do u think england should be a republic?

Answer 1

yes all countries should be a republic
why any one wants to be ruled by a king or queen is beyond me.
look how much it costs to keep them the are the biggest waste of money ever.
in england you have a fair idea who will sit in the throne for the next 100 years. do you not think you should decide who is the head of your country.

Answer 2

Yes, absolutely and definitely. It's a matter of very basic principle.

It doesn't matter who the Royal Family might be or what qualities they may or may not have, we should be citizens and not subjects of the Crown. We are supposed to live in a society based upon equality and merit. Royalty sends exactly the opposite message - that society should respect, subsidise and even venerate people because of mere accident of birth. This does not reflect the values we should have as a society.

I've no particular objections to the Royal Family as people - I think there is no point to their role is all. As for the tourism point, I think this is overplayed. The evidence of our heritage would not disappear and very few tourists come here to see the Royal Family ' in action '. Trooping the Colour maybe, but beyond that ?Any country has a responsibility to respect its history and, if we become a republic, we should maintain historical sites associated with royalty. These would no doubt be big tourist draws. Incidentally I've met any number of tourists in a professional capacity down the years and rarely has the Royal Family seemed a major draw from what they have said.

As to what happens politically in a republic, it might actually be a chance to make some improvements. Somebody's already pointed out that the Queen has only a symbolic role in our constitution - powers are exercised by politicians in her name. For those who don't fancy the idea of President Blair - sorry, time to wake up, the British Prime Minister already holds significantly greater power than most elected Presidents in democratic countries which use the term. He controls the Cabinet, his party control the House of Commons and, when push comes to shove, the House of Lords can only delay passage of laws the Commons insist upon. He has very significant powers for a democratic leader and calling him a President instead of a Prime Minister makes no difference to that.

Personal opinion is with the Royal Family goes the House of Lords for the same reasons and we move to a fully elected second chamber with powers to prevent the kind of bad law making we currently get from the Commons ( another name that has to change ! ) No actual need for a President but if we have to have one then popular direct vote for a figurehead position. My vote goes to 'Boabby the Barman ' in Still Game - what an ambassador for the country.

Anyway we need to be a republic - sometimes the symbolism really is important and this is one of those times.

Answer 3

A lot of people seem to think the Queen lives off the hard earned pounds of the general public. For a start, the money they pay is negligible really, and secondly, every year the queen pays vast amounts of money into the Treasury from excess earnings; many more millions than it pays her. She and he family get the vast majority of her money from land holdings and private investments.
This means that she doesn't contribute to tax, as she pays it all back and more.

Also, the Queen is a national figure and a sign of our history and our heritage. She is a symbol of our country, like the flag but infinately more important. You can't not support her and claim to be patriotic, as she is the head of this country.
The only arguments against her (aside from the aforementioned living of the public falicy) come from people not thinking it right she should have power (which she never uses) and money (which she gets from investments) through the luck of birth. If she wasn't queen she'd probably be richer as she wouldn't pay the treasury any money back. Now, there is no real reason, aside from socialist ideololigy, to get rid of her. She doesn't do anything bad for the country at all, getting rid of her wouldn't solve any problems except give the zealots who hate her the satisfaction of a job well done before they find a new target. On the contrary she is a completely neutral head of state, and serves her purpose very well.

Answer 4

Absolutely not. The monarchy has worked very well for hundreds of years and I can see no reason at all to change that now.

What's the alternative anyway? President Blair or President Thatcher. Whatever your politics one or other of those (if not both!) is likely to horrify you.

The monarchy understands the principal of Nobless Oblige whereby we owe our loyalty and service to the monarch and in return we get the Monarch's protection and loyalty. A prime example of this was King George VI's refusal to leave the country during WWII despite being urged to by the government. His wife (later the Queen Mother) when asked whether the Princesses (later our present Queen and her sister) would be sent to Canada famously said "They will not leave without me, I will not leave without the King and the King will never leave."

Most politicians only understand the principal of feathering their own nests and increasing their own power. They all promise the earth before being elected and then deliver very little when they're actually in power.

As for the money they are said to cost us, it's actually very little per person. The Queen is 80 years old and still carries out several engagements a week - she's worth every penny and then some. This is also offset by the number of tourists they bring in to the country. Would many foreigners bother to come, given our reputation for weather (justified - global warming notwithstanding!) and food (less justified these days!) if there were not all the palaces, treasures and ceremonies to see?

Answer 5

Absolutely not!

Although many do not like the monarchy, it's important that we have a head of state who is not a politician and is impartial.

The monarchy is a tradition and is its long history marks us out as a great nation and is indicative of englishness. To remove the monarchy would be like tearing every englishmans right arm off.

When we talk about republics, take a look at the mess america is in now with their leader Bush. This is what happens when your head of state is a politician with ideals instead of an impartial non political head of state.

Answer 6

Avondrow is right!!!

The reason Australia voted against becomming a republic last time was because the new head of state (the Queen is their head of state at the moment) - would be voted for by parliment. Bearing in mind the massive majority the Labour party has its would be what 300 odd people who decide the next head of state.

Yes I know the monachy is heriditry (sp) so no one chooses, but do you think parliment would come up with anyone better? The queen is politically neutral (in public) which is preferable to a labour / conservative stooge any day.

To those that would get rid of the monarchy - how would you decide the next head of state, what qualification should they have. Bearing in mind more people seem to vote for Big Brother, than at general elections...

Rant over...

Answer 7

NO, NO, AND NO AGAIN. Stick your republicanism up your r-soles. If England ever goes it alone (in the wake of devolution for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) then let us English keep the Queen as our head of state. She could do a better job than the lying tw@t Blair, Call-me-Dave, and Minger Campbell, with one hand tied behind her back.

I am a total royalist and I don't give a flying f*** who knows it.

G O D S A V E T H E Q U E E N.

Answer 8

Nah, what's the point. We are virtually a republic in all but name. The king or queen hasn't overturned a decision from parliament for hundreds of years, and pretty sure they never will again. The royals do a great job in bringing in lovely American dollars....and opening supermarkets.

Answer 9

To tell you the truth I don't think it would make even a sliver of a difference, and whatever the people resent about the royals now they would undoubtedly find to resent about somebody else. I used to be very anti-royal, but after years of looking at how various countries are run, and the crapshoot of the various electoral processes, I think the UK is just about OK with what it's got - until we get another looney like George III that is...

Answer 10

No. The Royal family bring in more wealth via tourism than we spend on them.
It is our Royal family that makes us different from most other countries. We have heritage and history. It would be a shame to throw all that away. A republic would make no difference to the ordinary person apart from it introduces another layer of corruption.

Answer 11

Yes and No. Yes is because I think the Royal family is symbolic of something inequal. No is since I doubt the country will be better off any from this change.