Should the royal family be abolished/dissolved...

[Ammi]

...obviously Harry and Meghan are stepping down, it’s been a bad ‘PR year’ in terms of Prince Andrew ‘stuff’...I was just reading that Zara Tindell has been given a driving ban for speeding in her Land Rover...what are your thoughts, do you feel there is still a relevance for the Royal family and would you like it to continue...or do you think it should be looked at, abolishing it..?...

[UserSince2005]

it shouldn't be so large. when ****ing eugenie and edo come to stay next door to my property on lamu I think who da **** you think you are. and why do i pay my tax for you to come and bring paps in my bushes.

[bots]

Has anyone watched The Crown on Netflix? It provides a lot of background that I was unaware of.

I think there is a fundamental conflict between the need to uphold tradition and impartiality and yet be accessible to and understanding of the "common" people.

The queen has obviously struggled with this conflict and it's easy to criticise but who could do it better?

I think some traditions are very important, others not so much and the Royal family are an integral part of that. My own feeling is that when the queen goes, it will be down hill for them from that point forward and within a generation, the Royal family will become completely irrelevant.

[arista]

No Ammi
get rid of that American
we are back to normal

[Elliot]

It’ll probably slowly dissipate over the years anyway, less and less are caring about the royals.

[thesheriff443]

No they should stay, if William and Kate give the same comiment that the queen and Prince Philip gave to the country the royal family will do well.

In any family you get problems, divorce, affairs, drink drugs, it’s just with the royal family it’s played out in front of the whole world.

[Kizzy]

I think they serve a purpose, as a tourist attraction. I deffo don't think they should be funded from the public purse as much as they are, especially during periods of austerity.
The royals should be made to make sacrifices for the greater good.

[thesheriff443]

I think they serve a purpose, as a tourist attraction. I deffo don't think they should be funded from the public purse as much as they are, especially during periods of austerity.
The royals should be made to make sacrifices for the greater good.

To be honest I’m sure most would like to walk down the street without security two steps behind them.

But There is a real threat to them.

[Twosugars]

Stay but scaled back and downsized.

[Crimson Dynamo]

i think we should have 2 and then there could be feuds and rivalries and could take sides. Make one in Yorkshire called the house of Smethwick

[user104658]

i think we should have 2 and then there could be feuds and rivalries and could take sides. Make one in Yorkshire called the house of Smethwick

I'd actually watch this. Pitch it to ITV2.

[Marsh.]

I think dissolving them is a bit harsh. The Queen already looks like porridge.

[user104658]

It needs to modernise once The Queen goes. They should skip Charles and abandon the "politically neutral" stuff and for the love of god STOP the pantomime where we pretend that the monarch is an actual part of forming a government / law making / "asking the queen for permission to ______" nonsense like we don't know it's just a formality. It's playing dress-up and it's ****ing silly.

[Jigs]

Chuck them all out and do an open casting call for the new royals

[Crimson Dynamo]

The GC as Meghan and James Corden as Harry?

[armand.kay]

get the pdf files OUT

[Cherie]

Trimmed down for sure

[Beso]

No...weed out the paedos though.

[Ant.]

I think dissolving them is a bit harsh. The Queen already looks like porridge.

:laugh2:

[Liam-]

Not abolished, but Imo there’s no way a family with a ridiculous personal wealth Such as theirs should be kept by public tax to the extent that they are, it’s ludicrous that hundreds of millions of pounds are spent on fixing their houses and paying for their weddings just because they got lucky and was born into a supposedly ‘superior’ gene line, if they started using their own money for things rather than pocketing the tax money, there’d be a lot more money to spend on actual important things challenging the country, other than the new tiles in Lizzie’s 32nd bathroom.

[Marsh.]

It needs to modernise once The Queen goes. They should skip Charles and abandon the "politically neutral" stuff and for the love of god STOP the pantomime where we pretend that the monarch is an actual part of forming a government / law making / "asking the queen for permission to ______" nonsense like we don't know it's just a formality. It's playing dress-up and it's ****ing silly.

I agree with this actually.

Might actually stop the idiotic few who rant and rave about our county being ruled by unelected rich people. :joker:

[user104658]

I agree with this actually.

Might actually stop the idiotic few who rant and rave about our county being ruled by unelected rich people. :joker:

My wife once got into a raging debate about the nature of democracy with an American girl on some forum, with the girl insisting over and over how "People over there would obviously never understand!" without explaining why... ... eventually, turned out she thought that the UK had an active ruling monarchy and no elections :umm2:. "Oh yeah well when was the last time you PICKED a king or queen???", she bellowed.

[bots]

It needs to modernise once The Queen goes. They should skip Charles and abandon the "politically neutral" stuff and for the love of god STOP the pantomime where we pretend that the monarch is an actual part of forming a government / law making / "asking the queen for permission to ______" nonsense like we don't know it's just a formality. It's playing dress-up and it's ****ing silly.

The queen does actually still have some constitutional power, it is limited for sure, but it's not all just ceremony. She can refuse a PM's resignation for example

[Marsh.]

Not abolished, but Imo there’s no way a family with a ridiculous personal wealth Such as theirs should be kept by public tax to the extent that they are, it’s ludicrous that hundreds of millions of pounds are spent on fixing their houses and paying for their weddings just because they got lucky and was born into a supposedly ‘superior’ gene line, if they started using their own money for things rather than pocketing the tax money, there’d be a lot more money to spend on actual important things challenging the country, other than the new tiles in Lizzie’s 32nd bathroom.

Tbf, it's a complicated situation where the sovereign grant comes from the public purse. That only happens for official duties on behalf of the country because the revenue from the crown estate actually goes back into the treasury.

Effectively, the Royals have the personal fortune of their family but long since lost what effectively belongs to the country and get an "allowance" for their official jobs.

The profits of the crown estate far outweigh the cost of the sovereign grant.

The current monarch "owns" the crown estate but as a matter of tradition and basically for show. But technically doesn't as all the funds go to the government.

They really are nothing more than show pony's and are basically glorified tourist attractions.

[Marsh.]

My wife once got into a raging debate about the nature of democracy with an American girl on some forum, with the girl insisting over and over how "People over there would obviously never understand!" without explaining why... ... eventually, turned out she thought that the UK had an active ruling monarchy and no elections :umm2:. "Oh yeah well when was the last time you PICKED a king or queen???", she bellowed.

I remember having a similar "debate" with LostAlex about it on here. :joker:

[Twosugars]

My wife once got into a raging debate about the nature of democracy with an American girl on some forum, with the girl insisting over and over how "People over there would obviously never understand!" without explaining why... ... eventually, turned out she thought that the UK had an active ruling monarchy and no elections :umm2:. "Oh yeah well when was the last time you PICKED a king or queen???", she bellowed.

Tbf elected monarchy used to be the case with the holy german empire or poland.
It was messy though

[user104658]

The queen does actually still have some constitutional power, it is limited for sure, but it's not all just ceremony. She can refuse a PM's resignation for example

Can, but never would. It's all ceremony, even the power that they "technically" have - like a party leader "seeking permission to form a government". Pantomime. If the vote has gone that way, there is no other answer than "sure, go for it".

[Crimson Dynamo]

Having lived in England for many years the Royal Family are who all English people aspire to be like so i cant see them going anywhere fast

[user104658]

Having lived in England for many years the Royal Family are who all English people aspire to be like so i cant see them going anywhere fast

:think: Surely you lived Darn Sarf then, it's certainly not like that where I lived.

[AnnieK]

:think: Surely you lived Darn Sarf then, it's certainly not like that where I lived.

Its definitely not like that where I live either TS......:laugh:

[Marsh.]

Having lived in England for many years the Royal Family are who all English people aspire to be like so i cant see them going anywhere fast

Lived where? Kensington?

[Crimson Dynamo]

i really meant Lahndan :hmph:

sorry i forgot there are other wild parts like outside the m25 or somewhere :shrug:

[Daniel-X]

I think they serve a purpose, as a tourist attraction. I deffo don't think they should be funded from the public purse as much as they are, especially during periods of austerity.
The royals should be made to make sacrifices for the greater good.

Agree with all of this.