Britain would be much better off as a republic because...

[Eleanor]

Well said, Holly.

The Monarchy has no real say in the politics of Britain, and consequently cannot do any harm constitutionally.  And were The Monarchy to be abolished they would still remain Kings and Queens with all of their attending wealth where ever they chose to live.
But that's the real rub isn't it.  Some disaffected persons want the rest of their wealth, apart from what The Government already have.  But they wouldn't get it because it is the property of The Family.
Unless they want a Revolution.  Now that might be a bit of fun with no Army to control the masses, and a Pacifist for a Prime Minister.

And how much do these disaffected people think it would cost to maintain a President and his necessary entourage?

[G-Unit]

And yet there seems to be a real confidence in the future of the monarchy, even amongst younger voters.  Do you really think cardboard cut-outs would inspire as much interest or affection as the real thing?  But casting all that aside for one moment, how do you think the country would tangibly benefit from getting rid of the Royals?

Seems? Your impression? It 'seemed' there was no support for left-wing politics too, and that was clearly wrong.

I have no views on the benefit of getting rid of the monarchy. I just think that future monarchs who are less dedicated and unselfish than the present one may themselves demonstrate that an elected president is as good if not better. After all, he/she is there for a fixed term and can be replaced. A bad monarch is there for life.

[Alfred R Jones]

Seems? Your impression? It 'seemed' there was no support for left-wing politics too, and that was clearly wrong.

I have no views on the benefit of getting rid of the monarchy. I just think that future monarchs who are less dedicated and unselfish than the present one may themselves demonstrate that an elected president is as good if not better. After all, he/she is there for a fixed term and can be replaced. A bad monarch is there for life.

No it's not my impression - I posted a linked to a recent opinion poll yesterday which supports what I wrote above but perhaps you didn't bother to read it.  As for your contention re: support for left-wing politics, Corbyn's winning vote amounted to 0.5% of the electorate so let's not get carried away just yet!

[Lyall]

So,you don't think Britain has changed in the last 100, 200 years?  Whereas France is an example perhaps of where you'd like us to be at?  Or if not France perhaps you can point to a country that has recently cast off its royal family and reaped great dividends as a result?

Of course the country has changed. Since the 50s particularly. We were closer to the rest of Europe culturally a hundred years ago than we are now - drifting away has been a mistake.

I would point to Germany and say there is the example we should have been looking at - not the US.

[Alfred R Jones]

Of course the country has changed. Since the 50s particularly. We were closer to the rest of Europe culturally a hundred years ago than we are now - drifting away has been a mistake.

I would point to Germany and say there is the example we should have been looking at - not the US.

can we please keep this discussion centred on the specific benefits to this country gained from becoming a republic? Drifting away from Europe (if that is indeed the case) is not the fault of the monarchy is it?

[Lyall]

can we please keep this discussion centred on the specific benefits to this country gained from becoming a republic? Drifting away from Europe (if that is indeed the case) is not the fault of the monarchy is it?

That was my original point. We're stuck in the past because while the monarchy is no longer absolute it's still intertwined with government and the psyche of the nation, through the Lords, patronage, ceremony, tradition and celebration of censored history etc.

Dissolving the monarchy would be a shock, a much-needed shock to jolt us into finally rethinking what our nation is and where we should be going.

The monarchy encourages all the looking to the past and does nothing or next to nothing to encourage looking to the future. That's why I'd abolish it.

[Alfred R Jones]

That was my original point. We're stuck in the past because while the monarchy is no longer absolute it's still intertwined with government and the psyche of the nation, through the Lords, patronage, ceremony, tradition and celebration of censored history etc.

Dissolving the monarchy would be a shock, a much-needed shock to jolt us into finally rethinking what our nation is and where we should be going.

The monarchy encourages all the looking to the past and does nothing or next to nothing to encourage looking to the future. That's why I'd abolish it.

OK, thanks for your answer - I just posted an article on the other thread which touches on this, though you probably won't agree with most of it.

[Lyall]

OK, thanks for your answer - I just posted an article on the other thread which touches on this, though you probably won't agree with most of it.

Yep the guy who wrote that article has now added his name to the list %£&)**#

[Alfred R Jones]

Yep the guy who wrote that article has now added his name to the list %£&)**#

what list?

[G-Unit]

Of course the country has changed. Since the 50s particularly. We were closer to the rest of Europe culturally a hundred years ago than we are now - drifting away has been a mistake.

I would point to Germany and say there is the example we should have been looking at - not the US.

At the end of WW2 we were beholden to America and Canada for loans. It took until 2006 to repay them. I wonder if that and the lack of a language barrier is why we embraced all things American?