Royal family or a president?

Grany23 if I lived in Scotland and we had an elected queen you'd get my vote.

Just wonder could we do something like Warhol's "In the future everyone will be famous for 15mins"? In the future everyone will be Royal for....?

I would like to be Princess Anne. She is, mostly, well respected, works hard., has a lovely family and keeps quite a low profile.

There might be family Bridgeit but there isn't the extended family- aka as the hangers on. Grand children, G Grandchildren, etc. President, partner and children maybe, but not all the rest.

I gloss over inconvenient facts such as my DF being a second son and me being his second DD. I have no desire to be like Princess Margaret or Princess Anne.

I would be a very good Queen of Scotland, using what power and influence I had for the benefit of ALL my people. I would not require public funding or security, just live off the ill-gotten gains accumulated by previous Royal Families. I think I would sell off all the jewels, paintings etc. and use the proceeds to establish and fund in perpeturity, hospitals, hospices, refuges, roads and schools which could be named after the thing that funded them e.g Sceptre Hospice, Diamond Road.

I would probably hang on to Holyrood for formal state occasions, but would sell Balmoral (too many midgies) to a hotel chain and purchase a small, family sized Royal Yacht, where I would mainly live while sailing around to perform my royal duties.

Trisher, do you really believe there isn’t or wouldn’t be any hangers on or free accommodation for a President. Have you looked around the world.? Perhaps start with America & work your way around.

I have always felt/known, deep down, that I was destined to be Queen.

Monarchy for me every time. I think the family firm has been trimmed down and hopefully will continue in that way. The Queen has done an amazing job along with Prince Philip, theirs has been a life of service despite all the trappings.

Granny23, the last Prince of Wales was murdered

Oh President please. One person to serve a fixed term, elected and allowed 2 terms. No hangers on No extended family doing nothing but accommodated in expensive housing. Let Queenie and Phil retire to Balmoral. Charles can keep Highgrove. The rest can find proper jobs and buy themselves somewhere to live. Buck House for President and opened to public regularly. Sandringham for country residence. Rest open to public.

Monarchy, with all their failings they are far better than a washed up politician. That aside I do really like the pagentry that goes with our Monarchy, it is good for tourism and keeps a lot of people employed.

Eloethan, re-read my last paragraph. I am talking about republicans I know, not all republicans, as I have clearly pointed out. I haven’t been specifically unpleasant to anyone on this forum. I am not prejudiced (pre-judging). I am giving opinions about examples I have seen, not before I have seen them.

Teetime We too avoid the subject to avoid family rows.

Grandma70s I have relatives some very close who are just like that chippy and resentful and they have no reasons to be as lives are just dfandy and being in a Republic would make no material difference to them. We all agree to disagree to avoid family rows.

Grandma70s I am a republican. I object to your characterisation of republicans as being resentful, with a chips on their shoulders. How many republicans do you know and do they all fit your very prejudiced perception?

The OP had asked that people put forward their views without being unpleasant. Most people have adhered to that request.

The Queen is exactly what a monarch should be. Her father was a good king. Charles, though less appealing than the Queen, would also be a responsible king, as would William. I don’t think we have any immediate prospect of a bad monarch like some in the past. If we did get one, I think these days they would not be tolerated. Until that happens, I’m in favour of monarchy.

Rabid republicans I know - and there’s a few of them, some in my own family - all seem rather sour, resentful people with chips on their shoulders. I’m sure there are moderate, pleasant republicans, but I don’t seem to come across them.

The intrusive nature of today’s news media means that if we did have a useless waste of space as a monarch it couldn’t easily be covered up (Unlike the past).

I have pointed out every time this subject comes up on Gransnet that we do not have to follow the American example. There are all sorts of ways to run a republic. Does no one on here have any political education?

Did anyone see this week’s Royal Countryfile? I had no idea that the Queen and Prince Philip had done so much for conservation.

Although not a Royalist by instinct, I did have a passing thought that probably without the monarchy Royal Windsor Park would have been gobbled up and would have been one giant housing estate by now.

I also fail to understand the insult Baldy Willie Paddyann. You seem to have a real problem with royalty. Some of the royals certainly do serve the people of this country. Not sure I'd like their job.

That's not a bad idea Granny23 - would it apply if the first-born did not wish to take the role and someone else was willing?

Actually Jamila theres very little serving...they take take take and expect it ,there is no better example of "entitlement" ...yet we condemn poor people who are out of work or disabled or even just old...for asking for a miniscule amount of taxpayers cash .While royalty takes upwards of 300 MILLION ayear to support !

Perhaps we should revert to the old Scottish/Irish/Welsh system whereby the ruler was chosen under the rules of Tanistry. This system allows for the most suitable person, in terms of age, fitness for the role and ability to command the greatest loyalty, to be picked from among the 10 closest to the Monarch as opposed to the role automatically going to the first born child - who might be still an infant, disabled in some way or otherwise incapable of being an effective ruler.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanistry

The Queen has provided a sense of stability throughout her long reign.

She has been there through out my entire life.

When Queen Elizabeth dies I believe
we all (Monarchist or Republican) will feel the shifting of the sands

So that would be fine, so if Charles then wanted to stand for election against William or someone else who does a good job for public service why not.

Ask Brenda from Bristol why not!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6-IQAdFU3w

Eloethan
We laugh at North Korean or Thai people for their fawning adulation of their rulers

Well, I don't laugh, but I do feel sorry for the North Koreans because if they did not 'fawn' who knows what would happen to them or their families.

You cannot equate them with our RF.

If you do, I think one or two Gransnetters should be fearful of the knock on the door .....

No man should be born to rule another.
In fact they do not rule us - they serve us.

Monarchy

They do work out more economical than a presidential system imo and they do bring in revenue to the country. As Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth the Monarch is a-political. So many countries have joined the Commonwealth since its inception - there were eight at the beginning, I believe, and there are now 53, which means it must be advantageous.
I cannot see a presidential Head of State continuing with this in the same manner.

The RF and all the pomp and ceremony may be laughable to some republicans but to me it represents continuity and stability in an ever-changing and rather unstable world.

If we ever had a monarch who resembled Henry VIII in any way then I would probably become a republican.

Who is the Irish Head of State - does anyone know - or even care? Is that person respected and revered in countries around the world? Who knows?