Royal family or a president?

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

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

Monarchy. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about

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

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.

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.