I think when polling suggests 65+% of the population no longer want the monarchy - that would be the time for a referendum. A bit like Europe, as when you get rid, it is hard to get back, I think it should be a high percentage and we are certainly no where near that if we ever are. I think an unpopular monarch could change things though, so it keeps the royal family on it's toes which has to be a good thing too.
I think it would be very easy to get the monarchy back if you got rid, unless you think that Liz and her family wouldn't apply for the job? Even if they didn't, I'm sure some poor family would.
I think if we reached a point in the present day where there was an overwhelming desire to get rid, it would be hard to get back. My point is that it would be stupid having a referendum say and abolishing over a couple of percent, then bringing them back a year or two later. To get to the levels of dissention suggested, there won't be a clear path back - but as long as the queen and her successor do their jobs, getting to that point is unlikely.
So if the Royal family was abolished and the tax Percentage that was spent on them was rounded up.
Could that money in particular be put to much greater use that will benefit the country a lot more? Yes.
Do certain people love the Royal family with a passion that they would be devastated if the monarchy was abolished and could this cause a problem? Yes. I call these people weirdos.
So if the Royal family was abolished and the tax Percentage that was spent on them was rounded up.
Could that money in particular be put to much greater use that will benefit the country a lot more? Yes.
Do certain people love the Royal family with a passion that they would be devastated if the monarchy was abolished and could this cause a problem? Yes. I call these people weirdos.
So if the Royal family was abolished and the tax Percentage that was spent on them was rounded up.
Could that money in particular be put to much greater use that will benefit the country a lot more? Yes.
Do certain people love the Royal family with a passion that they would be devastated if the monarchy was abolished and could this cause a problem? Yes. I call these people weirdos.
I ain't weird, just unique
You've been listening to Roland again, haven't you....
This is a pointless discussion as long as our Queen is in charge. Even somebody like myself who, at heart, believes in a republic would be hard pushed to find anybody better as a head of state. The issue for the Royal family is that they have to keep churning them out at her level as being King or Queen is not down to merit. They dodged a bullet with Charles in terms of what he would have done to support for the mornarchy I suspect.
I think Charles should get rid of the "Prince" in front of his name. That word is usually associated with a younger person, he looks like hes on deaths door.
I think Charles should get rid of the "Prince" in front of his name. That word is usually associated with a younger person, he looks like hes on deaths door.
They're figureheads that help the economy make money. I couldn't care less about what they get up to but to do away with them wouldn't make much sense. I'm more bothered that religious people hold sway in political discussion than rich, irrelevant, over-priveleged people. Religion is an acceptable form of insanity. At least rich people aren't inherently insane.
I'd actually prefer the monarchy if they were given a little bit of power, but really weird power, like the power to call a national singathon, or a tax on chandeliers
Replace the monarchy with the kind patronedge of an Executive & Universal all Seeing, Caring and Rational Europe Wide Dictator. He could unite European countries in a linked network for the common good, and develop the youth of these countries on to a fullfilling and potentially rewarding career. Each country could be "Managed" by a delegate of the EUSCREWD who would handle the day to day issues, problems, riots and cockups. I have someone in mind who would seem qualified but cant remember his name, its a Roland somebody........
Less concerned about the impact on tourism and more concerned with pissing off one of the major land owners in the UK, the money that gets made from them goes straight to the exchequer. That would be gone.
And if you say "well we'd just take the land off them then" - I'm glad you would want a country that could take property from anyone at any time for basically no reason, because I don't.
The queen is a fabulous head of state but I'm worried about Charles. He's a well known nobhead, will seems like he has the temperament for it. And the wife...
Less concerned about the impact on tourism and more concerned with pissing off one of the major land owners in the UK, the money that gets made from them goes straight to the exchequer. That would be gone.
And if you say "well we'd just take the land off them then" - I'm glad you would want a country that could take property from anyone at any time for basically no reason, because I don't.
The queen is a fabulous head of state but I'm worried about Charles. He's a well known nobhead, will seems like he has the temperament for it. And the wife...
I'm fairly certain that their land ownership is due to having been made the Royal Family - in effect, their lands are already owned by the state (as you and I, and our ancestors, have paid for them through taxation).
If William and Mary or Queen Anne could have continued the Stuart line (without the inconvenience of the James II's Catholicism) the current Royal Family would be of Scottish rather than German extraction.
Less concerned about the impact on tourism and more concerned with pissing off one of the major land owners in the UK, the money that gets made from them goes straight to the exchequer. That would be gone.
And if you say "well we'd just take the land off them then" - I'm glad you would want a country that could take property from anyone at any time for basically no reason, because I don't.
The queen is a fabulous head of state but I'm worried about Charles. He's a well known nobhead, will seems like he has the temperament for it. And the wife...
I'm fairly certain that their land ownership is due to having been made the Royal Family - in effect, their lands are already owned by the state (as you and I, and our ancestors, have paid for them through taxation).
If William and Mary or Queen Anne could have continued the Stuart line (without the inconvenience of the James II's Catholicism) the current Royal Family would be of Scottish rather than German extraction.
Less concerned about the impact on tourism and more concerned with pissing off one of the major land owners in the UK, the money that gets made from them goes straight to the exchequer. That would be gone.
And if you say "well we'd just take the land off them then" - I'm glad you would want a country that could take property from anyone at any time for basically no reason, because I don't.
The queen is a fabulous head of state but I'm worried about Charles. He's a well known nobhead, will seems like he has the temperament for it. And the wife...
I'm fairly certain that their land ownership is due to having been made the Royal Family - in effect, their lands are already owned by the state (as you and I, and our ancestors, have paid for them through taxation).
If William and Mary or Queen Anne could have continued the Stuart line (without the inconvenience of the James II's Catholicism) the current Royal Family would be of Scottish rather than German extraction.
Google "Crown Estate". That will put you right.
Thank you.
As the Crown Estate website states it they are "owned by the Monarch in right of the Crown" (http://thecrownestate.co.uk/who-we-are/our-history/history/), but that the Queen does own some property in her own right. So, the Crown Estates would revert to the state if there was no Monarch, or am I being particularly stupid?
Comments
Could that money in particular be put to much greater use that will benefit the country a lot more? Yes.
Do certain people love the Royal family with a passion that they would be devastated if the monarchy was abolished and could this cause a problem? Yes. I call these people weirdos.
And if you say "well we'd just take the land off them then" - I'm glad you would want a country that could take property from anyone at any time for basically no reason, because I don't.
The queen is a fabulous head of state but I'm worried about Charles. He's a well known nobhead, will seems like he has the temperament for it. And the wife...
If William and Mary or Queen Anne could have continued the Stuart line (without the inconvenience of the James II's Catholicism) the current Royal Family would be of Scottish rather than German extraction.
As the Crown Estate website states it they are "owned by the Monarch in right of the Crown" (http://thecrownestate.co.uk/who-we-are/our-history/history/), but that the Queen does own some property in her own right. So, the Crown Estates would revert to the state if there was no Monarch, or am I being particularly stupid?