OT- The Queen's Christmas Day Message to the Commonwealth

[MadAmster]

The Royal family is uber rich yet the taxpayer pays for repairs to their homes. What is the logic in that?

[Romanis]

The Royal family is uber rich yet the taxpayer pays for repairs to their homes. What is the logic in that?

So if we have a President, we won't be paying for repairs for the Presidential Palace then?
Every presidential function, event or whatever thing he or she does during their term and even possibly after their term, comes free of charge?
And given their are other roles now performed by other members of the Royal family, we have to find replacements for them too and they don't come free of charge.
And oh yes, we have to buy a new 'palace' for the President since the properties the Queen has belongs to the crown, ie; herself (if I'm correct).

[ramAnag]

Ok substitute whining with disagreeing then.

Where has the Queen failed that warrants a change or removal? No, she's not a tourist attraction. She has an important Constitutional role and she has performed it admirably.
Of course there's some glamour, pageantry, pomp, tradition etc that goes with it, and this is also performed admirably, but the key issue is the role as Head of State.

What compelling need is there to change something that has worked hundreds of years (as a constitutional monarchy)?

But it’s not a ‘key issue’ Rom. By your own earlier admission the debatable occasions when she has had to become remotely meaningfully involved were in 1957,1963 and 1974.

I repeat, she has done nothing wrong and has probably done a great many things ‘admirably’, the question though is...do we want to live in a meritocracy or be subject to an aristocracy where individuals achieve positions within the establishment via accident of birth and family affiliation? I appreciate our current crop of politicians and leading civil servants seem a particularly poor advert for meritocratic achievement but surely in 2017 it is time to favour ‘leadership’ achieved via meritocracy rather than aristocratic accident.

[swaledale]

Queenie would survive that referendum I'm sure - especially when the stats come out showing how little in comparative terms she costs - eg compare it to foreign aid budget, cohesion payments or unenployment handouts. She is still working at 90, which is maybe 75 years more work for the good of the country than some that we support, with your approval, have done in their lives.

Last para: Yawn yawn yawn

Mm the point isn't really about what the Monarchy costs but the fact that a mature democracy and we (or at lest some in the UK do) seem to pride themselves on being the "father/mother of democracy but still support a hereditary head of state? Whats democratic about that - as for her "work" quite what function she undertakes which is so essential to the running and good of the UK?

I do agree that any referendum would need to be after she has shuffled off the planet and also that the knuckleheads who shored up the Brexit vote would more than likely swing a referendum, but then thats the great UK public for you and why we haven't had a revolution and the French did, those us not fortunate to be born in the right level of society just love to doff our caps to our "betters".

[Andy_Faber]

the knuckleheads who shored up the Brexit vote

lol at your enduring bitterness, you come over as a Will Self tribute act

[Andy_Faber]

I repeat, she has done nothing wrong and has probably done a great many things ‘admirably’, the question though is...do we want to live in a meritocracy or be subject to an aristocracy where individuals achieve positions within the establishment via accident of birth and family affiliation? I appreciate our current crop of politicians and leading civil servants seem a particularly poor advert for meritocratic achievement but surely in 2017 it is time to favour ‘leadership’ achieved via meritocracy rather than aristocratic accident.

I think we are a lot closer to becoming a republic than a meritocracy R, in fact I'm sure the latter will never happen. You mentioned The Royals' purpose, and IMO the value of the Royals was demonstrated in the way Queenie and others from The Firm brought some calm to the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower disaster, when those elected to power showed a lack of competence and compassion and those not trusted with power proved incapable of keeping party politics out of the mix, and for a while the whole aftermath could have turned nasty. She did, at the same time, almost **** all, yet also she did something no-one else could do. Romanis' point is also valid, that Presidents don't come for free either and my own preference would be to retain parliamentary democracy not presidential democracy.

[MadAmster]

So if we have a President, we won't be paying for repairs for the Presidential Palace then?
Every presidential function, event or whatever thing he or she does during their term and even possibly after their term, comes free of charge?
And given their are other roles now performed by other members of the Royal family, we have to find replacements for them too and they don't come free of charge.
And oh yes, we have to buy a new 'palace' for the President since the properties the Queen has belongs to the crown, ie; herself (if I'm correct).

Where did the money come from to buy/build all those palaces?

[roger_ramjet]

Next time anyone wants an elected President as head of state instead of a monarch, just look across the Atlantic. Rather have Trump?

And then answer me - who was the last President that came from neither a privileged class or fanily, nor as a designated runner from wealthy interest groups?

[ramAnag]

I think we are a lot closer to becoming a republic than a meritocracy R, in fact I'm sure the latter will never happen. You mentioned The Royals' purpose, and IMO the value of the Royals was demonstrated in the way Queenie and others from The Firm brought some calm to the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower disaster, when those elected to power showed a lack of competence and compassion and those not trusted with power proved incapable of keeping party politics out of the mix, and for a while the whole aftermath could have turned nasty. She did, at the same time, almost **** all, yet also she did something no-one else could do. Romanis' point is also valid, that Presidents don't come for free either and my own preference would be to retain parliamentary democracy not presidential democracy.

I suspect that yet again you’ve misinterpreted Swale’s comment, Andy. The ‘knuckleheads’ comment doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone who voted for Brexit is a ‘knucklehead’...the crucial words are ‘shored up the vote’ and that is surely true. A significant proportion - by no means all - of Brexit support had it’s roots in racism as the murder of Jo Cox and the behaviour of a minority in the immediate aftermath of the referendum would indicate. I feel they are the ‘knuckleheads who shored up the vote’ to whom Swale refers.

As regards the meritocracy issue...so much of our society already works as a meritocracy imo. Meritocratic values...work hard, make the most of your education, stand on your own two feet etc...are surely already deeply engrained in our society...that is why I find it so odd that the hierarchical aristocracy still has such a stranglehold over us.

I’m also not sure why we need a President to replace the Queen/Monarch. Our current system of government is fit for purpose imo, even if the practitioners aren’t. Why add another tier?

[MadAmster]

There's a novel thought. The PM is the head of state rather than a monarch or president. I like the idea.