The idea of an elected head of state is as anarchronistic as a hereditary head surely? They are both costly and superfluous in a alleged democracy . The Queen has been unusually and surprisingly scandal free and rather singularly remarkable, unlike many royals and elected heads of state and I greatly admire her for her singularity.


I suffer royalty on a purely historical premis, to get rid of them to replace them with some other bo**ox layer of genuflecting protocol is nonsense.
Heads of State are generally surplus, costly, often easily corrupt and undemocratic despite protestations to the contrary .

But then the Prime Minister would effectively become the head of state, and only those voters who are also members of the governing political party would get to choose who it is.

So what are you saying here? We need someone above the elected head of government ? To do what exactly ? Define what a head of state is for me?

Quite. They mainly appear to exist to impress each other.

I would though describe the current Queen as singularly unremarkable. Indeed her ability to keep a low profile in a period of intense media coverage is perhaps her crowning achievement.

I think her 90 years of unremarkablness is singularly dull boring and rather remarkable in and off itself.

I think we agree on essentials; as usual.

BTW Happy New Year

Indeed Richard. Hope you had a good festive holiday and didn't imbibe too much in malt whisky
I too am singularly blessed. And count them blessings often.

Someone has to represent the government and the nation. Without a separately elected or appointed head of state that role falls to the Prime Minister. The way our system works is that the leader of the governing party is chosen only by its own members, and if that's how our head of state were to be chosen I don't see how that is any better than the situation we have now. In my view the position of head of state should be entirely ceremonial and non partisan, something which would not be possible if all we did was remove the monarchy.

So its OK for the queen to be a bad role model but not for the Kardashians ( think that is the name?) The queen didn't even feed 100 homeless but that is OK with you but those others did and you slam them.. oh man!

She has more money than she could ever spend. she lives a life of luxury while people are having to go to food banks and are dying of cold , people killing themselves due to benefit cuts and losing their homes and you think its OK because a law (or loophole) was made many years ago that royalty don't need to pay tax. does not mater the morality of it ..

I know where I want my tax money to go and its not on her and her family.

Its about time this was stopped and made right and the loopholes that allow all the big companies to get out of paying tax.

And you are not half German and Greek either. The British have an odd sense of national identity.

But would you agree that we had a referendum before we considered getting rid of them?

I think you're wandering wildly off the point here and I really have no idea where you're going with any of this.

All I asked was for a straightforward answer to two points raised by another poster. I haven't had a satisfactory answer to either of them, which is why I asked for clarification on what was meant by these purported examples of the Queen's "piss poor" behaviour.

I haven't actually expressed a personal opinion on the Queen or the Royal Family one way or another so I don't know why you're rambling on about the Kardashians all of a sudden. What on earth do any of them have to do with this topic?

You should not make that kind of commitment, remember who is next in the queue after all:

HM "Tha tha tha tha" Charles III.

As an Irish person, I have always been puzzled why more is not made in Britain, in these austere times, of the scale and cost of the whole Royal bandwagon, if not the institution itself.

Why so many personal royal residences that are off-limits to the public most of the year or completely and all the useless and functionless minor royals who live rent free in various palaces and stately homes.

It seems like a kind of lavish welfare programme for the big-nosed and the dumb to me.

You are in yourself unremarkable

I do wish people would furnish themselves with the facts instead of spouting the same ill-informed nonsense.

I suggest you start with reading up on the Crown Estate, followed by learning the difference between the Royals' public and private residences.

There shouldn't be any need for it anyway, but I would lay heavy money that if there were a referendum, there would be a substantial majority in favour of retaining the monarchy, which might, hopefully, shut the anti royals up for good.

That's why those who keep saying they should be abolished, might first want to consider what the rest of the population think. But they never do.


What are you babbling about? We know who the next in line is. What's the problem?

So much so that you've just remarked upon them!

No thanks mate, as I am not a subject of any other person, I will pass on that.

How many weeks of the year is Windsor or Buck House open to the public to visit ?

Windsor Castle is open all year round.

Buckingham Palace is open for two months in the summer. Not sure that would be any different in a republic.

Why would you want to shut them up "for good"? They're hardly much of a nuisance, and does it really bother you that much that some people have an alternative view to put forward?

If we had a referendum right now, you're right, there would probably be a royalist majority, largely because of the popularity of the present monarch. Doesn't mean there is always going to be one - in another 20 years or so, things could be very different and I would expect republicans to make their case again when the time seems right.


Why should they consider what the rest of the population think? They're just putting forward their own opinion, and it's not as though they're asking for the abolition of the monarchy to be imposed in a dictatorial fashion.

Arguing that there is no need for a democratic choice because the result is predictable is a very weak and indeed dangerous position to hold.

If you're not prepared to learn the facts, don't pass comment.

If anything last year showed us no result is predictable.

If they ever did a referendum on abolishing the monarchy I'm not saying it would happen but I think the number wanting it would be higher than expected

I think there would be a massive majority in favour of keeping the totals as however much the antis would like to convince otherwise. The British royal family is a large part of what makes Britain what it is and gives it it's standing in the world.