in charge, how our emergency services would not have to pay the royals
Not one tourist expects to meet the Royals, they would come to see the changing of the guards and to see and walk around the palaces. Sorry that’s a spin
If you abolish the monarchy you won't have the Changing of the Guard etc etc & therefore less tourists. If instead their CONSTITUTIONAL powers are removed, they are kept as powerless figureheads & the positive net income for the country kept.
We can have ceremonies like Changing of the Guard. France, for example, has ceremonial traditions. On tourism, it's a well peddled myth that the RF generate tourism. Yet there is no evidence to support that. Visit Britain has acknowledged that. The economy actually shrinks during big royal events.
The default is to swear allegience to God who has even more unelected power. I think we've evolved past the point of believing in things just because someone said they were so. The royals have done nothing to earn their place & should firmly be put out to pasture.
The default is to swear allegiance to the country/constitution/people. The Royals are a bunch of people who the establishment have firmly portrayed as a picturesque sideshow, which the majority of the population believe. They are kept in reserve just in case 1/2
The people ever elect politicians who might upset the established order. In that case the constitutional powers of the Monarch would be invoked & the army, police etc would be reminded who they swore allegiance to. The majority of people think the royals are harmless & won't support their 2/3
When I attested, I was asked to swear allegience to God not my country. I declined and instead attested to the monarchy as at least I can see them! There are plenty of countries in the world without monarchies who aren't devolving into anarchy & also not covering up royal child abusers & corruption
There are different approaches. Heads of state always cost money, a president doesn't come from free. We could just reform the monarchy to make it cost less. Seems to work well in Sweden and Norway.
It's talking about an elected "head of state", not changing the way government works. Most people can't even name the Irish President, because he's mainly ceremonial.
Who said "let's get rid of the king and while we're at it completely change the way the UK is governed"
It is Michael D Higgins and he brilliantly represents the country. As did Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese before him. All of them had approval rates the RF could only dream of. And no hangers on.
A President would do all that taking of money. You either abolish the concept of separate heads of state and government, or the whole thing is pointless.
Oh, I'm all for getting rid of the king. I just get pissed off that people immediately think he has to be replaced with a figure with the power of the US president, rather than, say, the Irish president.
But that wasn't the question. I'm not trying to back you into a corner. I'm legitimately asking out of interest on whom would you replace Charles with?
Someone that is elected by the country, at this moment we are heading for a king that has to be called in by this king and told not to be so lazy.
Has this princess of wakes ever done as much as Diana. Lazy pair
An elected president and a person that is not there to take our land, our property, our money and we are not pay for his family, his grandchildren, his brothers and sister, nieces and nephews, butlers maids, ect ect
See, I see Charlie as something like a backstop. Taking into account that the HOL are filled with Conservatives in a way, it reassures me that those with authoritarianism ideas would find it hard to manoeuvre against someone like Charles, who's already demonstrated that he dislikes their ilk.
PM in 2025? Well, it's obviously not going to be anyone who's either Conservative or Reform. Keir and Co have been in power for little under a year. There are things I agree with, and some I don't. So that only leaves me undecided for now, unless someone else who's better presents themselves.
The President of Ireland is largely non-political.
He's mainly there for ceremonial purposes.
But he does have the right to withhold signature of any legislation until it is verified as constitutional by the supreme court. A power that is rarely used, but is important.
Comments
Who said "let's get rid of the king and while we're at it completely change the way the UK is governed"
There's no real power. It's time limited. It doesn't attract lots of money.
Keeps it relatively clean.
We could elect a "head of state" as many countries do.
The president of Ireland has no real power. President doesn't mean someone having the power of a Trump.
Has this princess of wakes ever done as much as Diana. Lazy pair
I do mean that I would have to wait and see who the candidates are.
Who would you like as PM in 2045?
He's mainly there for ceremonial purposes.
But he does have the right to withhold signature of any legislation until it is verified as constitutional by the supreme court. A power that is rarely used, but is important.
Sue Townsend had the right idea
Parasitic, inbred and representative of many of the things wrong with our country.
Subjects not citizens