Your views on the Monarchy?

I'm very positive about the Monarchy. I fully support having an apolitical head of state, and one that can give considerable guidance to our elected politicians. I think it'd be an utter travesty if Britain were ever to end up with some drab inoffensive-but-unsuccessful politician sitting as some sort of ridiculous President. I'd prefer an appointed system to that.

On a cultural rather than political side, it is absolutely fundamental to what I understand by my national identity. My family fought for the Royalist side in the Civil War, so it's become even more of a personal attachment. I don't think Britishness would be recognisable without a monarchy; it'd certainly be no fun.

a Presidential system would be cheaper.

1. No, the Monarchy are not democratic and they do have vested interests, most notably its own survival. You are honestly defending an institution that has produced Prince Charles and Prince Harry?

2. No, an elected President is no more likely to become a dictator than a Monarch as long as there is a system of separation of powers, checks and balances, a codified constitution and Bill of Rights.

3. The lobbying system in America is completely different than the UK and stems from its First Amendment. Our election process can be set by us.

4. Again, your training argument is not founded on anything. We can set the training time of the President. We can set the time-frame in which they attain power following the election.

5. The Monarch is advised by unbiased civil servants? That's what you call the Privy Council? I don't see how this point has any relevance. The Monarch can choose its own advisors, so could a President.

6. History is full of corrupt and immoral Monarchs

Why on earth would you say Prince Charles is a 'buffoon'? He's worked exceptionally hard as Prince of Wales and organisations like the Prince's Trust have done exceptional work under his direction. Whether you agree with his opinions or not, he's certainly not afraid to put them out and defend them where needs be: how many men have built a bloody town to demonstrate the ability of good planning and architecture to create a socially cohesive society?

People of the generation above me seem to love criticising him for his adultery. So-bloody-what? He got pushed into a marriage he clearly did not want because it was thought to be suitable for a young prince. He regretted it, and Diana being bonkers hardly helped. As failings go, it's hardly an unpardonable one - not to mention that he's one of the few Princes of Wales to not shack up with loads of fashionable tarts as the mood took him.

I'm very positive about the Monarchy. I fully support having an apolitical head of state, and one that can give considerable guidance to our elected politicians. I think it'd be an utter travesty if Britain were ever to end up with some drab inoffensive-but-unsuccessful politician sitting as some sort of ridiculous President. I'd prefer an appointed system to that.

On a cultural rather than political side, it is absolutely fundamental to what I understand by my national identity. My family fought for the Royalist side in the Civil War, so it's become even more of a personal attachment. I don't think Britishness would be recognisable without a monarchy; it'd certainly be no fun.

The monarchy is what keeps the class system alive. It is elitist and in what way have the royals earned their position? They weren't put there on merit, they were born into it. I'd say you should dump em. They are also very expensive to keep going. That money could be much better spent on the military, for instance or on roads or on just about anything.

considering I was actually defending the monarchy...

the problem is that his job is not to put his opinions out, its to be impartial in these matters. He's done a lot of good and a lot of harm. His private matters are quite another thing, but as a public spokesperson he is required to give an informed opinion that is in the best interests of the people, and not to interferre in matters which he is unqualified to arbitrate. Inner City planning permission and the NHS come into those categories of places he has interfered to the detriment of the general public.

He is perfectly entitled to personal opinions, but as a public figure he is not entitled to bring those into his public business.

As for Diana, she wasn't crazy, she was very sane and very savvy. She knew exactly what she was doing and managed a very good public image despite being a thoroughly untrustworthy person.

I love them, proud of our history with them.

And very pleased with all the money they make us!

that's funny i don't remember receiving my cheque from the queen this month.......

Goes to the government my man, the ammount they make for us of Tourism alone, is staggering, this is before we go into the private buisness the royal family invests in.

What we pay for there upkeep and allowance, is minute compared to what they make in returns for the country.

the royal family got all their money from their ancestors who abused our ancestors why would you support that?

Really?
The royal family is technically bankrupt when it comes to liquid assets.

They have a £41million a year stipend from the government, and they pay back in revenue and tax £160 million.

And they are responsible for about £120 billion from tourists.

As for why I would support them, we are a mongrel nation, they have been our royal family for a thousand years now, and they are entwined with everything that makes us who we are a nation.

I also don't hate people for the act's of there forefathers, that's why I don't stab Itallians on site for conqouring Britannia all those years ago.

I think the benefit of the monarchy over presidency is that they rule for life and do not waste time/money on election campaigns (which would cost the country astronomical sums anyway). The institution is somewhat socially cohesive because their rule endures through generations and helps to unite people under a common person, regardless of class or political view. The monarchy never has to do secretive deals with the media in order to sway public opinion and they often have to put aside their own views to represent the views of their people. They generally have a very calm disposition.

They never get to retire, serving the country loyally until death and work throughout their whole lives. Almost every event they go to helps to cement foreign relations and (except a few mishaps) they are generally good diplomats, having been taught since childhood. The benefits to charity are also large. The princes trust, for example, has raised millions and the amount of money alone which is generated by royal appearances, in the name of charity, is amazing.

I think generally the pros outweigh the cons. The monarchy make excellent cultural icons and, without the money which comes from the civil list, they would not be able to continue their roles as diplomats and charity workers. Besides, who would want Tony Blair on the pound coins?

the royal family has changed several times in the last 1000 years. £120 billion attributing the royal family to 100% of tourism is ridiculous. They pay back 160 million on taxes well do you know who else pays taxes?? everyone.

Ridiculous, hardly it's actually a "low" estimate of how much they bring us in.

Yes we all pay taxes, but very few of us pay four times in taxes the amount that we earn, like the royals do.

If they could us a billion a year to maintain and gave us not a penny , I would still vote for keeping them as they are an integril part of our culture and history, and that's worth more to me as a British Citizen than money.

As it is, they are saving me £2.50 a year in direct taxes from the £160 million they draw in, and they are doing our crippled economy a lot of good from tourism, so that's just more reasons for me ,a person who cares about the state of my country, to keep them around.