Should we abolish the Monarchy?

Nah, I'm not a strong republican (I tend to approach things from a consequentialist viewpoint, and not much would change so I don't really give a damn). I just like arguing.

You are following the argument line of " I don't agree so you are wrong. This is the typical progressive thinking argument.

Of course, but it's ludicrous to equate Britain's constitutional monarchy with anything remotely like a dictatorship.

I am perfectly aware that it's a complex matter - I'd argue, actually, that many monarchists approach the matter appreciating its complexities better than most republicans, who tend to say 'archaic/undemocratic' or that same tired old rot, and expect that to be the end of it.

But it's important to distinguish between pay to the monarch (£0) and the money allocated to meet the costs of the office's duties (c. £40m). And that's what's missed in your post, as it gives the impression the Queen is, personally, raking it in on the public dime.

How modest of you. In any case who needs rationale and logic when we can all worship a 2 year old boy with sycophantic articles like this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-george/12085446/Prince-George-has-his-first-day-at-nursery-school.html

Good to know they will only be charging the public £30 a day for him to throw toys on the floor and make the other children his 'day butlers'.

Why do you keep persisting with this figure when you know it excludes a bulk of the true cost?

It covers the functions of the Head of State and ancillary costs. Security costs are irrelevant - the cost is decided by security specialists, not by the Queen herself. Security costs as much as it needs to cost. There's nothing to suggest security under a republic would be cheaper, after all.

For the 267th time...we have a free press in this country, and they do their own thing. They peddle these photos because they think they will sell. They care not if the royal family benefits or not.

if you don't like them, don't buy them. Move on.

And also for a similar number of times, you're not paying £30m for him to play with toys. That's free.

My point is it is an additional cost of maintaining the monarchy which you and other monarchists never acknowledge, leaving most to believe it really is just £40m.

They do their own thing until they actively challenge the Royals and the government closes the loopholes.

Sycophantic drivel written about a family purely for their lineage-it leaves a bad taste even for those ambivalent on the monarchy, which happens to be the majority.

But it's an irrelevant one. If that cost varied enormously between monarchies and republics, you'd have a point, but we have no evidence to suggest it does.

Therefore, it can be negated,

This is pretty weak stuff. It's democratic, but you don't like it, so you call it undemocratic anyway.

News flash: there's all sorts of unelected positions we have in our democracy that don't impinge on our democratic nature, and nobody seems to have a problem with them.

Judges can have absolutely enormous power, and they are not elected, and yet they are considered pretty essential for an independent judiciary.

I don't care if its inherited or not. What matters is its outputs - does it frustrate the democratic will through its actions? And in that regard, it does not.

Conversely, while tons of people seem to be in love with the United States as a democracy, I'd argue that the very fact that it has tons of elected positions which can mutually frustrate each other makes it considerably less democratic than our model of a single elected institution which is only supported, not challenged, by nonelected institutions.

Also, so what if for many, it's an emotional response? Your own post betrays that your aversion to the monarchy is just as rooted in emotion - you find it inherently dislikable.

That's entirely fine - it's a free country - but don't try to present your own view as logical and more worthy than anyone else's. You're just as fallible.

Emotions are an extremely important part of the human experience. Emotion brings attachment. Americans, French people, Australians, Chinese people, are all emotionally attached to things that are part of their country. Is it purely through emotion that Americans love their republican constitution, or is it through a cold, hard look at statistics? I think it's the former.

As I've said, it's democratic because, despite being an integral part of our constitution, it lacks any scrutiny and accountability, despite wielding a hefty amount of power (in the defacto and dejure sense).

It sits at the near apex of society, yet is completely isolated in that it is not exposed to the normal democratic process - the popular vote.

Royal Prerogative still gives the monarchy extensive powers; it's fine arguing that in practice they are rarely exercised - but that's because our country has a degree of stability and conducts itself in accordance with, well, the the status quo. What if the country elected a revolutionary figure, or someone who wanted to abolish the monarchy?

Besides, even if the monarchy is increasingly becoming symbolic rather than an actual branch of the executive, it still undermines values that this country represents.

I just honestly don't understand this notion that it's perfectly acceptable for someone to be born into such a significant position of power. It's bizarre and archaic.

Judges are a totally different kettle of fish. It's funny, because you as soon as somebody compared the monarchy to 'electing a dictator', you blurted out "it's ludicrous to compare (them)". Exactly the same with judges. The British monarchy is the Head of State; judges have a duty to interpret the law. The judiciary is independent, open to scrutiny, and is accountable to the Office for Judicial Complaints. Not to mention that judges are appointed (and can be dismissed) by an independent panel of experts - the Judicial Appointments Commission.

Emotion is important, I get that. But the point with the monarchy is that emotion seems to be the sole factor that fuels peoples' reactions - people forget that this is a bonafide constitutional issue. People don't want to address that. Instead, they just look at the Queen, or little cute Prince George, and develop a deep-seeded emotional attachment to the monarchy.

As I've said, monarchy approval ratings would be much lower if Charles was King. In such a case, the notion of the monarchy having "popular consent" would diminish significantly.

Apparently an estimated 2/3 people support the Monarchy. I'd like to know your views.


(Very pleased with all the responses! So interesting to read. I honestly didn't expect this turnout. TSR is the s**t!)
Appreciate it all. Thought-provoking stuff.

2 years on. What do you all think now ?