Royal family or a president?

I do occasionally have the odd twinge of republicanism, but it's soon cured by thinking of e.g. a President Moneygrubbing Blair, with Cherie as First Lady.

A well known Lib Dem leader once said that the two words that put him off republicanism were: 'President Thatcher'. He had a point. Try to imagine President Corbyn or President Rees Mogg.

Monarchy for me please. It's worked well since 1700 so I see no need for change.

Monarchy for me, too. I know quite a few republicans, and they’ve yet to put forward an argument in favour of a republic that I find convincing.

Monarchy. They do have a sense of duty and there is stability, we know the next monarch will be Charles, a president would mean every five years - in or out. The queen accepted her duties at a young age, William is slowly accepting his duties which is to come, Kate too is accepting she will one day she will be Queen Consort. And their support for charities is to be admired .

Monarchy. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about

Does anyone on this thread understand the difference between a head of state and a head of government? Thought not

They gat PAID very well to support charities AB lets not forget that FACT.How many young couples on one part time income like Baldy Willie 's family do you know who can afford their lifestyle...mmm that'll be NONE .The royal family has built up a fortune on the backs of the poor and underprivileged.A President would be voted for and he/She wouldn't have crowds of ever expanding hangers on .

No man should be born to rule another.

Honour, respect and position are earned and not inherited....royal blood isn't something to aspire to surely .Much better to make your own way in the world .

I have no respect for any of them,Would Lizzie have taken the "job" if it meant a council house and minimum wage? I dont think so !!Sense of duty= cash cow for life from the public

What a very judgmental post maryeliza54.

Here’s a clue - there is a huge difference between a parliamentary system of government ( eg UK) and a presidential system of givernment ( eg USA). But apart from most people not even understanding that basic principle we’ll never grow up enough as a country to get ready of the monarchy

I completely understand the difference betweeen the head of government and the head of state maryeliza54. As do the rest of us, I'm sure. What a strange thing to say!

P.S. I'm a monarchist.

Paddyann, was there any need to say Baldie Willie
So a President would be voted for but what ? would cost nothing ? Really? The Queen didn’t take the job , she inherited it as you have inherited your background .
It’s seems a very narrow view to base your opinion on.

It was the references to well known politicians that confused me. A president in a parliamentary system of Government eg Ireland is a Head of State - it’s not heading the government but representing the state. In Ireland the President is elected for 7 years and can serve two terms. Why could that not work here? At least we wouldn’t have the sycophantic collective show of incontinence when a presidents grandchild got married would we?

Then we would miss out on what was a lovely and happy occasion for everyone.

It’s precisely because it’s inherited that it’s wrong - there’s no defence against idiocy is there? After all Charles is next in line. And Edward 8th - you do know he was a Nazi sympathiser and Edward 7th etc etc - - you can’t defend a system just using the Queen as a raison d’être

I don’t live my life vicariously

Republic.

There is nothing special about the royal family in this country or any other country. They do not have "blue blood" or any other outstanding qualities, such as intellect or a higher degree of morality. It is commonly accepted that royal families originated from the most powerful warlords who ruled by fear.

In my view, the existence of a royal family entrenches the notion of entitlement and privilege. It is maintained by way of constant propaganda and stage-management of various events. We laugh at North Korean or Thai people for their fawning adulation of their rulers. (Admittedly, should they indicate any sort of opposition there would be a price to pay. Fortunately, our royal family does not command that sort of power any more - but it did, and it used it.)

I find it amazing and depressing that some people are willing to camp out all night in all weathers just to catch a fleeting glimpse of someone they don't know and who has shown no inclination to want to know them.

Much of what you say is acceptable Elothan, But there are many people who don’t object to our national history & heritage,and quite like the fact that we have a monarchy without feeling the need to camp out & follow their every move.

And some of us know that much of our ‘national history and heritage’ has much in it that we should be thoroughly ashamed of

As would every country in the world!

Obviously, that's the extreme Bridgeit but I'm surprised that anyone feels inclined to put themselves to such discomfort and inconvenience for a person or persons they don't know.

Should you be blamed for a terrible deed your family committed several centuries ago, even though you yourself have tried to live a good & useful life ?

People do that for actors, pop stars etc etc, it’s not for me & I don’t understand it but I do accept that it is what people wish to do & is not the fault of those they are worshipping