Time to get rid of the Royal family?

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

People on here calling royalty outdated should perhaps consider that there are a number of - modern - countries in their beloved Europe and elsewhere that have royalty and it sits very well with their populations.

As to Harry and Megan. Let them go and dont give them any money. In view he made a mistake marrying this woman.

The closest being the Spanish Royal Family which cost the taxpayers about 6 million per year, 339 million less than the UK's set of parasites.

[Claret]

As the Queen and Duke approach the end of their lives, is it almost time to remove the Monarchy? I’ve no criticisms of them.

It really is a nonsense to believe some people are born to rule above us. Is it time to become a truly modern country?

I think the monarchy is utter nonsense in this day and age. However, they are all fairly harmless.
It’s the royal correspondents who need to be hung, drawn, quartered and guillotined. They are people who really do get on my wick.

[deanothedino]

No they don't, they cost the country a reported 300 million plus per year. If they went and the palaces were open to the public the money made from tourists would be astronomical...

https://www.republic.org.uk/what-we-want/royal-finances

Ah a report that conveniently forgets that without a crown they’d never have been a crown estate.

So your argument is get rid of them so that we can make money off the fact that we did have them. Interesting.

[JohnMac]

Get rid of the parasites that sponge off the state and add zero value.

That's right, dole dossers!

GSTQ

[houseboy]

Classic issue for demonstrating the split down the country, with the hyper-liberals, as well as usually being Remainers, also want us to scrap the monarchy, whilst the socially conservative Brexiteers remain fans.

No right or wrong, but continues to show the schism in the country. We could have selected 20 other topics and the same posters would go to the same side of the argument despite each group having a mix of voters from both main parties. I’m finding that increasingly fascinating.

No, we cannot scrap the royals, we would be significantly diminished as a nation if we do.

Rubbish. I’m a brexit supporter and have never ever understood why we tolerate the royals. Your generalisation is utterly astounding. And why, exactly, would we be ‘significantly diminished’ without them?

[Clarets4me]

I would love to see the end of the monarchy in my lifetime.

I don't, but I do wish you a long, healthy and happy life ....

[timshorts]

Get Rexit done.

Although to be fair, I'd rather see a huge cull of "celebrities". The country would be better off with a 95% reduction of them.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Ah a report that conveniently forgets that without a crown they’d never have been a crown estate.

So your argument is get rid of them so that we can make money off the fact that we did have them. Interesting.

Yep, we make money off the fact that we did have them, not them making money off us. It's almost like using the monarchy to our advantage rather than theirs, radical eh?

[nil_desperandum]

Classic issue for demonstrating the split down the country, with the hyper-liberals, as well as usually being Remainers, also want us to scrap the monarchy, whilst the socially conservative Brexiteers remain fans.

That seems a very strange conclusion to draw. Are you assuming that all those "northern working class areas" - such as Burnley - that voted predominantly "leave" and have just swung away from Labour are "Royalist" strongholds?
I doubt you'll find any evidence to support that.

[Blackrod]

They try to remain relevant but not sure they are in the modern era. Nice to have the buildings and history though. I’d prefer some of the expenditure to be re channelled towards people that need it. Do we need a king that has never done a hard days work in his life and spends most of his time wittering on about plants ? As for Meghan think she was hoping for a celeb lifestyle rather than confirming.They can’t have it both ways. Sounds like the ‘charity’ will fund the security snd salaries going forward. Nice for the donators.

[deanothedino]

Yep, we make money off the fact that we did have them, not them making money off us. It's almost like using the monarchy to our advantage rather than theirs, radical eh?

I'm not sure they'd make the same once they're gone. But I know you'll argue with me for the sake of it so we'll leave it there.

I'd prefer to see a more streamlined royal family.

[Jakubclaret]

As morrissey once said - they are professional benefit scroungers, if they all disappeared tomorrow for good I don't think the majority would miss them.

[nil_desperandum]

I'm not sure they'd make the same once they're gone. But I know you'll argue with me for the sake of it so we'll leave it there.

Not a case of arguing for the sake of it. The answer is, we can't be sure, but: not having a royal family doesn't seem to have any detrimental effect on tourist visits to the Royal Palaces of Europe (e.g. Versailles, Potsdam, etc.).
If there were no Royal family , do you think visits to our Royal residences and Palaces would go up or down?
(I don't feel particularly strongly about the Royal family by the way, (although I think it should modernised and trimmed down), but I'm not sure that your "argument" about tourism is a particularly strong one)).

[nil_desperandum]

So your argument is get rid of them so that we can make money off the fact that we did have them. Interesting.

That's generally what's happened across Europe and the wider world.

[Jakubclaret]

That seems a very strange conclusion to draw. Are you assuming that all those "northern working class areas" - such as Burnley - that voted predominantly "leave" and have just swung away from Labour are "Royalist" strongholds?
I doubt you'll find any evidence to support that.

It's known amongst some quarters, when dealing in illegal items & handing money over, it's standard etiquette when arranging the notes their all face the same way, it's considered offensive a note with the back to the queen, it's daft but some people get offended. It's interpreted as if you are turning your back onto the queen.

[dsr]

I like the political aspect of a monarchy. I know we aren't in particular danger of a revolution, but if there is any political instability about, it's a big help to have a non-political head of state who could stop the Prime Minister doing anything unconstitutional like abolishing elections. The Queen (or King) could simply dissolve Parliament and that would be an end of it. Contrast countries like France where the constitution can be and is frequently rewritten to suit the President of the time.

[deanothedino]

That's generally what's happened across Europe and the wider world.

Not exactly, there's more significant factors in the early 20th century. Namely the fact we kept trying to kill each other.

[deanothedino]

Not a case of arguing for the sake of it. The answer is, we can't be sure, but: not having a royal family doesn't seem to have any detrimental effect on tourist visits to the Royal Palaces of Europe (e.g. Versailles, Potsdam, etc.).
If there were no Royal family , do you think visits to our Royal residences and Palaces would go up or down?
(I don't feel particularly strongly about the Royal family by the way, (although I think it should modernised and trimmed down), but I'm not sure that your "argument" about tourism is a particularly strong one)).

My argument wasn't, and isn't, tourism by itself by the way.

I agree it should be trimmed down.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

I think the best thing about having a monarchy is knowing they are here for us if we need them.
Like if you ever find yourself down on your luck, without a job or homeless, you can write to your Queen and she'll use some of her incredible wealth to help you out, just like the entire population does for her.

[Bordeauxclaret]

But do you think that by doing this they will get quieter life?. I would have thought that it would have the opposite effect.
With the birth of William's children they are way down the line of importance in the Royal family now. Once the "novelty" of Meghan wore off they'd become of less and less interest to the press and less and less relevant to the public. By doing this, they're almost guaranteeing that their every move will be scrutinised, just like Edward VIII (David) and Wallis.)
Wonder if Harry has considered where this will leave him when / if they split up - as most Royals do.

Certainly not in the short term. They are really going to go after her now but worth a shot long term.

Who can blame him, with the way they treated his mum and the constant attacks on his wife, it’s no wonder he’s had to try something.

[Heathclaret]

Harry is a proper knob, the woman is like a puppeteer. My dad would have said “ he’s c**t struck “

Quieter life my arse, Markle thinks she should be queen. If Harry was in line for the throne, she may have been more patient.

[Corky]

I'm a republican and I would like to see the back of the Royal family. As I have said many times both on this Board and on other social media sites I infest the idea of us having what is referred to as a constitutional Monarch is pointless. We do not have a written constitution for a start and during the recent farce with Johnson and the proroguing of Parliament we saw that whilst in private the Queen may have expressed her concerns, in practice and in reality, she can only rubber stamp whatever her PM tells her because it would be deemed unconstitutional if she acted to the contrary. So on a purely political level what is her relevance.

On a wider level if we get rid of the Monarchy then we can perhaps address the situation of our constitution. Having an uncodefied constitution puts un on a par with the likes of Saudi Arabia!! So I would like a written one. Also we could then look at getting rid of this ridiculous idea of having an established church. I've never quite understood the relevance of that other than to allow just shy of 30 CofE Bishops to sit in the House of Lords which should also be scrapped and replaced by a much slimmed down second chamber. we have 650 MPs but over 850 Lords a ridiculously large number.

I am very wary of the establishment and its disproportionate power in relation to its number. And the Royal Family whether they realise it or not sit at the head of that snake and until we get rid of them 9the Royals) we will still have the vestiges of a feudal system running our Country.

I believe that Charles realises that change is needed and on becoming King will look to slim down the Monarchy dramatically so the departure of Harry and Meghan may well be a blessing in disguise. Let them go, get rid of the HRH moniker, stop financing them and they can have the private life she craves.

[FactualFrank]

What do you expect from a woman so unsuited to be Royalty, she makes you name the kid Archie - because your mother died in a tunnel.

[deanothedino]

I'm a republican and I would like to see the back of the Royal family. As I have said many times both on this Board and on other social media sites I infest the idea of us having what is referred to as a constitutional Monarch is pointless. We do not have a written constitution for a start and during the recent farce with Johnson and the proroguing of Parliament we saw that whilst in private the Queen may have expressed her concerns, in practice and in reality, she can only rubber stamp whatever her PM tells her because it would be deemed unconstitutional if she acted to the contrary. So on a purely political level what is her relevance.

On a wider level if we get rid of the Monarchy then we can perhaps address the situation of our constitution. Having an uncodefied constitution puts un on a par with the likes of Saudi Arabia!! So I would like a written one. Also we could then look at getting rid of this ridiculous idea of having an established church. I've never quite understood the relevance of that other than to allow just shy of 30 CofE Bishops to sit in the House of Lords which should also be scrapped and replaced by a much slimmed down second chamber. we have 650 MPs but over 850 Lords a ridiculously large number.

I am very wary of the establishment and its disproportionate power in relation to its number. And the Royal Family whether they realise it or not sit at the head of that snake and until we get rid of them 9the Royals) we will still have the vestiges of a feudal system running our Country.

I believe that Charles realises that change is needed and on becoming King will look to slim down the Monarchy dramatically so the departure of Harry and Meghan may well be a blessing in disguise. Let them go, get rid of the HRH moniker, stop financing them and they can have the private life she craves.

I admire your optimism that abolishing the monarchy would lead to us fixing the disaster that is our political system, I just wish I could share it.

[LoveCurryPies]

Should the Country hold a referendum on whether we have a Royal Family?

[evensteadiereddie]

Classic issue for demonstrating the split down the country, with the hyper-liberals, as well as usually being Remainers, also want us to scrap the monarchy, whilst the socially conservative Brexiteers remain fans.

No right or wrong, but continues to show the schism in the country. We could have selected 20 other topics and the same posters would go to the same side of the argument despite each group having a mix of voters from both main parties. I’m finding that increasingly fascinating.

No, we cannot scrap the royals, we would be significantly diminished as a nation if we do.

Now then, let's just remind ourselves against which newspaper the Sussexes have filed a lawsuit over alleged breach of copyright and privacy - breaches which were probably quite instrumental in their decision to leave permanent residence in the UK - why, it's the good ol' hyper-liberal "Mail on Sunday".

[SammyBoy]

To be honest I couldn't think of anything worse than being born into the Royal family, I'd wouldn't swap my 9-5 life in relative obscurity with any of them, so if Harry and Meghan's motivation behind this move is more privacy I can completely empathise.

[nil_desperandum]

To be honest I couldn't think of anything worse than being born into the Royal family, I'd wouldn't swap my 9-5 life in relative obscurity with any of them, so if Harry and Meghan's motivation behind this move is more privacy I can completely empathise.

Agree with that, but if there's one thing that's guaranteed to put them in the spotlight then it's doing this. (Part of me wonders if she is behind this. She can never be Queen, (nor is there a major Royal role for any children she has), but she can compete with Kate Middleton for the media's attention as an attractive, fashionable "outsider").

[RMutt]

https://www.royal.uk/future-engagements

I put this link on every now and again to remind you how hard our royals banquet on your behalf. One coming to Burnley soon it would seem.

[evensteadiereddie]

Agree with that, but if there's one thing that's guaranteed to put them in the spotlight then it's doing this. (Part of me wonders if she is behind this. She can never be Queen, (nor is there a major Royal role for any children she has), but she can compete with Kate Middleton for the media's attention as an attractive, fashionable "outsider").

It doesn't seem very logical, though, does it ? Putting your family in the spotlight to er, avoid the spotlight.
She has the fantastic advantage of being a complete outsider untainted by the Royal Family's bullcrap traditions and has, quite rightly, rejected the notion that sections of the press can manipulate her, her husband and kid(s) for good or bad.
I doubt very much she has ever contemplated becoming Queen nor sees the media-led beauty contest between her and Middleton as having any relevance whatsoever.
It's a strong decision, the right decision tp put two fingers up to the press who have hated her from the start and the Fitztightlys who insist Royal protocol be adhered to no matter what. They've decided they're not playing any more.
Good luck to them,

[Bosscat]

Get Rexit done.

Although to be fair, I'd rather see a huge cull of "celebrities". The country would be better off with a 95% reduction of them.

"REXIT" do you wish to get rid of Claret-On-A-T-Rex

[Volvoclaret]

That would be Trexit. I,ll have some of that

[Volvoclaret]

Just bought myself a black tie ready for Harry's fatal car crash next week.

[Stayingup]

The closest being the Spanish Royal Family which cost the taxpayers about 6 million per year, 339 million less than the UK's set of parasites.

Utter ********. The UK royalty is at worst cost neutral. In fact they bring money into the country. But then again if your not patriotic and an apologist for UK and its past like the Islington woke set, who are cirizens of the orld and not of a community, you wont agree.

Imagine President Blair. Enough to make a decent bloke vomit.

[evensteadiereddie]

Beautifully argued there, Stayingup. Full house !

[TheFamilyCat]

IMG-20200110-WA0001.jpg (42.45 KiB) Viewed 2621 times

[CrosspoolClarets]

That seems a very strange conclusion to draw. Are you assuming that all those "northern working class areas" - such as Burnley - that voted predominantly "leave" and have just swung away from Labour are "Royalist" strongholds?
I doubt you'll find any evidence to support that.

I’ll pick this one to reply to but the reply is to everyone who questioned my linking opposing the monarchy to voting remain.

I knew it was factual when I posted it. Obviously there is not an identical grouping, it isn’t that every brexiteer supports the monarchy and every remainer opposes it, but there is an overlap in the reasons for some people’s beliefs and it bears out in the polls (e.g. for me, a big thing is sovereignty, and I view the monarchy and the Commonwealth as part of that).

Yougov did a poll in 2018 about the monarchy and they grouped people into several categories as usual, one of which was Brexit.

The poll said that of those who oppose the monarchy, 66% (two thirds) voted Remain. 18% above the referendum vote share is a statistically significant difference. Of course we have folk on here who feel that doesn’t apply to them, but the polls suggest that for the majority, it does. We can debate if Burnley is different to the national trend, but certainly every brexiteer I know is also a monarchist (my parents being two).

But as I posted yesterday, there is no right or wrong.

[Pstotto]

THE worse monarch in England since 1066 presiding over the worse period in English history since.

1. Invited a foreign invasion of millions of anti-English people to come and rule us.
2. Presides over a kingdom where sodomists are considered the paragons of virtue.
3. Where sexual confusion is promoted as social progression.
4. Where the antichrist Charles Saatchi is feted for his attempted destruction of the West via the Jewish conspiracy to replace all value with currency.
5. Where the demons from the East here to destroy us are lorded as saints, Dalai Lama etc.

She should abdicate.

The jury is out , regarding the transition of England from a big player to a sucker-up-to of vice from places like the Commonwealth.

[jrgbfc]

Let's face it the aggro Meghan has had from the likes of the Sun and Daily Mail is simply because she's a foreigner, and her Mum is black. Unfortunately large numbers of people in this country still buy and form their opinions from those disgusting, hate filled rags. I don't blame them one bit for wanting to get as far away as possible.

[Hipper]

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... onarchists

[FactualFrank]

I read in the paper this morning that only 1 in 8 people think they should continue to receive funding from the Royal Family, which I think is over £2 million a year.

It makes me laugh. They say they want to be financially independent. Like they're going to turn that down and be true to their word.

[Pstotto]

It was a political marriage organized by BP for Nigerian oil.

[evensteadiereddie]

I’ll pick this one to reply to but the reply is to everyone who questioned my linking opposing the monarchy to voting remain.

I knew it was factual when I posted it. Obviously there is not an identical grouping, it isn’t that every brexiteer supports the monarchy and every remainer opposes it, but there is an overlap in the reasons for some people’s beliefs and it bears out in the polls (e.g. for me, a big thing is sovereignty, and I view the monarchy and the Commonwealth as part of that).

Yougov did a poll in 2018 about the monarchy and they grouped people into several categories as usual, one of which was Brexit.

The poll said that of those who oppose the monarchy, 66% (two thirds) voted Remain. 18% above the referendum vote share is a statistically significant difference. Of course we have folk on here who feel that doesn’t apply to them, but the polls suggest that for the majority, it does. We can debate if Burnley is different to the national trend, but certainly every brexiteer I know is also a monarchist (my parents being two).

But as I posted yesterday, there is no right or wrong.

Fair enough but your original statement was quite categorical, you claimed certain groups had predictable identical views on other issues and you even spoke of a liberal and non-liberal, I assume, divide.
As you rightly point out now, that is nonsense. Of course, people of a certain political persuasion are likely to have certain opinions on other issues but that isn't and can't be universally true.

[Dixie Normous]

THE worse monarch in England since 1066 presiding over the worse period in English history since.

1. Invited a foreign invasion of millions of anti-English people to come and rule us.
2. Presides over a kingdom where sodomists are considered the paragons of virtue.
3. Where sexual confusion is promoted as social progression.
4. Where the antichrist Charles Saatchi is feted for his attempted destruction of the West via the Jewish conspiracy to replace all value with currency.
5. Where the demons from the East here to destroy us are lorded as saints,She should abdicate.

The jury is out , regarding the transition of England from a big player to a sucker-up-to of vice from places like the Commonwealth.

Sodomists ? Jewish conspiracy ? Millions of non English ?
Sorry I’m struggling to place you . Liberal Democrat ?

[brexit]

yes

[Burnley1989]

God save the Queen

[Dixie Normous]

God save the Queen

My favourite sex pistols song . Good shout

[kentonclaret]

Since Harry and Meghan are reported to have combined personal fortunes of over £30 million and that 95% of their income comes from the Royal Duchy administered by Prince Charles all of this talk of "financial independence" is something of a red herring.

The question of providing security is the big issue since the taxpayer will not be happy footing the bill for Met Police officers spending 6 months in Canada.

The Daily Mail responsible for publishing anti Harry and Meghan polls are of course currently being sued by Prince Harry which somewhat slants their coverage.

[Pstotto]

Dixie Normous with a bit of reverse psychology, eh?

PRAT.

[Dixie Normous]

Dixie Normous with a bit of reverse psychology, eh?

PRAT.

Christ I hope you find a job and sort out your mental health problems and stop coming in here with your anger issues . I won’t respond you’re not worth it