Should the UK have a Monarchy?? Yes or No?

I think there should be a referendum after Elizabeth II dies in order to give the people of the UK a once in a generation chance to decide on the future of the monarchy. Even though the majority of people favour retaining the monarchy, it would be good to put it to the people at a Royal transitional point.

I'd prefer a military general to stage a coup and take the queens place as head of state, at least then he would have done something for it.

We live in a modern world, where the fate of someone is not meant to be determined by birth right. People are not restricted by who their parents are, and the same should apply for the monarchy.

As long as we have a Monarchy, and most importantly, as long as we have a monarchy that can influence legislation, we are a backwards country.

The UK is a joke (politically) to a great deal of the world. People on mainland europe see England as a failing power that refuses to let go of it's empire and old traditions. This is exactly what we are.

The entire royal familly has no right to be head of state. We are meant to be a secularized nation, so why is our head of state appointed by god? Are we are theocracy? Why do we condemn Iran for their unelected leaders. Or more specifically, how can any British politician have the audacity to condemn putin for attempting to remain in power when we have a whole familly thats been involed for their enitre life!

Whats more, if we assume that the reason the royal familly has no connection with god (if we become secularized), then the royal familly becomes nothing more than the descendants of those that enslaved the country!

I'm not saying we should get rid of the monarchy overnight (although I would love that). But we should be moving towards removing them. Starting with halting all political power, removing the ability to veto, and remove the Monarch at the head of state.

Then slowly, start halting the money sent to the royal familly. Hell, they can keep their palaces, but they can pay for them, themselves.

Except it is a world where birth determines your fate. For example, you inherited your nationality, did you not?

Do you have evidence for these claims?

What about the monarchy makes it backwards to you? Is it because it’s an old idea? Why should its age matter?

I get the impression that many countries abroad admire Britain’s culture, history and traditions. If they see the country as a bit tired (which they tend not to), or a ‘failing’ power, it’s because it was originally punching above its weight anyway.

Do you think that by removing the monarchy Britain would suddenly be a superpower again?

They have every right to be Head of State if the people freely permit it, which they do.

You need to learn the difference between de jure and de facto: historically the monarchy claimed appointment from God, but in reality the monarchy exists through the grace of the people. Nobody, not even the Queen herself, would seriously defend the monarchy through divine mandate. Britain is the most secular state in Europe de facto.

We condemn Iran and Russia for their governments and people being unfree. Putin is in power in spite of the public will; Queen Elizabeth II is in power not through fear or force, like Putin, but because the people wish her to be there.

lease elaborate. How did they enslave? What definition is this?

The monarch has not exercised the power of veto in three centuries, and isn’t going to revive it now. That power is safely dormant. You’re getting worked up over a non-issue.

Oh dear. You haven’t read much beyond an A-Level politics book, have you?

The palaces they occupy which are funded by the taxpayer are used by them in the same manner as the White House in the US is occupied by the President, or Downing Street by our PM. In other words, they are working offices and meeting places, not simply private houses.

Those houses that they do have for private use, are not supported with taxpayer’s money.

Nationality is down to where you are born, not who you are born. The other point being that you can apply for citizenship in another country, or in this country. You cannot apply to become a royal.

Othe than personal experience?

It's not age. Democracy is an old idea.

It's backwards because, while most of the world is moving towards an elected head of state, Britain reminas unmoving on the issue.

In the same way tourists 'admire' the pyramids and the valley of kings in egypt, but when asked about the countries politics will consider it backward.

No, this has nothing to do with becoming a powerful country again. Removing our monarchy will at least give us some legitimacy when we dictate how other countries politics should work. And give supreme power in the hands of the people.

Only because we don't have a choice in the matter.

In other words there is no reason whatsoever for the royal familly to be in power, other than the fact that they are already in power.

It's not the wish of the people. Nobody asked the Queen to come to power. It's just not that many people are willing to risk their livelyhoods over it.

What about the swathes of putin and medvedev supporters?

Serfdom. The monarchy is a leftover from despotism, where those who were in power took power through force. When they took land, the people of the land became their property and were forced to pay tax. The people had no choice in the matter. And now, the descendants rule in this country because their ancestors took power generations ago?

So if they don't use it, why have it? If a bill went through parliment opting to remove the monarchy, I wonder whether that veto power will remain so unused.

Then there was that whole Prince Charles Veto thing. Have we been told whether he used the veto powers or not yet?

Why is someone given the ability to veto legislation because they were born or married a certain person.

It amazed be the strikes on wednesday have been demonised for closing some sevices for a day, where as when the "royal" wedding happened that was perfectly ok, just as the golden jubilee will be next year. MADNESS!

I'm not a republican because I think I'm terribly clever; I think the concept of hereditary power, which has been transferred from the monarch to the prime minister (but would not exist without a monarch) gives the UK government far too much power. It's not controversial to say a UK government with a parliamentary majority can pass through whatever they like without hassle, and this stems from the power of the monarch.

I'm not a republican because I think I'm terribly clever; I think the concept of hereditary power, which has been transferred from the monarch to the prime minister (but would not exist without a monarch) gives the UK government far too much power. It's not controversial to say a UK government with a parliamentary majority can pass through whatever they like without hassle, and this stems from the power of the monarch.

never thought of it like that before.

Monarch should stay only because a lot of tourists come to london to see the buckingham palace things like that.

I'd prefer a military general to stage a coup and take the queens place as head of state, at least then he would have done something for it.

The UK is a joke (politically) to a great deal of the world. People on mainland europe see England as a failing power that refuses to let go of it's empire and old traditions. This is exactly what we are.

how can any British politician have the audacity to condemn putin for attempting to remain in power when we have a whole familly thats been involed for their enitre life!

Starting with halting all political power, removing the ability to veto, and remove the Monarch at the head of state.

So you'd support a military figure murdering the royal family and politicians in order to take power?

The UK has given up its empire, what planet are you on? We have no possessions larger than small islands left.

One of the many differences between Putin and the Queen is that Putin has power. He has massive political power without being elected and obviously that's not a good thing. The Queen has no power. She has to spend her old age travelling and making speeches written by someone else, meeting delegations of often dodgy politicians from around the world and she gets made fun of in popular culture. It doesn't really matter whether she's elected because in the real world of politics and British society in general her personal opinion doesn't have any influence.

If she has a veto a) she never uses it and b) the monarchy would be destroyed if she ever attempted to.

One concession I would make is that royals should not overstep the mark. There's a big difference between what the queen does which I think is admirable and harmless, and what Prince Charles does. In my view he meddles too much in the real world and I don't welcome his opinions.

Why not just convert the Prime Minister role into the head of state role? why do we need the Queen? why does she have to be Queen to do all those things? she can do them without being Queen.

No

They're a waste of time and yes they generate money through tourism, do you see them selling all their jewels and gold to give to charity?

They're inbred and should be gotten rid off along with all other members of the ruling class who live in luxury while others suffer. "But at least their nice to look at"