After the Queen Dies, should we chop off the Monarchy head?

[Wizard.]

I'm currently doing a piece on Republicism for Uni and it's very interesting. I do like the Queen and think she has done tremendous service for a very long time, but after she has gone I'm not sure if we need a monarchy anymore, especially NOT Charles who killed off our beloved Diana Princess of Wales.

Here's some myth busting facts for you:

It's good for tourism!
This claim is untrue and irrelevant. Even VisitBritain, our national tourist agency, can't find any evidence for it.

Chester Zoo, Stonehenge and the Roman Baths are all more successful tourist attractions than Windsor Castle, which is the only occupied royal residence to attract visitors in large numbers. If Windsor Castle was included in the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA) list of top attractions it would come in at number 24.

Research shows that tourists come here for our world class museums, beautiful scenery, fantastic shopping and captivating history - not because they might catch a glimpse of Prince Andrew. In a republic, royal properties such as Buckingham Palace would be open all year round, so visitors that do want to explore our royal heritage would have even more opportunity to do so.

But, even if the claim were true, do we really want the whims of visiting tourists to determine what kind of political system we have?

Royal residence admission numbers can be found in the Royal Collection Trust's annual reports

It unites the country
You only have to look around to realise that Britain is no more unified than many republics – in fact, it's probably less so.

It's often said that the royal wedding and the jubilee brought the country together, but the vast majority don't participate in royal events, which have no lasting impact other than a bill for the taxpayer.

The reality is that monarchy has no real bearing on how united or divided a country is. In fact, the three European countries with the most active separatist movements are Spain, Belgium and the UK - all monarchies.

It doesn't cost too much - it's great value for money
Our opposition to the monarchy isn't about money, it's about principles. If the monarchy cost nothing, we would still campaign for an elected head of state because hereditary public office has no place in a democracy.

Nevertheless, the British monarchy is expensive – very expensive. With an estimated annual bill to the taxpayer of £300m, the Queen and her family cost over 100 times more than the Irish president.

The royals do a lot for charity
It is true that most royals are “patrons” of a string of charities, but very often this is only on paper – their name may appear on the letterhead, but they are not an active ambassador for that cause.

Some royals certainly do help to raise the profile of certain charities they care about, but so do many actors, singers and sportspeople. And what about the millions of ordinary Britons who make donations and give up their free time to volunteer for good causes? They do so without any of the glory - or luxury trappings – that the royals receive.

It's also worth noting that when a member of the royal family visits a charity, it can cost taxpayers tens of thousands of pounds – often vastly exceeding any increase in donations. The royals gain more in PR than the charities do in support.

But, as with the tourism argument, the amount of charity work the royals do or don't do has no bearing on the question of whether we should have a monarchy. And of course, the Windsors would be free to continue their charitable activities as free citizens in a republic.

[ebandit]

.............the royal family continue to be an insult to working folk everywhere

.............now where's madame guillotine when ya need her

Mark L

[Jamie89]

We don't need a monarchy, I honestly don't see the point at all. Is it something that's likely to change though? I don't know the politics of it all or what would need to happen, like is it something where once the Queen dies there'd be some kind of parliamentary decision as to whether or not we maintain a monarchy? Or a brexit style vote or something?

[Wizard.]

We don't need a monarchy, I honestly don't see the point at all. Is it something that's likely to change though? I don't know the politics of it all or what would need to happen, like is it something where once the Queen dies there'd be some kind of parliamentary decision as to whether or not we maintain a monarchy? Or a brexit style vote or something?

There needs to be a referendum. I personally think it'll happen because the media likes to make out that the majority are all for the monarchy but research suggests that 20% of the population are royalists, 20% are republicans and 60% are not fussed. I do think it'll happen in the next 50-100 years.

[Niamh.]

It is a kind of stupid/out dated idea but isn't it pretty good for your tourism and that?

[Wizard.]

It is a kind of stupid/out dated idea but isn't it pretty good for your tourism and that?

It's good for tourism! This claim is untrue and irrelevant. Even VisitBritain, our national tourist agency, can't find any evidence for it. Chester Zoo, Stonehenge and the Roman Baths are all more successful tourist attractions than Windsor Castle, which is the only occupied royal residence to attract visitors in large numbers. If Windsor Castle was included in the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA) list of top attractions it would come in at number 24. Research shows that tourists come here for our world class museums, beautiful scenery, fantastic shopping and captivating history - not because they might catch a glimpse of Prince Andrew. In a republic, royal properties such as Buckingham Palace would be open all year round, so visitors that do want to explore our royal heritage would have even more opportunity to do so. But, even if the claim were true, do we really want the whims of visiting tourists to determine what kind of political system we have? Royal residence admission numbers can be found in the Royal Collection Trust's annual reports
.

[Tom4784]

I'd prefer giving them an eviction notice, decapitation is a bit much!

[Marsh.]

But the Royals have zero political power anymore so it doesn't affect our political system anyway?

[Calderyon]

It was the paparazzi´s and bad driving from the driver that killed Diana her boyfriend etc., not Charles.

[Calderyon]

But yeah, monarchy is stupid and i don´t really see the point of it.

[Wizard.]

But the Royals have zero political power anymore so it doesn't affect our political system anyway?

The Queen certainly does have power, including the power to sign international treaties and deploy British troops abroad. It's true that most of these "royal prerogative powers" are today exercised by government, but that in itself is a serious problem. These powers have been transferred directly from the monarch to the prime minister and don't need the approval of parliament, effectively shutting out the British people from important decisions. That is fundamentally anti-democratic – and it can only happen because we have a monarchy.

The Queen and Prince Charles also have the power to veto bills that affect their private interests. Official legal advice makes clear that Queen's and Prince's Consent (as the "royal veto" is officially known) is not a mere formality. The process by which consent is obtained provides a clear opportunity for the Queen and the Prince of Wales to influence the shape and content of a bill before it reaches Parliament.

Then there's the problem of parliamentary sovereignty. At one point all the power in the land was held by the king or queen. Over time that power moved to parliament and is now held collectively by 650 MPs. However, the fundamental nature of that power hasn't changed – parliament can make or scrap any law it likes, just as the monarch could in the past. This means our freedoms are never really guaranteed because parliament can always decide to remove them. Again, this a direct result of having a monarchy.

[Wizard.]

It was the paparazzi´s and bad driving from the driver that killed Diana her boyfriend etc., not Charles.

hmmm then why did she say that she thought Charles was planning for her to be involved in a car crash and make it look like an accident?

[Greg!]

I really don't mind the royals tbh. The Queen is iconic and respected around the world. And they don't even do anything important, they're just figureheads for the UK. I do think some of them take the piss out of taxpayers though, like Beatrice and Eugenie do absolutely nowt but go on holidays all year round.

[Wizard.]

I really don't mind the royals tbh. The Queen is iconic and respected around the world. And they don't even do anything important, they're just figureheads for the UK. I do think some of them take the piss out of taxpayers though, like Beatrice and Eugenie do absolutely nowt but go on holidays all year round.

They need to appear on a Channel 5 show called Benefit Babes: Scroungers in Designer Dresses

[Marsh.]

The Queen certainly does have power, including the power to sign international treaties and deploy British troops abroad..

This is her "approving" government decisions on things like this which is no more than a technicality/tradition.

The Queen cannot just make a decision on something and have it go ahead on her say so. She holds no power. Contrary to popular belief she does not run or control the country.

[Marsh.]

Then there's the problem of parliamentary sovereignty. At one point all the power in the land was held by the king or queen. Over time that power moved to parliament and is now held collectively by 650 MPs. However, the fundamental nature of that power hasn't changed – parliament can make or scrap any law it likes, just as the monarch could in the past. This means our freedoms are never really guaranteed because parliament can always decide to remove them. Again, this a direct result of having a monarchy.

Then this is a parliament problem, which would be in place Royal family or no Royal family.

[Marsh.]

I really don't mind the royals tbh. The Queen is iconic and respected around the world. And they don't even do anything important, they're just figureheads for the UK. I do think some of them take the piss out of taxpayers though, like Beatrice and Eugenie do absolutely nowt but go on holidays all year round.

It's not on the taxpayer. A large share of the family's earnings are put back into the state. They actually pay more than what is taken out.

[smudgie]

Long live the Queen, and all those that follow in her footsteps.
Nobody does pageantry like we do, fantastic traditions.

[Northern Monkey]

I'm not a royalist but i can't see the point of abolishing something that has to be an attraction to people even if it's not THE attraction.Just destroying things for the sake of it is pointless and whatever income and interest they do bring in however small may aswell carry on.

[Firewire]

Not when Camilla is going to be our next monarch!

[Marsh.]

Not when Camilla is going to be our next monarch!

ABORT IT!

[Calderyon]

hmmm then why did she say that she thought Charles was planning for her to be involved in a car crash and make it look like an accident?

*Looks up*

Hmm... that´s suspicious for sure. There might be something to that, if those are actually written by her, since someone suggested that this Burrell guy made those himself.

[UserSince2005]

I think that we should cut them out of the state.

No funding from government or anything.

I would still like their lives to be documented and them able to make money as celebrities.

[Cherie]

Long live the Queen, and all those that follow in her footsteps.
Nobody does pageantry like we do, fantastic traditions.

I agree, it brings in millions in tourism and merchandising as well, though I think it will be hard to follow the work ethic of the Queen and Prince P, the younger Royals are pretty work shy

[arista]

No when the Queen passes away
Prince Charles becomes King and so on......

The Royal Family
is staying in place for all your lifetimes.


Sign Of The Times

[Marsh.]

I think that we should cut them out of the state.

No funding from government or anything.

I would still like their lives to be documented and them able to make money as celebrities.

They do make money as celebrities. How else do you think they make such huge profits? (which in turn are paid back into the country).

[arista]

Cut back their funding
Yes , as their OWN cash can take over

[arista]

It was the paparazzi´s and bad driving from the driver that killed Diana her boyfriend etc., not Charles.

yes thats one account

[Marsh.]

Cut back their funding
Yes , as their OWN cash can take over

They pay back more than they take so cut them off and the country also loses an absolute fortune.

[Wizard.]

They pay back more than they take so cut them off and the country also loses an absolute fortune.

Did you not read the stats? They don't bring in as much as you think they do and without them people would still come and pay to tour Buckingham Palace.

[Marsh.]

Did you not read the stats? They don't bring in as much as you think they do and without them people would still come and pay to tour Buckingham Palace.

I'm talking about their own fortunes and what they pay back to government?

I'm not talking about general tourism, I'm talking about the wealth they contribute to the country.

[Withano]

I have little opinion on this, I could take them or leave them.. considering theyre already there, might as well keep them.

[Wizard.]

I'm talking about their own fortunes and what they pay back to government?

I'm not talking about general tourism, I'm talking about the wealth they contribute to the country.

But they don't pay back to the government? The government funds them which is funded by the taxpayer. And it's estimated that they cost millions more than what is declared to be true.

[Marsh.]

But they don't pay back to the government? The government funds them which is funded by the taxpayer. And it's estimated that they cost millions more than what is declared to be true.

Yes, they do. Research it.

You think the Royals simply live off tax payers? Ok. :joker:

[T*]

There's no need for a monarchy but there's also no need to get rid of them either. It's quite cute and being good for the tourism or not they're still an iconic piece of our country

[user104658]

Why wait until she dies? Do it tomorrow.

What monarchy represents, unquestionably, is that some people are "better by blood". That you can simply be born as superior to others. You only need to look at the tabloids to know that this idea absolutely *does* still trickle down into the public mindset.

It needs to go. It needs to be something that we simply refuse to believe.

[Marsh.]

I don't think many believe they're "better" just richer.

The majority of them are a laughing stock, especially in recent years.

It's only the Queen who garners any respect, as she's been there so long.

Once she's gone, I doubt many would have time for Charles and Camilla.

[user104658]

I don't think many believe they're "better" just richer.

The majority of them are a laughing stock, especially in recent years.

It's only the Queen who garners any respect, as she's been there so long.

Once she's gone, I doubt many would have time for Charles and Camilla.

Based on the way people have fawned over "precious little George" since the moment he flopped out, I simply can't agree. And worse than that; it's the people furthest down the "chain", the furthest from Royalty, who believe in it the most. The entire concept is rotten to the core and always has been; Monarchy should be a slightly-shameful historical relic, not something we still pretend is relevant today.

[Marsh.]

Based on the way people have fawned over "precious little George" since the moment he flopped out, I simply can't agree. And worse than that; it's the people furthest down the "chain", the furthest from Royalty, who believe in it the most. The entire concept is rotten to the core and always has been; Monarchy should be a slightly-shameful historical relic, not something we still pretend is relevant today.

Oh I just see that as people fawning over a celeb baby, the same they would one of Angelina Jolie's sprogs. :laugh:

[user104658]

Oh I just see that as people fawning over a celeb baby, the same they would one of Angelina Jolie's sprogs. :laugh:

Without googling it - name Jolie's sprogs.

[Marsh.]

Without googling it - name Jolie's sprogs.

Excuse you, I'm not a celeb maniac. :nono:

How dare you compare me to the likes of the stay at home mums and their OK magazine subscription.

[user104658]

Excuse you, I'm not a celeb maniac. :nono:

How dare you compare me to the likes of the stay at home mums and their OK magazine subscription.

Exactly!

[Marsh.]

Exactly!

I can't name the second baby they had after George, so it doesn't prove anything.

I'm not a baby person. Much less for fawning after celeb kids.

It doesn't prove the people fawning over George aren't the same with "celeb babies" there's a huge market for them in the glossy mags.

[James]

I'd keep the monarchy - I don't get all these current demands for different kinds of radical change to the constitution in the country - it is simpler keeping things as they are. I quite like the royals anyway.

Another thing that is overlooked, and even sneered upon, by anti-monarchists is that a lot of people do like reading celebrity stuff, and the royals are the ultimate celebrities. And if we didn't have the royal family, we get some sort of famous-for-being-famous celebrity replacement, like how America has the Kardashians.

When President Obama visited a year or two back, the only part of the visit that got major coverage in the mainstream US media was meeting the royals and Prince George.

Inherited wealth and status isn't going away either, as the public support it - to a certain extent.

[user104658]

I'd keep the monarchy - I don't get all these current demands for different kinds of radical change to the constitution in the country - it is simpler keeping things as they are. I quite like the royals anyway.

Another thing that is overlooked, and even sneered upon, by anti-monarchists is that a lot of people do like reading celebrity stuff, and the royals are the ultimate celebrities. And if we didn't have the royal family, we get some sort of famous-for-being-famous celebrity replacement, like how America has the Kardashians.

When President Obama visited a year or two back, the only part of the visit that got major coverage in the mainstream US media was meeting the royals and Prince George.

But we have those anyway...



Inherited wealth and status isn't going away either, as the public support it - to a certain extent.

Yes, and we legitimize, support and encourage that mindset by maintaining an active monarchy.

[James]

Yes, and we legitimize, support and encourage that mindset by maintaining an active monarchy.

It's not just the monarchy that does that though - look at the coverage celebrity kids like, say, Brooklyn Beckham gets in the celebrity press. And also I'm always amazed at the number of TV presenters and media people, who have famous presenters.

[MTVN]

I don't think the monarchy has much impact on social attitudes to equality, privilege etc. either way tbh. Some of the most unequal and corrupt countries in the world are Republics while some of the most progressive and liberal democracies are Monarchies (Holland, Denmark, Sweden etc.). There are much bigger battles that could be fought in the struggle for greater equality - most people realise that hence there is such little appetite for republicanism in this country.

[Ross.]

Excuse you, I'm not a celeb maniac. :nono:

How dare you compare me to the likes of the stay at home mums and their OK magazine subscription.

:joker:

[Northern Monkey]

Without googling it - name Jolie's sprogs.

However i bet everyone can name probably two and definitely one of the Beckhams kids.

[Northern Monkey]

It's not just the monarchy that does that though - look at the coverage celebrity kids like, say, Brooklyn Beckham gets in the celebrity press. And also I'm always amazed at the number of TV presenters and media people, who have famous presenters.

Oh.You beat me

[Livia]

The returns from the diplomatic work the royal family do at home and abroad is incalculable. They also employ a huge amount of people. And what about the Duke of Edinburgh Scheme and the Prince's Trust? Both really valuable contributions to the welfare of young people. They are so much more valuable to the country than just the pageantry, pump and circumstance (which we do better than anyone). If people want to live in a republic, there are loads to choose from... pick one.

[user104658]

If people want to live in a republic, there are loads to choose from... pick one.

Scotland in 10 years :hmph:.

[Livia]

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/fingers-crossed.pngScotland in 10 years :hmph:.

[jennyjuniper]

Long live the Queen, and all those that follow in her footsteps.
Nobody does pageantry like we do, fantastic traditions.

I agree. The royal family and the traditions associated with it are a part of our long history and something I am immensly proud of. In school 60 years ago we were taught all about British history and learnt to be proud of our country, which sadly is not something that seems to be taught to young people today.

[jennyjuniper]

Not when Camilla is going to be our next monarch!

She won't be. Even if Charles became King, Camilla would either be Princess >Camilla or remain a duchess. However seeing as Charles is getting on in years himself, it might be a good idea if he allows William to take over instead.?

[jennyjuniper]

hmmm then why did she say that she thought Charles was planning for her to be involved in a car crash and make it look like an accident?

Diana died because she wasn't wearing her seat belt. The whole thing was documented by the papparazzi following them, so I hardly see how anyone could 'arrange' it.