Royal family or a president?

Well, they don't rule us do they? The Queen has no significant say in anything. As for the cost, a President would cost just as much with their accommodation, staff, jet, cars, banquets and so forth. At least the RF is great for tourism and if media is to be believed cost only pennies per family, bringing in far more than what we pay for them. I study history and especially the monarchy. They have all been flawed people and to be honest have branched off everywhere so there is no real hereditary line, hence inviting foreigners to be our Monarch. However, I personally feel it would be a shame to lose such an important and huge part of our heritage. I also get annoyed with those who are nasty about the RF as they can no more help the family they were born into than the lowliest person in the realm and we would probably all cry 'for shame' if they tried to avoid the duties they are called upon to perform. Long may they continue, with maybe a little trimming around the edges and not so many of the 'nobility' riding the gravy train.

The rf are only great for tourism in the areas where they “live” or holiday . They have done zero for tourism in the North of England ( and many other areas) . A president would not provide luxury transportation for his/her children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren and all the other hangers on would they ?

Maybe not gillybob but do you not know how much is spent on personal protection for the President's family, kids at college etc. And yes, the RF are not omnipresent but the money that comes in from tourism surely goes into the coffers via tax from the people who sell goods and services and therefore is used for the whole country. I am pretty sure that a President would cost just as much as a basic RF because if I refer you to my last sentence, it could do with some trimming lol.

The Queen is nowhere near the richest person in Britain. There are many dodgy financiers and purveyors of trashy music who are much richer than the royal family. So her ‘obscene wealth’ is relative. We don’t hear so much about the others, indeed most of us have never even heard of them.

The Monarchy. Feelingmyage55 asked for no ranting but all those writing in capital letters are visually shouting and being very unpleasant.

Anyone who has wealth I have no issue with. If there are those living in luxury so be it There will always be the have and the have not. Until the recent spectacle/ show business royal wedding which I admit to having watched , glued to the tv for a few hours I had no issue with the royal family.Their wealth or how many properties they own etc did not give me sleepless nights.
What I do have issues with concerns the recent marriage of a Grandson of the head of the C of E. This was to be a religious ceremony, carried out in a religious building by the Archbishop when one of the couple was a divorcee. Should this' family' differ to or be given 'special' treatment to the 'rest' of us when it comes to who can have a religious marriage ceremony when one of the couple has been divorced as was the case with not one couple in my family but two.

Monarchy. Imagine being told what to do by the likes of Donal Trump!

True they don’t have to get up in the night to calm a crying child , they do have to see their children ridiculed in the press.

It is now acceptable in most Churches, but I think it can also be at the Vicars discretion

Apparently the C of E now allows remarriage in church at the discretion of the cleric who conducts the ceremony, and in ‘exceptional circumstances’. Does marrying a prince count as ‘exceptional circumstances’? Evidently.

Charles and Camilla had the good sense to have a civil ceremony, and I think Princess Anne remarried in the Church of Scotland, which has different rules.

I imagine the Queen felt distinct unease.

Monarchy, however, Get rid of Andrew, his daughters and H&M. We don't need to fund their overseas jaunts to shake hands with charity bosses who cream off 3/4 ++ of the aid we send.

The Queen and family inherited position, wealth and responsibility along with a fortune that was accrued by their ancestors. Are the wannabe Republicans going to install that they hand over this wealth?
As to a Pesident, they will need a home, larger than No 10, in London, an army of staff, security, state money to pay for it all, cars, planes etc. State visits to or from other countries, retirement pensions, oh and upkeep for families.
Sound familiar?

That should be - "insist" not install.

Royal family every time. I stood in the Long Walk in Windsor on Royal Wedding day, and was taken aback by the number of overseas visitors who had come over just for this occasion. I got talking to a German couple who said 'we are so envious of you having your Royal Family - made me feel really proud!

The Anglican Church has accepted marriage of divorced people for quite some time, at the discretion of the priest. If Meghan’s marriage had just ended , no adultery , no fault divorce then no reason to refuse. Charles being a widower could have remarried in Church but both of them had been in an affair whilst Camilla was married. I don’t think adultery was the given reason for Ann’s divorce , she chose to have a quiet wedding in the church the family attends when in Scotland .

And Megan’s first wedding was a three day beach event, no idea what the ceremony entailed

I am vaguely republican but dislike most "presidents"...
But on the whole they can be voted out...

Quite like a first family which is essentially what the royals are ... and they are a symbol of our past ... not always a bad thing...

And the Queen does make blips ... her reaction after Diana's death was a huge mis reading of public feelings ...

But she recovered herself and i think now many of us are sentimental about her whilst not being obsessives...

Charles? now he's another matter altogether....

The Queen’s reaction after Diana’s death wasn’t a misreading of my feelings. I think she was absolutely right to want to stay in Balmoral with the boys. I think it was the lower end of the popular press that sowed the seeds of a demand that she should return to London. Can’t quite remember now, but was that the time the poor boys were required to shake the hands of the crowds and listen to their no doubt well meant sympathetic remarks? For heaven’s sake, Harry was only 12, and William 15.

I'd vote for a very scaled down monarchy with the children of minor royals outside of the heir to the throne's immediate family not receiving anything from the civil list. So nothing for the children of Andrew, Anne ( they don't get anything anyway) or Edward and, in turn, nothing for Harry's offspring once Charles dies and the line passes to William. They all need to get regular jobs.

On the other hand, the royal family does bring in money through tourism and attracts positive attention for the UK when on world tours so I wouldn't want them totally replaced by a president. A lot of people who seek elected office can be tempted towards deceit and corruption to varying degrees. Look around the world and you will see that everywhere. The UK certainly has no need for a Presidential figure head and a Prime Minister like some countries operate.

blubber-Donald Trump is the elected President of a country, chosen by the people's vote. You can't just have a president whom you like!!!

My first wedding was a trip to the registry office by bus followed by a pub meal . The marriage lasted weeks . We didn’t stand a chance . It was still legal and valid though . I can’t pretend it didn’t happen .

The royals have gone nothing at all to earn their vast wealth and how many times do I have to ask what tourism they bring to the North East ( or many other places) ?

I agree with Lollee's post. I also agree that the RF should be scaled down as Quiz Queen suggests. But the RF have made a lot of concessions in recent years too and we must remember the some of the houses belong to them and no money from tax payers go to their upkeep. Others,like Buckingham Palace ,belong to the state and I guess if we had a president we would still be paying for it's upkeep. Anyway apparently it has been neglected on hrounds of economy and is in urgent need of renovations which will presumably cause howls of protest.

Incidentally , presidents not having hangers on from their family? What about the Trump dynasty??

How exactly did they EARN the money for those houses that are thirs *pollyperkins" sure as hell wasn't by doing a hard days work .You are right though I object strongly to having to contribute to the upkeep of Buck house...on the money they get they should be doing repairs as they go along..instead they're squirreling it away ..goodness knows where .How many houses do a young family need? How many houses that get millions spent on reburbishing do WE need to pay for ...by the back door ..because ultimately ALL their wealth came off the backs of the people ..one way or another

I hold my hand up in surrender Gillybob. I can't think what benefits the RF has brought to the North East but I do have family connections with that area and I think most of those I know are avid monarchists!
I cant really justify it (my DH and DD are republicans) but I've always loved the RF -at least the central ones - and like others I love all the associated pomp and pageantry. Many of them have done a lot for ordinary people too - I'm thinking of schemes like the Duke of Edinburgh Award, the Prince's Trust etc. I think we are lucky with the current lot but as someone said, in the climate these days the country would not tolerate a bad 'un for long!

To all intents and purposes we do have a ‘President’ as we elect our Prime Minister.
Our Queen is a Constitutional Monarch, and has very little governing power.
I’m quite fond of the Woyals in that they provide us with endless entertainment, glamour, a fair bit of scandal, pretty good parades and suchlike, and fascinating displays of fashion successes as well as many resounding failures. Most of all, they are always there, giving at least an illusion of the stability which we all crave.
We’d miss them if they were gone, but I do think that they are vastly overpaid, over privileged and over pampered.
They have unimaginable personal wealth, and could really carry out all their ‘work’ on a much more modest stipend.
Just my opinion (ducks behind wall to avoid shower of missiles)

I have family in two countries and when they visit the UK they have to return home with cases packed with articles pertaining to the royal family to keep their friends happy. I was in Germany at the time of Charles and Diana's wedding and everywhere came to a standstill for the duration.
Do not underestimate the popularity of the royal family.