Royalist or republican?

Question

I mean "republican" in the general sense, not the US political party.

Question aimed especially at those countries that still have Her Maj (our very own Brenda) as Head of State. Would you ditch or keep the constitutional monarchy? Why? If ditch, what would you put in its place?

...and for the record could you say which country you are speaking about?

Answer 1

The Queen gives the benefit of her estate to the government of Britain which is far in excess of the Civil List which is the money she gets each year.

Whilst there are problems with the monarchy such as the Queen managers to get an opt out of most law and therefore her staff are not protected to the same extent as the law provides for other people. I also understand the wages paid are much lower than that paid to people in similar jobs elsewhere.

But and it is a big BUT, who or what would you replace the monarchy with. There is hardly a politician out there who has not been tainted in some way.

Look at the problems created with the American Presidency and Congress that actually prevents and severly delays needed legislation. The bill to pay Government employees has been delayed so severely a number of times in recent years that staff have been flown back to the States from American bases and embassies abroad.

It also seems significant that European countries that retain a monarchy appear much safer, laid back and sensible.

I think there few people of any political persuasion that would fancy Tony Blair as a president or any other parties politicians so where does that leave this question?

Answer 2

Keep the constitutional monarchy. It's the most egalitarian method of having a head of state 'coz you cannot buy your way there. If there was no Queen we'd have some other (ambitous) member of the ruling elite head the country. I mean look at the US with it's Bushes and Kennedys. I'd rather have a reluctant old bird in a headscarf, anyday.

I am British, and live in India run by...the Gandhis ( whom I actually quite like ..the exception to the rule ) but most of the other politicos are from a self interested ruling elite.

Answer 3

What does Queen Lizzie do? Attract tourists, open buildings and is a figurehead.

What would we replace her with, either a President with no power, drawing a massive salary, needing new offices, and not being trained for life by advisers so could be negative, doesn't bring in tourists.

OR President with power, which government would relinquish power? We could end up with a power Hungry **** who is headstrong with aggressive foreign policies like Bush or Hitler.

Answer 4

I say keep them, at least they can keep the Royalists amused and they do bring in a bit of revenue for the country, they have at least started paying for things now instead of getting freebies all the time, I like the Royals, it makes us liked more by certain other countries (like the USA). I hope I've made sense, sorry if I haven't.

Answer 5

Tegid Foel, Kilkenny! I am a brazenly proud republican. Unionists are gutter snipe little school girls hiding under the protection of the monarchy's apron. Taking refuge with those that attempted to starve their entire nation seems better suited to the definition of collaborator doesn't it!

Answer 6

I am proud to live in a constitutional monarchy (Canada) I mean hell There's precious little else keeping us from becoming Yanks these days GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

Answer 7

republican . ditch the queen we don't need her . what does she do anyway . lets have a president that we all vote for. UK mate sorry queen Liz the 2nd

Answer 8

ditch as thay cost us money replace with president

Answer 9

Keep the royal dudes and dudettes, they bring in tourists and tourists brings money.