Poll: How would you vote in a referendum to abolish the monarchy?

Would you get rid of the monarchy?

  • Abolish the monarchy

    Votes: 326 30.5%
  • Keep the monarchy

    Votes: 743 69.5%

  • Total voters
    1,069
For those that would 'get rid' what would you replace the monarchy with, how would this be better and how would you recoup the lost revenue?

What lost revenue? We'd make more. The sovereign grant would be no more, the state would get it all. Palaces could be fully opened to the public and raise revenue. Tourism would go up with the added access.
 
What lost revenue? We'd make more. The sovereign grant would be no more, the state would get it all. Palaces could be fully opened to the public and raise revenue. Tourism would go up with the added access.


The royals generate more than they take so your business plan is some what flawed - even if you ignore the profits don't they cost something like 50p per citizen per year, what you going to spend that on lol...

Also surely the appeal of places like Buckingham Palace is the fact that the Royals actually live there / use them plus they are prestige locations for diplomacy etc - having Merlin turn them all into mini theme parks or shopping centres is possibly not the best use..

Those that would get rid always seem to have their view biased by politics of envy rather than what's actually best for the country..
 
For those that would 'get rid' what would you replace the monarchy with, how would this be better and how would you recoup the lost revenue?

Nothing. We have a government what do we need a special family for? I understand some like the tradition but if they were given the boot tomorrow would you feel less British cause there’s no affluent family giving us a Christmas speech and half arsed wave?

I’d open up all of their residences to paying public and tourists.
 
The royals generate more than they take so your business plan is some what flawed - even if you ignore the profits don't they cost something like 50p per citizen per year, what you going to spend that on lol...

Also surely the appeal of places like Buckingham Palace is the fact that the Royals actually live there / use them plus they are prestige locations for diplomacy etc - having Merlin turn them all into mini theme parks or shopping centres is possibly not the best use..

Those that would get rid always seem to have their view biased by politics of envy rather than what's actually best for the country..

Oh people see the royals when they visit the palaces do they? They get to chat to them and ask questions? No they don't. People still visit The Palace of Versailles in huge numbers but no royal has lived there in 230+ years. More would visit if they could see the monarchs private rooms etc.

The money is generated through the estates and things like the coastal line, all this would pass to the state.
 
You only have to visit any other country in Europe, or half the rest of the world, around the time of any major Royal event - death, marriage, birth of first child, etc. - to see that the idea that the Royals themselves aren't a major draw for the UK is for the birds. Will people still visit the palaces, etc.? Sure they will. Will they come in anything like the same numbers? Not even close.
 
Last edited:
Nothing. We have a government what do we need a special family for? I understand some like the tradition but if they were given the boot tomorrow would you feel less British cause there’s no affluent family giving us a Christmas speech and half arsed wave?

I’d open up all of their residences to paying public and tourists.

The single greatest purpose they play is the apolitical head of state. Not everyone is a fan of the monarchy, but it still provides what is supposed to be a head of state separate from everyday politics. I think moving towards some kind of presidential role would be a fundamental mistake.
 
The single greatest purpose they play is the apolitical head of state. Not everyone is a fan of the monarchy, but it still provides what is supposed to be a head of state separate from everyday politics. I think moving towards some kind of presidential role would be a fundamental mistake.

Why do we need an apolitical head of state? Isn’t a government enough?

I really don’t get the draw or appeal of them. I respect that people like them and I’m not going to try and change any ones opinion or their feelings to them but I don’t get it.

Personally, I have no more respect for Charlie and his family than I do for any other stranger I pass on the street and I certainly wouldn’t change my plans if they asked to meet me.

They’re not going anywhere (unfortunately for me) but it’s not like they impede on my daily life. It’s more the royalists that I have an issue with.
 
Why do we need an apolitical head of state? Isn’t a government enough?

I would say that historically the monarchy has been one of the defining features of providing stability and unity and I think in many respects it still does. You only have to look at the first half of the last century where much of Europe went towards extremism either on the left or right. No such thing happened here, and I think partly that was down to the way our government is structured.

It’s pretty clear to me that although every society has deep divisions, those with a politicised head of state seem to be generally more divided.

I would class myself as a royalist not because I’m some kind of fanboy that loves collecting mugs and news paper clippings but because I appreciate the role the monarch plays in our constitution and I think it’s much more of a benefit than a hindrance.
 
@rare I'm of a very similar frame of mind. We have a constitutional settlement over 300 years old and stable, really why change it? It has in it's way insulated the country from extreme political upheaval. One needs to think of the British Monarch as someone who serves the nation and not the other way around.
 
The Monarchy is an obviously stupid idea that no sensible person would invent from scratch but it's a system that works and provides many benefits to Britain. There just isn't a compelling enough reason to risk replacing it with something likely to be functionally worse.
 
@rare I'm of a very similar frame of mind. We have a constitutional settlement over 300 years old and stable, really why change it? It has in it's way insulated the country from extreme political upheaval. One needs to think of the British Monarch as someone who serves the nation and not the other way around.
We've been effectively stagnant for the last decade and all this nostalgia/Nimbyism BS is clearly holding this country back.
 
Last edited:
We've been effectively stagnant for thirteen years because the country has a bad case of Tories not because of nostalgia or the Royals.

But labour bad for [unspecified reasons]

Tbh if we get rid of the royals all that will change is we get billionnaires instead, at least the royals have some sense of civic duty.
 
The Monarchy is an obviously stupid idea that no sensible person would invent from scratch but it's a system that works and provides many benefits to Britain. There just isn't a compelling enough reason to risk replacing it with something likely to be functionally worse.
Celebrity worship?
 
I think one of the fundamental psychological disadvantages of the Monarchy is we have a system were people in authority don't take personal responsibility for their actions.

I think it's because they swear an oath to the Monarch and not to the people. They think of themselves as a cog in the system, and that they don't have to answer to the public.

The Monarch being the one these people seem to answer to never says anything. So the entire system is of no responsibility.

It worked back in the day as the Monarch used to try and get involved in the daily running of the nation. These days he sees approval of bills a chore. We even have William not wanting to send his kids for some training like most of the others tried to do.

They are actively withdrawing from society. This situation can't go on indefinitely.
 
The royals generate more than they take so your business plan is some what flawed - even if you ignore the profits don't they cost something like 50p per citizen per year, what you going to spend that on lol...

Also surely the appeal of places like Buckingham Palace is the fact that the Royals actually live there / use them plus they are prestige locations for diplomacy etc - having Merlin turn them all into mini theme parks or shopping centres is possibly not the best use..

Those that would get rid always seem to have their view biased by politics of envy rather than what's actually best for the country..
Yup nobody visits Paris any more now they don't have a king and Egypt have done a bang up job not letting anyone know that there hasn't been a pharaoh for a few thousand years when marketing the pyramids.

If you want to use the Royal generate money line, you need to come up with some more evidence than their mere existence.
 
We need reform. The House of Lords needs to go, but I’m still on the fence about the monarchy.

I’m the other way around - I think the House of Lords is flawed and needs reform but works pretty well in practice.

Monarchy is a roll of the dice though. You might get a monarch who takes their duty very seriously but we’re only a few lightning strikes away from someone truly dreadful being on the throne.

Getting rid of the monarchy wouldn’t get rid of our rich history. The French Revolution didn’t erase Charlemagne or Louis XIV (or Charles the Simple). We would retain our royal past if we decided to be a more democratic country.
 
I’m the other way around - I think the House of Lords is flawed and needs reform but works pretty well in practice.

Monarchy is a roll of the dice though. You might get a monarch who takes their duty very seriously but we’re only a few lightning strikes away from someone truly dreadful being on the throne.

Getting rid of the monarchy wouldn’t get rid of our rich history. The French Revolution didn’t erase Charlemagne or Louis XIV (or Charles the Simple). We would retain our royal past if we decided to be a more democratic country.
If they are to be left then three things need to happen.

1. There must be a limit on the numbers so a PM cannot put in his mates. as BoZo did.

2. The Heriditery Peers and Bishops need to go.

3. They must have an attendance record of X% of the time(bar illnesses etc) or lose their seat.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom