Anyone here actually want to get rid of the royal family?

Not to mention changing the banknotes and coins of the UK, Canada and other countries under the Commonwealth with the Queen's head on it, as well as changing the post boxes that have HRH engraved on them - including postboxes in Malta. Think of all the Wikipedia changes we would have to make :O really, getting rid of the monarchy is too much work (and too much embarrassment) :P

The Crown Estate gives more money to the taxpayer than the taxpayer gives to the Royal Family.

Nope, I see no reason to deprive others of what they have, especially as it wouldn't give me any more. Plus, its part of Britain, and an important part of our cultural identity. In a recent survey, 60% of the population said they would overthrow the government and stand up and fight if the Queen called them to. In the second world war they didn't fight for democracy or Churchill, they fought for Queen and country. Anyone who calls for the royal family to be cast down does not understand Britain.

Anyways, what business is it of ours to decide to throw down the royal family, its their property, their title, we cannot take it away from them. It would be no less unconstitutional and outrageous if we took someone's house to bring in more revenue for the government.

I think they are a waste of taxpayer's money. Why should one family get loads of money when there is still homeless people starving on the street?

As wikipedia states "it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch". Therefore the crown estate is government property. My point is proven.

"The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is inherent with the accession to the throne...The Government also does not own The Crown Estate."
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm

Wrong again. Keep trying.

Your right though it's not about cost but about meritocracy and about being a citizen not a subject.

But then what we call ourselves? The United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? UR just doesn't sound right.

I can see it was uploaded by a Socialist: did the first half, then got bored and wandered off.

Interesting proposition, although one thing I would suggest is retaining the Prime Minister and Cabinet as distinct from the Presidency. I recall that during the run up to the war in Iraq Americans were reluctant to criticise President Bush for fear of being labeled unpatriotic precisely because the president as head of the state acts as a potent symbol of nationalism particularly during a crisis (9/11).

You could either have a ceremonial president like Ireland (Mary Robinson is Fab!) and have power vested in the PM; or possibly do something similar to the French where President and Prime Minster co-exist as political figures and the prestige is not entirely vested (although not entirely equal either) in one individual.

The armed forces will swear allegiance to whoever signs the cheques.
They and their general officers are politically naive.

Our system of brainwashing works brilliantly.
We are great at churning out brainwashed uneducated soldiers who will die for a pathetic wage,
for a marginal cause advocated by politicians who just want extra votes.

Er, you almost certainly are a British citizen. Being a British citizen, you cannot be a British subject - if you become the former, you cease to be the latter - although British subject status is only possessed by few people these days, it's a bit of an anachronistic status.

The crown estate is held by the crown, rather than as the personal property of the reigning monarch, with its revenues signed over to the Exchequer in return for the Civil List (a practice I believe established by the later Hanoverians). However, at accession the reigning monarch could choose not to sign over said revenue - as far as I am aware - meaning that the Queen is in effect giving more money to the country than she is 'taking'.

However, this is all irrelevant. The Queen has the right to be there because she inherited it. HM owns both the state and ultimately all property which comprises it - the principle of escheat still holds. So, to quote a rather enjoyable film (and to completely subvert its message) 'It is not the function of this, or any, house to sit in judgement upon this King'

The idea of a British President sickens and disgusts me.

You know, we had this argument in a public law seminar, or rather whether the Queen could reasonably refuse royal assent. Would there be an uprising? Considering that the Monarchy is, by % of polled inhabitants, twice as popular as the Government, who knows...? People love the Queen. They actually love her. Even natives deep in the jungles of Borneo have pictures of her on the walls of their longhouses. The Queen is our Head of State. She represents our country in a fair and just manner. She is not politically biased but not afraid to stand up for democracy and to attack terrorists when they attack us.

Nobody loves Gordon Brown. Gordon Brown is a fat commie tosser who nobody likes and who couldn't manage my washing up. I would rather gladly swear fealty to the Queen because she is the leader of our country but she is not a political figure. Her political views are largely unknown and she doesn't present policy that I might agree or disagree with. I would never, ever swear fealty to an elected politician. I would rather be exiled.

God Save the Queen etc

Oh and btw, TSR has a Monarchist Society led by yours truly (and I think Collingwood is a Soc leader) that you can join if you feel like it. It's rather large as far as TSR Socs go. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=606395