Would you abolish the Monarchy

[Keith_M]

OK, enough time has passed, so here's the chance to give your views.

[Johnny Clash]

Yes

[grunt]

I wouldn't abolish it wholesale, but I'd severely trim its scope and activities. And budget.

[Glory Lurker]

Yes.

[Scouse Hibee]

No

[Glory Lurker]

No

Are you even Scouse? :-)

[Santa Cruz]

Instead of undecided, I'd change that option to let them retain their status as long as they are willing to fund it. Lets face it, they have enough money. I think that's what many object to most, including me.

[ErinGoBraghHFC]

Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[heretoday]

They won't be around much longer. Like High Street banks and the TV licence their clocks are ticking.
It won't happen overnight but it'll happen. I doubt young Prince George will have to go through all that ceremony when his turn comes.

[Hiber-nation]

Absolutely.

[danhibees1875]

Somewhere between no and undecided.

It doesn't do much for me personally, but I'm not bothered to abolish it especially when you see how much others enjoy it. It seems to me that we could easily split into 2 camps, those who enjoy themselves at these occasions and those who just get on with their lives - but there's been a forceful creation of a third category who just want to get wound up by it all and seek to belittle those who just want to enjoy themselves.

I've probably taken more of an interest in the royals over the last year than ever before. I happened to be in England at the Jubilee which was was good as there was a street party going on and got to experience a different side to the whole thing. The Queen's funeral captured my interest more than I thought - I'd thought I'd have a nice day off work, ended up watching TV most of the day. The coronation has just been on in the back ground more than anything.

[McD]

Somewhere between no and undecided.

It doesn't do much for me personally, but I'm not bothered to abolish it especially when you see how much others enjoy it. It seems to me that we could easily split into 2 camps, those who enjoy themselves at these occasions and those who just get on with their lives - but there's been a forceful creation of a third category who just want to get wound up by it all and seek to belittle those who just want to enjoy themselves.

I've probably taken more of an interest in the royals over the last year than ever before. I happened to be in England at the Jubilee which was was good as there was a street party going on and got to experience a different side to the whole thing. The Queen's funeral captured my interest more than I thought - I'd thought I'd have a nice day off work, ended up watching TV most of the day. The coronation has just been on in the back ground more than anything.

I'm in a similar position to yourself, not really into them but not bothered by them either.

was much more interested when the queen passed away, probably because she’s been such a constant presence in all of our lives, she took the throne before my parents were born, so the historical significance was interesting to me. This weekend, I’ve not been bothered at all, haven’t watched much of it, none with any real intent.

[overdrive]

Definitely. An unelected head of state has no place in a modern democracy.

[marinello59]

Yes

[weecounty hibby]

My instant reaction is yes but I'd let them be, but the state should stop sponsoring them. 300m yesterday for one of the richest men in the country to do cosplay! They are a throwback to a different time. They need to be made to come into the 21st century and that should include paying their taxes. 650m of inheritance to Charlie and not a penny to the tax. And the fact that even in 2023 large parts of the population have been brainwashed into believing they are better than us us frightening. Some people seem to enjoy being a subject rather than a citizen so I'm sure they will have enjoyed yesterday. Then again some people like to have their balls clamped by crocodile clips! Some folk are just strange

[Pretty Boy]

Yes.

I think it's an idea that will gain traction too. There isn't going to be an overnight revolution but I genuinely believe affection for the Queen was a huge influence on our national psyche. With her death there will be more people inclined to question their belief in hereditary monarchy.

I think yesterday will be the penultimate coronation with the full regalia on show. It's just not something that happens in other European countries who still have a royal family. Charles probably won't be around that long so William might get the full treatment but we could be 40-50 years away from the one after him. By then I just can't see there being widespread desire for a performance like yesterday. The direction of travel in the 70 years since 1953 already suggests we are on that road.

[Scouse Hibee]

Are you even Scouse? :-)

Yes

[Hibrandenburg]

Yes, for many reasons but most of all the thought that our sons and daughters will never be able to strive to obtain the highest political office in this Union because that has already been allocated to someone through shear accident of birth. No matter how great any of our children are, they will forever be seen as subservient in a system that is heavily weighed in the favour of those who inherit power and wealth rather than those who deserve it. Our whole system is nothing more than a pecking order defined by birth and servitude.

[Jay]

Yes or at the very least remove all public funding and make them eligible for the same taxes we pay

[He's here!]

My instant reaction is yes but I'd let them be, but the state should stop sponsoring them. 300m yesterday for one of the richest men in the country to do cosplay! They are a throwback to a different time. They need to be made to come into the 21st century and that should include paying their taxes. 650m of inheritance to Charlie and not a penny to the tax. And the fact that even in 2023 large parts of the population have been brainwashed into believing they are better than us us frightening. Some people seem to enjoy being a subject rather than a citizen so I'm sure they will have enjoyed yesterday. Then again some people like to have their balls clamped by crocodile clips! Some folk are just strange

I agree to some extent with the first part of what you say and I think going forward we will see a more modern, stripped-back, slicker version of the monarchy. Kate (in particular) and William will be more attuned to that and will, I think, prove to be a popular king and queen - they certainly won't have as long to wait as Charles did to ascend to the throne.

I don't believe, though, that anyone is 'brainwashed' these days into thinking the royals are better than them. It's perfectly possible just to enjoy the spectacle that these unique occasions provide, nothing more. As unlikely royal buff Nick Cave said yesterday: "I'm here for the stupefying splendour. The awe-inspiring". The royals also bring more to the table than some give them credit for. They're terrific for tourism and all the associated spin-offs (employment being a key one) that brings, while initiatives like the Prince's Trust are first-class (essentially saved the life of a kid I used to work with). The 'unelected head of state' gripe carries little clout IMHO as the monarch's duties are purely ceremonial. He doesn't 'rule' us in any meaningful way and the 'Not my King' guff makes no real sense.

Overall I think we're a more colourful country with the monarchy than without them, and while the Queen's passing will almost certainly see a drop-off in the clout they carry I think going forward their presence will remain of benefit.

[ACLeith]

Definitely. An unelected head of state has no place in a modern democracy.

100%. When I started voting I also started thinking what democracy meant. I therefore became a republican more than 50 years ago and I've seen nothing since to make me consider changing my mind.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I agree to some extent with the first part of what you say and I think going forward we will see a more modern, stripped-back, slicker version of the monarchy. Kate (in particular) and William will be more attuned to that and will, I think, prove to be a popular king and queen - they certainly won't have as long to wait as Charles did to ascend to the throne.

I don't believe, though, that anyone is 'brainwashed' these days into thinking the royals are better than them. It's perfectly possible just to enjoy the spectacle that these unique occasions provide, nothing more. As unlikely royal buff Nick Cave said yesterday: "I'm here for the stupefying splendour. The awe-inspiring". The royals also bring more to the table than some give them credit for. They're terrific for tourism and all the associated spin-offs (employment being a key one) that brings, while initiatives like the Prince's Trust are first-class (essentially saved the life of a kid I used to work with). The 'unelected head of state' gripe carries little clout IMHO as the monarch's duties are purely ceremonial. He doesn't 'rule' us in any meaningful way and the 'Not my King' guff makes no real sense.

Overall I think we're a more colourful country with the monarchy than without them, and while the Queen's passing will almost certainly see a drop-off in the clout they carry I think going forward their presence will remain of benefit.

How has their presence benefited me?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Yes, but I don't believe the choice will ever be given and people will continue to be "loyal" to them regardless of the never ending weight of corruption. They truly are an anomaly where law and logic doesn't apply to them.

Funny thing is, those who preach "law and order" the most are the biggest advocates of these corrupt undemocratic institutions where law and order doesn't apply.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

No. If decisions like this go to a vote that never ends in a 100% opinion one way or the other. I would much rather keep the power dry and let it die on the vine of it's own accord. I would be surprised if the institution is still in place with any significant public funding when William's turn is over. I would happily talk about getting the Monarchy out of the Constitution and maybe it's time to revisit Magna Carta.

[Skol]

I don’t think I would abolish the monarchy, but I would like to see the set up significantly changed. Much of the wealth returned to the country, or countries from which it was plundered. Most of their properties become stately homes. Leave a trimmed down monarchy that is self sufficient but relies not a jot on the taxpayer.

[wookie70]

I'd abolish them and repossess everything they own. I would then allow them to claim benefits like any other citizen or get a job. They would be millionaires selling their stories anyway within a week. The PM would be the head of state and I would get rid of any hereditary titles and the House of Lords. I also think we should have a far more dynamic democracy where any decision a government made that wasn't explicitly in their manifesto would go to a public vote via the internet. We don't really have a democracy anymore as far as I can see as manifestos are routinely ignored and Parties don't have any conviction except the Tories who will change policy daily but will always have destroying public service, demonising the poor and those who are "different" and stealing as much from the public as possible as their underlying interest.

[grunt]

How has their presence benefited me?

It will be the same way that "being British" has benefitted you. In ways you don't know and cannot understand.

[grunt]

I also think we should have a far more dynamic democracy where any decision a government made that wasn't explicitly in their manifesto would go to a public vote via the internet.

I'm not so sure that's a good idea. The last time the UK public voted on something we got Brexit.

[wookie70]

I'm not so sure that's a good idea. The last time the UK public voted on something we got Brexit. They voted for it though and doubled down with electing Johnson. Truss and a complete change in the way the economy was going to be run never had any consent from citizens. I have no doubt I would be appalled at some of the decisions the general public would make but at least they would have chosen to be governed that way.

[Hibbyradge]

I'd be in favour, but the monarchy will never be abolished. It's significance, influence and size may reduce but no government would dare try to abolish it.

[Victor]

Totally irrelevant in this day and age. Perpetuating the belief that someone is better than someone else by reason of birth. A corrupt influence that permeates all aspects of our society. Dukes, Earls and all the other titles that have allowed people to amass and retain large amounts of money and property without having to do anything to earn it. Abolish titles and the House of Lords. Anyone who represents the UK should be elected and govern by the consent of the public. I don’t agree with the present British government but realise that they were voted in in a democratic process. The same can’t be said of our current Head of State and our second chamber.

[bod]

If they dug into their pockets, yesterday for a kick off & started to pay tax then they might be appreciated a little

[Bristolhibby]

Definitely. An unelected head of state has no place in a modern democracy.

This, especially one that is above the Law.

The king could murder someone and there is nothing we can legally do to punish him as in essence it would be the crown vs the crown.

J

[Pretty Boy]

I'd be in favour, but the monarchy will never be abolished. It's significance, influence and size may reduce but no government would dare try to abolish it.

Short to medium term you are spot on but it's hard to judge how society, demographics and public opinion will look in 50 or 60 years time. At the time of the coronation of Edward VII I doubt many thought the end of the British Empire as a dominant force was less than half a century away.

60 years from now not many people will have adult memories of the Queen and events that have become almost mythical in British society such as the silver jubilee will be out of living memory by a generation or more. That's before we factor in the inevitable displacement and death on a near unimaginable scale from climate change, the pressures that will put on counties across the globe and the public reaction to it and the impact it has on our lives.

I often think about how much the public mood and general national psyche has changed since the early 00s, a mere 20 years ago, and it feels perceptibly different. I wouldn't like to second guess what the public view or political demands will be 50-100 years from now. As we have moved into an increasingly secular world the imagery of a man being crowned as chosen by God already feels a lot less relevant or acceptable than it did 70 years ago. I imagine that will be heightened further when another 70 years passes.

[Kato]

We were an American divorcee away from having a full on nazi traitor as permanent head of state in the 30s. If Charles had died before William was born we would be "looking up" to a pedophile rapist. They would have been given more deference than the wisest poor person in the country.

Upside down and no lilputian pomposity can persuade me otherwise.

Saying that.

They ain't going anywhere. People seem to enjoy cowtowing and forelock touching to them, ignoring the enormous iniquity the insitition helps prop up.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Bostonhibby]

How has their presence benefited me?Don't know if it helps, but this weekend in deepest loyalist Tory England shire I've been assured the tourist cash they generate makes it all worthwhile.

I'm thinking Bastille day and Palace of Versailles with it's much greater access for the public wins the day?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

If they dug into their pockets, yesterday for a kick off & started to pay tax then they might be appreciated a little

Agreed... I don't even factor the military procession into it cost wise .. "we'd" be paying their wages anyway, it's just different training.

[J-C]

I wouldn't know where to start abolishing the Monarchy, it's not like we could do what the French did and have a revolution. I do feel it needs trimmed right back and made less important, maybe start by taking away a few of their palaces and castles, just how many do they need? And give away a lot of their land.

[weecounty hibby]

Tourism is more propaganda. There were five countries ahead of the uk in 2022 for tourist visits. France being top. Guess what they did to their royalty?!? I think Versailles was just about their top attraction too. An unused royal palace, maybe there is a lesson in all of that

[marinello59]

So what would we replace it with? An elected President? Or should the PM also be the official head of state?

[Pretty Boy]

So what would we replace it with? An elected President? Or should the PM also be the official head of state?

I'd probably go down the German route of having a president but they are largely ceremonial albeit with a few reserve powers (and fairly important ones too). It's probably a route to greater federalism and local accountability in the UK as well.

Tbh what we would do with the House of Lords is arguably more important from a day to day perspective. A lot was made of Charles signing the protest bill into law but he is obligated to do so, he has no power of veto and it's a far bigger constitutional crisis and abuse of democracy if he refused. The Lords may be unpalatable for a number of reasons but it plays a crucial part in the legislative process and it's work in 'sending back' bad legislation shouldn't be underestimated. In a country that regularly returns majority governments, often sizeable ones, then that upper house is crucial. It's also an advantage if the process doesn't allow an incumbent government to have serious majorities in both houses. The current system is imperfect but if the Tories were currently holding a majority in an elected upper house above the Commons then I'd find that far more worrying.

The parliamentary democracy of the UK is so linked to the history of the monarchy and the peers that simply abolishing them and thinking we could all just continue with our lives broadly as they are is fanciful. It would either require a total reworking of how we do democracy (possibly no bad thing) or similar structures put in place to allow lower house, upper house and then presidential input to all legislation.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

I'd be in favour, but the monarchy will never be abolished. It's significance, influence and size may reduce but no government would dare try to abolish it.

This is the stone cold reality of the situation. As an institution, it has to realise its' unfairness and eventually, its' irrelevance, and then die from the centre outwards.

[marinello59]

This is the stone cold reality of the situation. As an institution, it has to realise its' unfairness and eventually, its' irrelevance, and then die from the centre outwards.

I don’t think the day will ever come where they would pull the plug on themselves. It’s going to take a referendum at some point in the future but that will take a long period of campaigning to get. Chants at football grounds and posts on social media are all very well but they will achieve nothing. Anybody who wants to force change needs to get off their behinds and get involved with organisations such as Republic and help them become large scale movements with a very loud and powerful voice.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

I don’t think the day will ever come where they would pull the plug on themselves. It’s going to take a referendum at some point in the future but that will take a long period of campaigning to get. Chants at football grounds and posts on social media are all very well but they will achieve nothing. Anybody who wants to force change needs to get off their behinds and get involved with organisations such as Republic and help them become large scale movements with a very loud and powerful voice.


Would suggest that it will be more by erosion than implosion. The difference in public opinion towards the Monarchy at the coronation of Elizabeth II and Charles III is stark. Previously, it was close to treason to say anything off colour regards Royalty, but on the eve of this coronation, I heard the host of HIGNFY, call Prince Andrew, a Sweatty Nonce. Changed days, and they will keep on changing.

[marinello59]

Watching the Royals getting on down to Lionel Ritchie is absolutely hilarious. :greengrin

[danhibees1875]

Really enjoyed the concert- those drone displays were stunning too. There was a very well pit together drone montage at New Year during lockdown which was CGI driven, but I think these ones were real (?), and very cool.

[CallumLaidlaw]

Watching the Royals getting on down to Lionel Ritchie is absolutely hilarious. :greengrin

How awkward was Edward [emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Silversand]

Abolish.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[connerg]

If they dug into their pockets, yesterday for a kick off & started to pay tax then they might be appreciated a little

The two estate's they own (Lancaster and Cornwall), that we know of, made £41.8m last year. Business tax free and income tax free.

[Hibrandenburg]

Tourism is more propaganda. There were five countries ahead of the uk in 2022 for tourist visits. France being top. Guess what they did to their royalty?!? I think Versailles was just about their top attraction too. An unused royal palace, maybe there is a lesson in all of that

2019 before Corona.

[neil7908]

Get rid. The French had it right.

[Jones28]

The two estate's they own (Lancaster and Cornwall), that we know of, made £41.8m last year. Business tax free and income tax free.

They collectively own about 6 million acres of ground across the country - including real estate in central London. There was a great fact in Frankie Boyles show the other tonight that their most profitable venture is the rent paid by Apple for one of their shops in London.

I saw a post on Twitter yesterday about the state the Mall had been left in after the coronation, with tents abandoned and litter and **** lying all over the place. Someone underneath said the tents should be donated to the homeless. So we have a £250 million party for one of the richest people in the country, where some abandoned tents should then be donated to the homeless. It’s gross.

The time has come for us to ask what purpose do they serve? nick Cave blabbing on about splendour is all well and good, but splendour during a cost of living crises all to watch a 74 year old man get a hat out on his head just seems so out of step with how a modern monarchy should work. Tourism? Meh, people would come to see Buckingham palace regardless, these places are attractive enough and the history rich enough to attract tourists whether they’re occupied or not.

The House of Lords and peerage system is bizarre. The king signing off on government policy…for what exactly? It will be particularly pertinent now, because the king big on environment policy and the government are not. Will he sign off on things like coal mines or fracking?

It’s time the monarchy was stripped back and public money entirely withdrawn. The next time one of these mental ceremonies come around it should be funded entirely by the crowns revenue.

[greenginger]

Get rid. The French had it right.

And elect a dwarf dictator like Macron or maybe Le Penn. :greengrin

[Bostonhibby]

And elect a dwarf dictator like Macron or maybe Le Penn. :greengrin[emoji16]

The people, for and against do get to vote though where a country has an elected head of state.

In our country, the Fors get to have a piss up to celebrate and the Againsts get arrested and detained for preparing for a peaceful protest.

Some innocents actually just get swept of the streets by the arm of the state for the offence of handing out rape alarms, not a bad thing to have if you happen to have been policed by the Met historically.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

[emoji16]

The people, for and against do get to vote though where a country has an elected head of state.

In our country, the Fors get to have a piss up to celebrate and the Againsts get arrested and detained for preparing for a peaceful protest.

Some innocents actually just get swept of the streets by the arm of the state for the offence of handing out rape alarms, not a bad thing to have if you happen to have been policed by the Met historically.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

and in France the riot police treat you with respect ?

[Hibrandenburg]

And elect a dwarf dictator like Macron or maybe Le Penn. :greengrin

The monarchy didn't stop us getting lumbered with Johnson or that imbecile Truss.

[Pretty Boy]

[emoji16]

The people, for and against do get to vote though where a country has an elected head of state.

In our country, the Fors get to have a piss up to celebrate and the Againsts get arrested and detained for preparing for a peaceful protest.

Some innocents actually just get swept of the streets by the arm of the state for the offence of handing out rape alarms, not a bad thing to have if you happen to have been policed by the Met historically.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

That whole saga is increasingly bizarre. The Met put out a tweet saying they had intelligence that the rape alarms would be used to throw at the parade, deleted it then put out another tweet saying they were actually to disrupt the parade.

I'm no guerrilla strategist but if the above really was the case I can think of easier ways to distribute said 'weapons' than infiltrating a community group, volunteering for some time then walking the streets of London at 2am handing them out.

I'd have more respect for the Met if they just said 'we ****ed up and we are sorry. It was a busy weekend that presented operational challenges, it doesn't excuse the mistake but we hope it helps to explain it. sorry again'. This doubling down is just farcical and does little to help them repair their already tattered public image.

[greenginger]

The monarchy didn't stop us getting lumbered with Johnson or that imbecile Truss.

Maybe so , but getting rid of the monarchy doesn’t necessarily lead to a stable democracy.

Macron knows his changes to retirement age won’t get passed by the French parliament so he forces them through by Presidential decree.

Do you think our King/ Queen would give assent to laws that were not passed by Parliament.

[Bostonhibby]

and in France the riot police treat you with respect ?Nope, 2 wrongs don't make a right though, and I'm not sure they've ever inflicted on their citizens what some of the worst of the Met have.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[wookie70]

Maybe so , but getting rid of the monarchy doesn’t necessarily lead to a stable democracy.

Macron knows his changes to retirement age won’t get passed by the French parliament so he forces them through by Presidential decree.

Do you think our King/ Queen would give assent to laws that were not passed by Parliament.

But Macron is there because of Citizen's votes and his first born won't have the same rights transferred by birth.

Whether constitutional or ceremonial the monarchy is very expensive and serves no purpose. All of their wealth has been stolen from the citizens of the country in one way or another and having it just enforces the class system and emboldens those with birth rights. At the very least they should be subjected to the same tax as everyone else, particularly inheritance tax. If they can't afford the Palaces etc then they will have choices to make. No different to two kids who inherit the family home and have to pay taxes or are unable to afford to buy the other half of a house from siblings. They should also be subjected to every part of the law that citizens are and their standing legally should be exactly the same as every other citizen. The game is visibly rigged and I simply can't understand why anyone would want to persist with the way things are. The democratic rot starts at the Monarchy.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Heard on the Radio, that the monies "in" from all the Coronation linked events, is not likely to match the monies "out" to pay for it all, including the cost of lack of productivity with this extra Bank Holiday.

[greenlex]

2019 before Corona.
It could be argued the state we’d be in without them as the weather ain’t gonna attract tourists.

[danhibees1875]

Heard on the Radio, that the monies "in" from all the Coronation linked events, is not likely to match the monies "out" to pay for it all, including the cost of lack of productivity with this extra Bank Holiday.

That probably makes sense, especially if they're including productivity loss.

Nice to have a day off though. :greengrin

[Baldy Foghorn]

Scandalous amount of money spent this weekend, whilst in the midst of a cost of living crisis, people struggling to heat their homes or put food on the table. Get rid

[Bristolhibby]

That whole saga is increasingly bizarre. The Met put out a tweet saying they had intelligence that the rape alarms would be used to throw at the parade, deleted it then put out another tweet saying they were actually to disrupt the parade.

I'm no guerrilla strategist but if the above really was the case I can think of easier ways to distribute said 'weapons' than infiltrating a community group, volunteering for some time then walking the streets of London at 2am handing them out.

I'd have more respect for the Met if they just said 'we ****ed up and we are sorry. It was a busy weekend that presented operational challenges, it doesn't excuse the mistake but we hope it helps to explain it. sorry again'. This doubling down is just farcical and does little to help them repair their already tattered public image.

My mate and his wife are coppers and we’re over on Saturday.

What he said would happen is exactly what has happened.

Nick them, keep the impact low then say sorry afterwards with no charges brought.

It was outrageous. My mate was also scathing about the Met, and how out of control they are.

J

[overdrive]

There's a protest organised by Republic for next week's Honours of Scotland service (or Scottish Coronation if you like). I'm going along and attended the overview Zoom session last night.

https://www.republic.org.uk/royals_to_face_protests_in_edinburgh

If you plan on coming along, I'd encourage you to sign the pledge here so you get the benefit of any pre-protest info and details if plans change on the day:

https://www.republic.org.uk/protestpledge

[Hibernia&Alba]

Of course I would abolish it. I find it embarrassing we persist with a medieval pantomime. Superiority and subservience by accident of birth shouldn't be a thing in the twenty-first century.

[lyonhibs]

If you were designing a society from scratch, of course you wouldn't have 1 pre ordained family that got untold wealth and privilege based on who's fanny they popped out of. The current Tory government are a far greater problem though, and at least there's an existing route to abolishing them, however temporary that might be

[Smartie]

Emphatically and unequivocally, yes.

[makaveli1875]

Yes I would , its had its day .

[Bostonhibby]

I nearly said take our and previous generations wealth back and find them all proper jobs suited to their skills.

On reflection I'm sticking with the French revolution solution.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Dalianwanda]

Yes 100%

[Hibrandenburg]

If you divided the wealth of the Royal Family amongst every man, woman and child in the UK then they'd all get around £430 each. That would buy a lot of bunting and fund one hell of a street party.

[The Harp Awakes]

When Scotland becomes an independent country, they'll be toast shortly after, like snow off a dyke.

[Stairway 2 7]

When polled Scots are slightly for keeping in an independent county but close to 50 50. Its weighted to the older groups for keeping. Older people vote much much more though so it'll be a while before abolish would win a vote.

Also people for abolishing probably don't put it high up on the agenda, whilst it might harm votes especially with older groups.

I'm all for abolishing but also not high on my priority of thought

[Sloop67]

Rather than being abolished it needs to be reformed, Need to get rid of all the hangers on , IMHO there should be a head of state of state and his heir and there family, all the rest of them can do one as far as I'm concerned.

[Sylar]

Rather than being abolished it needs to be reformed, Need to get rid of all the hangers on , IMHO there should be a head of state of state and his heir and there family, all the rest of them can do one as far as I'm concerned.

I'll do it?

[s.a.m]

Rather than being abolished it needs to be reformed, Need to get rid of all the hangers on , IMHO there should be a head of state of state and his heir and there family, all the rest of them can do one as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not a fan, but can accept that the queen was dedicated, approached her role in good faith, and was considered to be a stable and dignified Head of State by many over a very long time.

However, if her uncle hadn't fallen in love with a divorcee, we'd have entered WW2 with a Nazi sympathiser at the helm. If Charles hadn't made it this far, we'd currently have King Andrew, with his 2 daughters following. I see the point you're making about a compromise solution, but a lifetime appointment through accident of birth seems arbitrary and dangerous to me.

I don't actually mind what they do with themselves or call themselves - quite happy for them to don their britches and robes and headline horse shows or open supermarkets or whatever, but I don't think they should be anywhere near the political establishment or government.

[ErinGoBraghHFC]

I'm not a fan, but can accept that the queen was dedicated, approached her role in good faith, and was considered to be a stable and dignified Head of State by many over a very long time.

However, if her uncle hadn't fallen in love with a divorcee, we'd have entered WW2 with a Nazi sympathiser at the helm. If Charles hadn't made it this far, we'd currently have King Andrew, with his 2 daughters following. I see the point you're making about a compromise solution, but a lifetime appointment through accident of birth seems arbitrary and dangerous to me.

I don't actually mind what they do with themselves or call themselves - quite happy for them to don their britches and robes and headline horse shows or open supermarkets or whatever, but I don't think they should be anywhere near the political establishment or government.

I think they should be on the end of spiky sticks personally, not least for their protection of handy Andy. I can understand why some folk like them, it’s a bit like theatre isn’t it? All the stupid costumes and the way they structure their sentences as if they’re a repressed Victorian housewife playing Yoda. It’s not for me though and I’d be happy to see them gone, as far as I’m concerned they’re no better than fat leaches on the common man and woman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibs90]

There are royalists out there who are completely bonkers. I swear they've got some sort of collective mental illness. Much in the same way the far right conspiracy nuts do.

[danhibees1875]

I wonder if RoyalFamily.net has an equivalent "would you abolish football?" thread - there'd probably be a reasonable amount of overlap to the answers. :greengrin

[HibbyDave]

When Scotland becomes an independent country, they'll be toast shortly after, like snow off a dyke.

Purely for balance and no offence intended:being a nationalist does not equal being a republican.
There are a great many people who would like an independent Scotland to retain loyalty to the crown or another crown like the Stuarts.

Just saying

[Smartie]

Purely for balance and no offence intended:being a nationalist does not equal being a republican.
There are a great many people who would like an independent Scotland to retain loyalty to the crown or another crown like the Stuarts.

Just saying

Not disagreeing with you as I know it to be true - I just find being pro independence and pro monarchy such a weird couple of beliefs to hold side by side.

[HibbyDave]

I guess it’s just a personal thing. For every Charlie there’s a Trump or President Humza maybe?

Each to their own.

[Betty Boop]

I guess it’s just a personal thing. For every Charlie there’s a Trump or President Humza maybe?

Each to their own.
President Humza jeez what a depressing thought.

[Scouse Hibee]

No GSTK

[Kato]

No GSTKNo god save the king for me either.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/358022130_586530470311509_7142070092141556421_n.jp g?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=106&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=1a9ptVet2OQAX8xfbvv&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfDJHjNsYGu7T1t0umECCYpLseeSAHzXpIaVNZ385SwG CQ&oe=64A9969C

[overdrive]

Purely for balance and no offence intended:being a nationalist does not equal being a republican.
There are a great many people who would like an independent Scotland to retain loyalty to the crown or another crown like the Stuarts.

Just saying

I’m the opposite. I’m not in any way pro-independence but I’m firmly anti-monarchy.

I’m not long back from today’s protest as part of the Republic Campaign. I stood with independence supporters today. Great day getting our point across peacefully. There was a small but aggressive pro-monarchy protest next to us which pretty much consisted of former UKIP candidates and Rangers fans judging by the songs and some of the chants. I’m not sure what they were protesting about other than against our right to have anti-monarchy protest.

Met some great folk, mostly other Republic Campaign supporters from the North of England which made the fact a few of the UKIP/Rangers mob screaming “you are just a SNP paedo protector” in their faces all the more deranged. That seemed to be their main argument: anti-monarchists are either paedophiles or “paedophile protectors”. Bizarre.

Have to say, I was nervous about how the police would behave given the Met’s antics in London but my worries didn’t come to anything. I thought they were spot on from what I saw.

[Ozyhibby]

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/358022130_586530470311509_7142070092141556421_n.jp g?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=106&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=1a9ptVet2OQAX8xfbvv&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfDJHjNsYGu7T1t0umECCYpLseeSAHzXpIaVNZ385SwG CQ&oe=64A9969C

No idea if they are associated with the Labour Party but if they are, Sir Keir will have them out in no time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/i_ammukhtar/status/1676576346472955906?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[overdrive]

https://twitter.com/i_ammukhtar/status/1676576346472955906?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brilliant. I’m on pretty much every news programme tonight as well :faf:

The best was Reporting Scotland where it faded from me to King Sausage Fingers himself.

Not too happy with the clip they showed of us on Channel 5. The reporter absolutely manipulated both us some Rangers fans to make it look like we were have an aggressive stand off when we weren’t (at that point) to get a good clip for the news

[He's here!]

The long-serving lollipop lady (now retiring) from the primary school I work at was in the people's parade today. Amazing lady so we took nearly 30 of the P7s down to cheer her on. It was good fun and Edinburgh's historic Royal Mile looked at its best in the sunshine. Red Arrows flypast was stunning.

Watched the service at St Giles later and thought Nicola Benedetti was the star of the show. An amazing talent.

Folk are entitled to their views but I thought it was a really good, colourful occasion which, similar to the way things were handled around thd Queen's passing, did Edinburgh and Scotland proud.

[DaveF]

Well done to overdrive and the others who attended the protest.

You brought a bit if sanity to my home city and did Edinburgh and Scotland proud.

Btw, is Chas planting a few trees to offset the over the top flying of umpteen planes just to pander to his ego?

[Keith_M]

The long-serving lollipop lady (now retiring) from the primary school I work at was in the people's parade today. Amazing lady so we took nearly 30 of the P7s down to cheer her on. It was good fun and Edinburgh's historic Royal Mile looked at its best in the sunshine. Red Arrows flypast was stunning.

Watched the service at St Giles later and thought Nicola Benedetti was the star of the show. An amazing talent.

Folk are entitled to their views but I thought it was a really good, colourful occasion which, similar to the way things were handled around thd Queen's passing, did Edinburgh and Scotland proud.


Surely they could do practically all that but without a monarch?



It's a bit like the claim that the monarchy is such a massive factor in bringing tourists to the UK. Here's some factoids for those that think it makes such a massive difference

Number of Foreign Tourist visits in 2019:

UK: 40.86 million
Germany: 39.56 million

This number fluctuates but the difference with Germany, which has had no monarchy for around 100 years, is surprisingly low (percentage wise).

[McSwanky]

The long-serving lollipop lady (now retiring) from the primary school I work at was in the people's parade today. Amazing lady so we took nearly 30 of the P7s down to cheer her on. It was good fun and Edinburgh's historic Royal Mile looked at its best in the sunshine. Red Arrows flypast was stunning.

Watched the service at St Giles later and thought Nicola Benedetti was the star of the show. An amazing talent.

Folk are entitled to their views but I thought it was a really good, colourful occasion which, similar to the way things were handled around thd Queen's passing, did Edinburgh and Scotland proud.

That all sounds lovely, but what's any of it got to do with the Royal Family? Is your reason for keeping them so that we have an excuse to have a celebration every now and again? The French, as an example, seem to manage that quite well without a Royal Family....

Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

That all sounds lovely, but what's any of it got to do with the Royal Family? Is your reason for keeping them so that we have an excuse to have a celebration every now and again? The French, as an example, seem to manage that quite well without a Royal Family....

Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk

To be fair if I knew a lollipop lady involved in the celebrations I’d be trying to justify keeping outdated, entitled, paid millions for **** all, posh folk that should never have been in their position in the first place on this ludicrous pedestal too.

[J-C]

Surely they could do practically all that but without a monarch?



It's a bit like the claim that the monarchy is such a massive factor in bringing tourists to the UK. Here's some factoids for those that think it makes such a massive difference

Number of Foreign Tourist visits in 2019:

UK: 40.86 million
Germany: 39.56 million

This number fluctuates but the difference with Germany, which has had no monarchy for around 100 years, is surprisingly low (percentage wise).

I'm sure I read that the Palace of Versailles is the most popular tourist attraction in Europe, if I remember rightly they cut the heads off their royalty many years ago.

[Bostonhibby]

Surely they could do practically all that but without a monarch?



It's a bit like the claim that the monarchy is such a massive factor in bringing tourists to the UK. Here's some factoids for those that think it makes such a massive difference

Number of Foreign Tourist visits in 2019:

UK: 40.86 million
Germany: 39.56 million

This number fluctuates but the difference with Germany, which has had no monarchy for around 100 years, is surprisingly low (percentage wise).Agreed.

Buckingham palace official tourist numbers when last recorded seem to be 3.85m

The Palace of Versailles was @ 10m, for example.

I dare say the palace of Versailles allows more access than Buckingham palace where they don't really want the folk who help pay for it poking around.

You don't need a bloated expensive monarchy to get tourists seems to be the message.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Edina Street]

OK, enough time has passed, so here's the chance to give your views.

As a direct democratic republican I 100% definitely voted "yes".

[Pretty Boy]

I stand by my previous argument that support for the late queen and support for the monarchy was often conflated, even in people's own heads, and as the 'Carolean era' gets into full swing the tide of public opinion will turn. Indeed it already has if you look at support (or lack thereof) for the monarchy among younger generations.

Very few people alive remember 'for king and country' and the (understandable) rallying point the royals became for many during and post WWII. Traditions change and the world changes. The queen ruled over dozens fewer countries on the day she died than she did on the day her father died. Charles will be the same, it would not surprise me if the day William becomes king his 'realms' consist of the UK (and who knows what that will look like in 10 or 20 years time) and not much else. Even the Canadians, Kiwis and Aussies don't seem to have much time for a monarchy now and they were never as exploited by the empire as other counties who have told them to bolt. The native populations were obviously but you get my drift re the dominant, immigrant population.

Things like yesterday and the coronation are a spectacle. They aren't totally out of step with comparable military parades elsewhere. However by their very nature they are propaganda. After every royal event there is a rise in support for them that drops off again as the memory of said spectacle fades.

The monarchy has long passed it's peak. It will persist in some form for a while yet but the ritual and symbolism we have seen in the last 10 months won't be seen again. in Spain and Scandinavia their remaining royals aren't crowned, they sign some documents in a suit and that's it. If we reach that point by William or even George then it's a step in the right direction. Demographics and the passage of time will do the rest.

[JeMeSouviens]

The long-serving lollipop lady (now retiring) from the primary school I work at was in the people's parade today. Amazing lady so we took nearly 30 of the P7s down to cheer her on. It was good fun and Edinburgh's historic Royal Mile looked at its best in the sunshine. Red Arrows flypast was stunning.

Watched the service at St Giles later and thought Nicola Benedetti was the star of the show. An amazing talent.

Folk are entitled to their views but I thought it was a really good, colourful occasion which, similar to the way things were handled around thd Queen's passing, did Edinburgh and Scotland proud.

I think pretty much everyone would be supportive of the talented musician and the dedicated lollipoper, it's the entitled leeches put there by accident of birth wearing regalia they haven't earned that people have a problem with.

[JeMeSouviens]

I stand by my previous argument that support for the late queen and support for the monarchy was often conflated, even in people's own heads, and as the 'Carolean era' gets into full swing the tide of public opinion will turn. Indeed it already has if you look at support (or lack thereof) for the monarchy among younger generations.

Very few people alive remember 'for king and country' and the (understandable) rallying point the royals became for many during and post WWII. Traditions change and the world changes. The queen ruled over dozens fewer countries on the day she died than she did on the day her father died. Charles will be the same, it would not surprise me if the day William becomes king his 'realms' consist of the UK (and who knows what that will look like in 10 or 20 years time) and not much else. Even the Canadians, Kiwis and Aussies don't seem to have much time for a monarchy now and they were never as exploited by the empire as other counties who have told them to bolt. The native populations were obviously but you get my drift re the dominant, immigrant population.

Things like yesterday and the coronation are a spectacle. They aren't totally out of step with comparable military parades elsewhere. However by their very nature they are propaganda. After every royal event there is a rise in support for them that drops off again as the memory of said spectacle fades.

The monarchy has long passed it's peak. It will persist in some form for a while yet but the ritual and symbolism we have seen in the last 10 months won't be seen again. in Spain and Scandinavia their remaining royals aren't crowned, they sign some documents in a suit and that's it. If we reach that point by William or even George then it's a step in the right direction. Demographics and the passage of time will do the rest.

The only hope they have of sticking around in the longer term is disagreement over a viable replacement. If people can be convinced they're not going to get a Pres Thatch/Blair/Whoever, they'll be gone sharpish.

[overdrive]

I stand by my previous argument that support for the late queen and support for the monarchy was often conflated, even in people's own heads, and as the 'Carolean era' gets into full swing the tide of public opinion will turn. Indeed it already has if you look at support (or lack thereof) for the monarchy among younger generations.

Very few people alive remember 'for king and country' and the (understandable) rallying point the royals became for many during and post WWII. Traditions change and the world changes. The queen ruled over dozens fewer countries on the day she died than she did on the day her father died. Charles will be the same, it would not surprise me if the day William becomes king his 'realms' consist of the UK (and who knows what that will look like in 10 or 20 years time) and not much else. Even the Canadians, Kiwis and Aussies don't seem to have much time for a monarchy now and they were never as exploited by the empire as other counties who have told them to bolt. The native populations were obviously but you get my drift re the dominant, immigrant population.

Things like yesterday and the coronation are a spectacle. They aren't totally out of step with comparable military parades elsewhere. However by their very nature they are propaganda. After every royal event there is a rise in support for them that drops off again as the memory of said spectacle fades.

The monarchy has long passed it's peak. It will persist in some form for a while yet but the ritual and symbolism we have seen in the last 10 months won't be seen again. in Spain and Scandinavia their remaining royals aren't crowned, they sign some documents in a suit and that's it. If we reach that point by William or even George then it's a step in the right direction. Demographics and the passage of time will do the rest.

Quite a few tourists came up to us yesterday and asked what the event was all about and what we were protesting. A young Swedish couple said that they had "similar crap" (their words) for their royals. Don't know if they didn't realise the extent of the pomp here.

I was surprised at the number of American tourists that showed their support for us as well. I assumed they mostly loved the royals. One couple even asked if they could get a placard and join in - and they did! "We celebrated yesterday getting rid of them 250 years ago, so anything we can do to help you do that too" was what they said.

[archie]

The only hope they have of sticking around in the longer term is disagreement over a viable replacement. If people can be convinced they're not going to get a Pres Thatch/Blair/Whoever, they'll be gone sharpish.

But isn't that the core of the issue - what do you replace the institution with? How does it interact with Westminster and the devolved administrations, what are their powers how is it elected etc. etc? How do you have a system that couldn't deliver a president Blair. And TBH, in a democracy, why shouldn't people have the right to vote for President Blair - or Truss!!!!?

[overdrive]

I think pretty much everyone would be supportive of the talented musician and the dedicated lollipoper, it's the entitled leeches put there by accident of birth wearing regalia they haven't earned that people have a problem with.

That was the bit I was a bit uncomfortable with yesterday - the booing of the guests by some of the anti-monarchy protestors. To be fair I think it might have been from some of the more fringe groups (one group next to me seemed to be one of these "free men" groups shouting conspiracy theories about HMRC, legislation, global masonic NWO, etc.) but there were folk wearing the yellow Republic t-shirts booing them too. If they had bothered to join the pre-protest Zoom call held by Republic last week, the organisers were very clear - do not boo or shout abuse at the guests in the people' parade. They are there for good community reasons and that's something that should be encouraged and celebrated (just not in the context of a royal event obviously). Not only that, they are people that could be persuaded to change their views on the monarchy and booing them wouldn't help with that.

It got a bit pantomime after the event when the guests were leaving. They'd get booed by "our" side and cheered by the Harthill mob with no teeth. I did chuckle as one guy that had come out of the service was walking past and they started to cheer. Quickly realised it was a RC priest and abruptly stopped cheering :greengrin:rolleyes:

[Pretty Boy]

But isn't that the core of the issue - what do you replace the institution with? How does it interact with Westminster and the devolved administrations, what are their powers how is it elected etc. etc? How do you have a system that couldn't deliver a president Blair. And TBH, in a democracy, why shouldn't people have the right to vote for President Blair - or Truss!!!!?

We don't need fundamental overhaul of the system whereby we hand loads of powers to a president. We could have a system like Germany where the President has very limited powers and the real power lies with the Bundestag and Chancellor. Or we could just drop the need for royal assent altogether, which is archaic and a relic of another age, and make the PM head of state with a continuation of an upper house as a balance.

The bigger issue for me is reform of the Lord's. It serves an important purpose but the unelected nature of it means that is often overlooked and it is open to unwarranted criticism. I'd point to Archbishop Welby's intervention this week in the immigration bill as evidence that it is crucial for tackling bad legislation. The elected members of the Commons can still overturn his amendments that were voted in by the Lord's but it at least forces a debate on a clear humanitarian plan.

Any reform of the constitutional structure presents issues but none of it is unworkable. The number of countries that used to have a monarchy and now don't is proof of that.

[overdrive]

But isn't that the core of the issue - what do you replace the institution with? How does it interact with Westminster and the devolved administrations, what are their powers how is it elected etc. etc? How do you have a system that couldn't deliver a president Blair. And TBH, in a democracy, why shouldn't people have the right to vote for President Blair - or Truss!!!!?

I had a wee disagreement with one of the people I was standing with who said that the only valid argument pro-monarchy supporters have is "but we don't want a President Blair, Johnson or Trump". My response to that was "at least you can vote out Trump". She replied "but as you saw, you can't vote out people like Trump". Eh? He most definitely got voted out. He might get voted back in and did try some illegal tactics to stop himself getting punted (that didn't work) but that's a different matter. If that's who gets democratically voted in, so be-it.

A president doesn't necessarily need huge political powers anyway and could be more ceremonial. The presidents of Ireland, Germany, etc. are not the main holder of power in their countries. I think a lot of people get worried because of the American system where the President is the head of state and head of government. That's at one extreme. Ireland is probably towards the other extreme.

[archie]

We don't need fundamental overhaul of the system whereby we hand loads of powers to a president. We could have a system like Germany where the President has very limited powers and the real power lies with the Bundestag and Chancellor. Or we could just drop the need for royal assent altogether, which is archaic and a relic of another age, and make the PM head of state with a continuation of an upper house as a balance.

The bigger issue for me is reform of the Lord's. It serves an important purpose but the unelected nature of it means that is often overlooked and it is open to unwarranted criticism. I'd point to Archbishop Welby's intervention this week in the immigration bill as evidence that it is crucial for tackling bad legislation. The elected members of the Commons can still overturn his amendments that were voted in by the Lord's but it at least forces a debate on a clear humanitarian plan.

Any reform of the constitutional structure presents issues but none of it is unworkable. The number of countries that used to have a monarchy and now don't is proof of that.

I think the reform of the HoL and the monarchy are related issues. There's lots of chat about get rid, but it's the detail of what (if anything) they are replaced by. I get your defence of the HoL, but for me that means that we need a second chamber, just not this one. I agree that none of it is unworkable, but we do need a serious debate about what we want. BTW, I was surprised to see that there are 12 monarchys in Europe - still!

[JeMeSouviens]

But isn't that the core of the issue - what do you replace the institution with? How does it interact with Westminster and the devolved administrations, what are their powers how is it elected etc. etc? How do you have a system that couldn't deliver a president Blair. And TBH, in a democracy, why shouldn't people have the right to vote for President Blair - or Truss!!!!?

There are obviously 2 parts to replacing the RF (without getting into fundamentally changing the entire UK constitution from the ground up, which tbh sounds like a plan to me!):

1. accepting the principle of an elected HoS and thus the end of the RF
2. coming up with a replacement

I think too often campaigners focus on (1) but would actually find that much easier when they have done (2).

My answer would be that people seem happy with a "celebrity" apolitical HoS whose primary role is ceremonial and who hangs around for a lengthy period of time, so stick with that. Elect somebody new every 20 years or so or on death of the incumbent but with a recall option by petition of say 10M, to get rid of the extreme disaster case of any Savilles/Rolfs etc. No "family". They get to use apartments within existing royal palaces which are otherwise opened up to the public. Duties as per the existing monarch, wave a bit, cut some ribbons, represent the state abroad.

Obvs if people want a Blair or Truss to fulfil that role then fine but my idea would be someone of "national treasure" status, David Attenborough, Judi Dench kind of thing.

[Smartie]

But isn't that the core of the issue - what do you replace the institution with? How does it interact with Westminster and the devolved administrations, what are their powers how is it elected etc. etc? How do you have a system that couldn't deliver a president Blair. And TBH, in a democracy, why shouldn't people have the right to vote for President Blair - or Truss!!!!?

I always find this a bit of a non-argument - not saying it would necessarily be straightforward but with a bit of work and thought, and examination of the hundreds of examples around the world of countries who have gone there before us, I don’t think an appropriate solution is beyond us.

We are blighted by several institutions in the UK which are centuries past their sell by dates and drastically need reform for the UK to emerge as a modern 21st century nation - the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Royal Family.

To drag it back to one of our favourite subjects - appropriately radical reform of these institutions and many of my reasons for favouring Scottish independence cease to exist.

[JeMeSouviens]

I always find this a bit of a non-argument - not saying it would necessarily be straightforward but with a bit of work and thought, and examination of the hundreds of examples around the world of countries who have gone there before is, I don’t think an appropriate solution is beyond us.

We are blighted by several institutions in the UK which are centuries past their sell by dates and drastically need reform for the UK to emerge as a modern 21st century nation - the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Royal Family.

To drag it back to one of our favourite subjects - appropriately radical reform of these institutions and many of my reasons for favouring Scottish independence cease to exist.

Combined with a radical decentralisation of the UK, mine too.

[archie]

I always find this a bit of a non-argument - not saying it would necessarily be straightforward but with a bit of work and thought, and examination of the hundreds of examples around the world of countries who have gone there before is, I don’t think an appropriate solution is beyond us.

We are blighted by several institutions in the UK which are centuries past their sell by dates and drastically need reform for the UK to emerge as a modern 21st century nation - the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Royal Family.

To drag it back to one of our favourite subjects - appropriately radical reform of these institutions and many of my reasons for favouring Scottish independence cease to exist.

Except if there was a referendum on it there would need to be clarity on what the replacement was. In Australia the pro-monarchy side managed to create doubt in voters minds.

[He's here!]

I think pretty much everyone would be supportive of the talented musician and the dedicated lollipoper, it's the entitled leeches put there by accident of birth wearing regalia they haven't earned that people have a problem with.

The people's parade and the performances in St Giles were part of the same event though? It's not as if those in the parade/performing were there under duress. They could presumably have declined to attend if they had any issues with it but those we met in the parade were chuffed to be part of it and Benedetti said she was honoured to perform.

For many, including our party, it was just a good day out.

[JeMeSouviens]

The people's parade and the performances in St Giles were part of the same event though? It's not as if those in the parade/performing were there under duress. They could presumably have declined to attend if they had any issues with it but those we met in the parade were chuffed to be part of it and Benedetti said she was honoured to perform.

For many, including our party, it was just a good day out.

I'm sure they were but that's not the point. The point is that if the event was the same but without the hereditary monarchy then almost everybody could support it whereas, as it is, a significant proportion (up to half-ish?) of the population currently finds it unacceptable and ignores it or protests.

[He's here!]

I stand by my previous argument that support for the late queen and support for the monarchy was often conflated, even in people's own heads, and as the 'Carolean era' gets into full swing the tide of public opinion will turn. Indeed it already has if you look at support (or lack thereof) for the monarchy among younger generations.

Very few people alive remember 'for king and country' and the (understandable) rallying point the royals became for many during and post WWII. Traditions change and the world changes. The queen ruled over dozens fewer countries on the day she died than she did on the day her father died. Charles will be the same, it would not surprise me if the day William becomes king his 'realms' consist of the UK (and who knows what that will look like in 10 or 20 years time) and not much else. Even the Canadians, Kiwis and Aussies don't seem to have much time for a monarchy now and they were never as exploited by the empire as other counties who have told them to bolt. The native populations were obviously but you get my drift re the dominant, immigrant population.

Things like yesterday and the coronation are a spectacle. They aren't totally out of step with comparable military parades elsewhere. However by their very nature they are propaganda. After every royal event there is a rise in support for them that drops off again as the memory of said spectacle fades.

The monarchy has long passed it's peak. It will persist in some form for a while yet but the ritual and symbolism we have seen in the last 10 months won't be seen again. in Spain and Scandinavia their remaining royals aren't crowned, they sign some documents in a suit and that's it. If we reach that point by William or even George then it's a step in the right direction. Demographics and the passage of time will do the rest.

I think that's a fair point. Due to the Queen's longevity, Charles and Camilla have come to the throne too old to be embraced in the way the young Queen was. Had there been a way of William and Kate being her successors I think we'd see a far more stripped-down, modern style of monarchy evolve. I used to know a couple of the folk involved in the Tillydrone Community homelessness project when I worked in Aberdeen and it was interesting to see them talk last month about the way William's visit saw much more noticeable engagement with those in attendance than similar visits by local MPs/MSPs. He and Kate are far more integral to the future of the monarchy than Charles.

[Moulin Yarns]

I accept that the royal family are a tourist attraction, and as such should earn their income the same way as the camera obscura.

[McSwanky]

The people's parade and the performances in St Giles were part of the same event though? It's not as if those in the parade/performing were there under duress. They could presumably have declined to attend if they had any issues with it but those we met in the parade were chuffed to be part of it and Benedetti said she was honoured to perform.

For many, including our party, it was just a good day out.I'm not sure you're post really adds anything to the debate on whether we should abolish the monarchy or not. I get that you all had a lovely time, but would you not be capable of having a lovely time without the Royal Family being involved?

I'm sure Nicola Benedetti has been 'honoured' to play at many events, not all of them organised on behalf of an unelected head of state at the expense of the tax payer....

Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

I'm not sure you're post really adds anything to the debate on whether we should abolish the monarchy or not. I get that you all had a lovely time, but would you not be capable of having a lovely time without the Royal Family being involved?

I'm sure Nicola Benedetti has been 'honoured' to play at many events, not all of them organised on behalf of an unelected head of state at the expense of the tax payer....

Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk

I'd disagree tbf.

HH has his reasons for keeping the monarchy, feels that without them the "framework" of his day oot would have been different and is happy with what they provide for what we need to contribute.

I probably couldn't disagree with his position more but I think he's absolutely right to have his opinion and to put it down here to be shot down.

It's important that both sides have their say - even when it boils down to sentiments like "I just like them" or vaguer stuff to do with identity.

[overdrive]

I'm not sure you're post really adds anything to the debate on whether we should abolish the monarchy or not. I get that you all had a lovely time, but would you not be capable of having a lovely time without the Royal Family being involved?

I'm sure Nicola Benedetti has been 'honoured' to play at many events, not all of them organised on behalf of an unelected head of state at the expense of the tax payer....

Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk

I think too many other issues get tangled in the issue of whether we should have a monarchy or not.

It’s great to recognise people’s achievements in a people’s parade and service. Does an event linked to the RF need to drive that? No.

A lot of the pro-monarchy folks’ retort to our chants of “what a waste of money” was that the Scottish Parliament is a bigger waste of money (specifically Sturgeon/Humza waste money). Well depending on your view, that might be the case (I don’t happen to agree) but it is a completely separate issue not linked to the monarchy.

“You are all just anti English, anti Britain, pro independence [insert expletives] that’s the only reason you are anti monarchy”… funny, the people you are directing this to… me and the folk I was standing beside. Two were Scottish and pro Indy, you had me who is Scottish and anti-Indy and 3/4 people from the North of England. Independence is a separate issue. One that might end the monarchy in Scotland but equally one that might not. I think Sturgeon was pro-monarchy. Humza isn’t. The protest was organised by a largely English based organisation who won’t give two hoots about independence (admittedly in conjunction with Our Republic which is Scottish and I think pro-Indy).

“Think of all the work they do doing trade deals” - well other countries do trade deal that don’t have a royal family.

And it goes on and on.

[McSwanky]

I'd disagree tbf.

HH has his reasons for keeping the monarchy, feels that without them the "framework" of his day oot would have been different and is happy with what they provide for what we need to contribute.

I probably couldn't disagree with his position more but I think he's absolutely right to have his opinion and to put it down here to be shot down.

It's important that both sides have their say - even when it boils down to sentiments like "I just like them" or vaguer stuff to do with identity.

I'm fine with people having their say, but for me the post was akin to someone showing you their holiday snaps in the middle of a work presentation. Didn't feel it was relevant to the debate in the slightest.

That, of course, is just my opinion, and I'm happy to put it here to be shot down! [emoji16]

Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

hope wee chic saw this one

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/358468679_753111116816687_7407922842933589300_n.jp g?_nc_cat=101&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=aMFdNpL6yjIAX9-Wb6n&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfA-o3gJooGx3p-lefdmIo3pl91ji9k1nmIf1aL6e04Iiw&oe=64AB0B1F

[Stairway 2 7]

Andy Wightman has been doing some great work uncovering who owns Scotlands land and buildings, its well worth going through his other posts. He's got too corkers here on the royals stealing buildings at Holyrood. Also questions why historic Scotland spends more than a million a year maintaining Holyrood but doesn't get a penny back from tickets
https://andywightman.scot/2023/07/who-owns-the-palace-of-holyroodhouse-part-1/

https://andywightman.scot/2023/07/the-palace-of-holyroodhouse-part-2-the-strange-case-of-abbey-strand/

[lapsedhibee]

https://andywightman.scot/2023/07/who-owns-the-palace-of-holyroodhouse-part-1/

https://andywightman.scot/2023/07/the-palace-of-holyroodhouse-part-2-the-strange-case-of-abbey-strand/

Great stuff that.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/status/1682147786559483926?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

They are getting pricey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ErinGoBraghHFC]

https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/status/1682147786559483926?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

They are getting pricey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing to see here, do up your tie and sing the national anthem


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Not sure how it can be considered a "pay rise". Don't you normally have to do some kind of work to receive a pay packet?

[ErinGoBraghHFC]

Not sure how it can be considered a "pay rise". Don't you normally have to do some kind of work to receive a pay packet?

Oh they do lots of work, if you count shaking the sticky hands of school kids and going on holiday to exotic locations as work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

Yes, 100%.

Nobody should be above the Law In a democracy. The King could murder someone in the streets and legally nothing can be done about it.

Madness.

J

[Bostonhibby]

Oh they do lots of work, if you count shaking the sticky hands of school kids and going on holiday to exotic locations as work.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThey also have to undergo an intensive training course to master smiling at plebs and memorise a script that asks "and what do you do?"

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Northernhibee]

It’s an interesting one and something I’ve thought about for some time. Initially my thoughts were absolutely to abolish the monarchy, but I can see a purpose it political neutrality can be assured and the role is given more importance rather than the ceremonial and diplomatic one that it is now.

Since the House of Lords has been packed full of the likes of Mone, Bailey, Lebedev, and lots of other Tory cronies, it’s losing its purpose. I actually think the HoL did a good job in amongst a lot of the worst of the Brexit and Rwanda legislation, stopping some of the most damaging ERG indulgences but it doesn’t fill me full of confidence that any PM can stuff the Lords full of their pals and in a world that seems to be embracing political extremes more and more, I don’t think that we can count on it doing it’s purpose long term.

If neutrality was assured and power to stop or change legislation that broke certain rules was implemented (I.e. law that breaks international agreements, given the Tories disdain in recent times for the GFA) or the power to force a by election for certain things (a serious breach of ministerial code, a criminal conviction, elongated absence from the HoC) then I could see a value there.

It’ll never happen and there would need to be safeguards in place to ensure that the protocol for this was set in stone and not possible to corrupt or deviate from, but thats an instance I could see it being of benefit.

[Kato]

£85 million not enough. Makes sense given they have their luxury homes to look after, stables to tend to, and pedophile-ring victims to pay compensation to.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

Oh they do lots of work, if you count shaking the sticky hands of school kids and going on holiday to exotic locations as work.




They also have to undergo an intensive training course to master smiling at plebs and memorise a script that asks "and what do you do?"


Always makes me think of an episode of Dinner Ladies ('Royals')

27033

[Jones28]

£50m extra to do up a palace the King doesn't live in.


Mind blowing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DiL_E2-Ovs

[JimBHibees]

£85 million not enough. Makes sense given they have their luxury homes to look after, stables to tend to, and pedophile-ring victims to pay compensation to.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/20/king-charles-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Genuinely sickening.

[lapsedhibee]

Genuinely sickening.

Looting. Everywhere. Not by black youths in Brixton from shop fronts, though, so not a big deal.

[Kato]

Looting. Everywhere. Not by black youths in Brixton from shop fronts, though, so not a big deal.In the UK it's a tradition ( a tradition being a rule made up by some dead geezers ) that monarchs should loot and plunder.

The UK likes it this way.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

It’s an interesting one and something I’ve thought about for some time. Initially my thoughts were absolutely to abolish the monarchy, but I can see a purpose it political neutrality can be assured and the role is given more importance rather than the ceremonial and diplomatic one that it is now.

Since the House of Lords has been packed full of the likes of Mone, Bailey, Lebedev, and lots of other Tory cronies, it’s losing its purpose. I actually think the HoL did a good job in amongst a lot of the worst of the Brexit and Rwanda legislation, stopping some of the most damaging ERG indulgences but it doesn’t fill me full of confidence that any PM can stuff the Lords full of their pals and in a world that seems to be embracing political extremes more and more, I don’t think that we can count on it doing it’s purpose long term.

If neutrality was assured and power to stop or change legislation that broke certain rules was implemented (I.e. law that breaks international agreements, given the Tories disdain in recent times for the GFA) or the power to force a by election for certain things (a serious breach of ministerial code, a criminal conviction, elongated absence from the HoC) then I could see a value there.

It’ll never happen and there would need to be safeguards in place to ensure that the protocol for this was set in stone and not possible to corrupt or deviate from, but thats an instance I could see it being of benefit.

A properly thought out constitution could see a non-executive apolitical president fulfil the functions you mention.

[Keith_M]

I was just reading up on what 'The Crown Estate' is, and how it functions, and find the whole thing totally appalling.

The vast areas of land and assets owned by the Crown estate is unbelievable, and it is deliberately not described as being 'owned' by the Monarch, apparently to avoid too much scrutiny as to why the hell it doesn't belong to the people of the UK.

The income from the Crown Estate is (technically) part of the public purse, but the deal is that it is traded off against the vast sums of money the taxpayer then gives in return to the Royal Family.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/19/cash-and-the-crown-estate-a-look-at-the-british-monarchys-funding-deal


Keep in mind that this is aside from the massive number of assets directly owned by the Royal Family. e.g. Sandringham and Balmoral.

King Charles' personal assets are estimated to be worth £ 1.8 billion

[Glory Lurker]

I was just reading up on what 'The Crown Estate' is, and how it functions, and find the whole thing totally appalling.

The vast areas of land and assets owned by the Crown estate is unbelievable, and it is deliberately not described as being 'owned' by the Monarch, apparently to avoid too much scrutiny as to why the hell it doesn't belong to the people of the UK.

The income from the Crown Estate is (technically) part of the public purse, but the deal is that it is traded off against the vast sums of money the taxpayer then gives in return to the Royal Family.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/19/cash-and-the-crown-estate-a-look-at-the-british-monarchys-funding-deal


Keep in mind that this is aside from the massive number of assets directly owned by the Royal Family. e.g. Sandringham and Balmoral.

King Charles' personal assets are estimated to be worth £ 1.8 billion

Aye, what's in a name? Call it the Citizens' Fund and suddenly it being a slush account for the royals becomes unarguably inappropriate.

[Pretty Boy]

Why is Chuck in Edinburgh at the moment?

Notice the standard was flying at Holyrood this morning and there were Police milling about all round the walls.

[danhibees1875]

Why is Chuck in Edinburgh at the moment?

Notice the standard was flying at Holyrood this morning and there were Police milling about all round the walls.

Prince Edward is in Edinburgh, could it have been for that as opposed to Charles?

[Pretty Boy]

Prince Edward is in Edinburgh, could it have been for that as opposed to Charles?

Possibly. I thought it was the King's standard that was flying but a quick Google suggests Eddie's standard is almost exactly the same.

[Kato]

Possibly. I thought it was the King's standard that was flying but a quick Google suggests Eddie's standard is almost exactly the same.That's handy that they all have different flags telling us whether they are in the hoose or not. So fascinating. [emoji849]

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

That's handy that they all have different flags telling us whether they are in the hoose or not.


:agree: Saves visitors wasting their time standing knocking the hundreds-year-old doorknocker if they're not in. Just good manners, or possibly breeding.

[Kato]

:agree: Saves visitors wasting their time standing knocking the hundreds-year-old doorknocker if they're not in. Just good manners, or possibly breeding.Handy for Amazon deliveries, Uber Eats, sex-traffickers.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Bostonhibby]

Handy for Amazon deliveries, Uber Eats, sex-traffickers.

Sent from my SM-A528B using TapatalkAnd photos in the doorway with young girls you have definitely never met before?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Pagan Hibernia]

It’s interesting that the results of this poll aren’t dissimilar to the one on Scottish independence.

[cabbageandribs1875]

it's quite baffling why 16 see fit to vote keep, in the 21st century for the love of god

[TrumpIsAPeado]

it's quite baffling why 16 see fit to vote keep, in the 21st century for the love of god

While many of us view them as an enemy of democracy and the symbol of a bygone era, others view them as a nice wee day out for waving flags and getting teary eyed over a family that wouldn't give them a 1st thought, never mind a 2nd.

[Pagan Hibernia]

it's quite baffling why 16 see fit to vote keep, in the 21st century for the love of god

some people just love the pomp and ceremony and tradition and regalia.

it’s certainly not for me but people will always like different things I suppose

[ErinGoBraghHFC]

I wouldn’t abolish the monarchy anymore I’d just change who the king is. To Dylan Vente.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/skynewsbreak/status/1693553261301715171?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

I’m shocked at this turn of events.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

https://x.com/skynewsbreak/status/1693553261301715171?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

I’m shocked at this turn of events.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkA member of the Royal cannot be guilty of anything ever at all, dems the rules.

Until they've been dead for 40 years ish, that is Then it is reported as a juicy detail in some rotten documentary in order to convey the idea that they were a "character".

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

I wouldn’t abolish the monarchy anymore I’d just change who the king is. To Dylan Vente.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


David Gray, surely.

[JimBHibees]

Handy for Amazon deliveries, Uber Eats, sex-traffickers.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

:faf:

[cabbageandribs1875]

received this E-mail from the group Republic

Can you believe it? The Met police have dropped an investigation into accusations Charles was exchanging honours for cash - yet they haven't even spoken to Charles once.

In 2021 the Sunday Times published a letter from Charles's closest aide, Michael Fawcett, in which he offered a Middle Eastern donor help in acquiring an honour in exchange for a large donation to one of Charles's charities. That charity in turn spent money on Charles's own private home, Dumfries House.
It's a criminal offence to offer honours in exchange for donations. So I reported Charles and Fawcett to the police.
Now the police have decided to do nothing. Yet the evidence was fairly clear. Here's that letter:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/republic/mailings/488/attachments/original/fawcett.jpg?1692638976


The police have questions to answerThe Met police also said nothing when Charles accepted millions of euros in cash from a Qatari politician, and did nothing when Virginia Roberts reported Andrew to the police.
We need an urgent inquiry into the Met's relationship with the royals.

[cabbageandribs1875]

British TV ‘allowed monarchy to censor coverage of king’s coronation’ (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/british-tv-allowed-monarchy-to-censor-coverage-of-king-s-coronation/ar-AA1gJb4j?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9e213a462c674aa6828e346905b33ecd&ei=25)

[Kato]

British TV ‘allowed monarchy to censor coverage of king’s coronation’ (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/british-tv-allowed-monarchy-to-censor-coverage-of-king-s-coronation/ar-AA1gJb4j?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9e213a462c674aa6828e346905b33ecd&ei=25)The state has always stage managed the publics view of any monarchy, going back to whatever time you care to imagine.

It's all theatre, a story about power.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

Do we get discuss the reaction to our glorious 'National Anthem' at the game on Tuesday?

:wink:

[cabbageandribs1875]

grand hall in buck's palace this afternoon, only got a few minutes but still :) auld sausage fingers will be raging

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/republic/mailings/514/attachments/original/Photo.jpg?1695476905

[Stairway 2 7]

grand hall in buck's palace this afternoon, only got a few minutes but still :) auld sausage fingers will be raging

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/republic/mailings/514/attachments/original/Photo.jpg?1695476905

The space after no is annoying me for some reason ha but good on them

[Keith_M]

Interesting (and amusing) article from David Mitchell in the Guardian


Let’s hear it for England’s royals – and centuries of incompetence, criminality and failure (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/24/england-royals-history-kings-queens-david-mitchell-unruly-book-tour)

For whatever reason, he's restricted it to pre-18th century royalty, but certainly some lessons learned on the forebears of our glorious royal family.

[Kato]

Have a royal family means having to put up with this type of farce.


https://twitter.com/PandaScottish/status/1707158003013599358?t=1wrAqGc-j7sH_Jd1f-GVeQ&s=19

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[1875godsgift]

Have a royal family means having to put up with this type of farce.


https://twitter.com/PandaScottish/status/1707158003013599358?t=1wrAqGc-j7sH_Jd1f-GVeQ&s=19

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Wouldn't it be a shame if the sword slipped?

[Stairway 2 7]

Good on Harry for going after these ****bags. Quite shocking whistle blowing from a news of the world reporter

https://bylineinvestigates.com/2023/10/12/confessions-of-a-news-of-the-world-reporter-whistleblowing-for-prince-harry/