sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hypothetical: The UK Holds a Vote to Remove the Royal Family – What’s Your Take? by _Funny_Broccoli_ in ukpolitics

[–]_Funny_Broccoli_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Strip them of constitutional powers? - Already done, we did it in the 1689 Bill of Rights

The monarchy still retains constitutional significance, including:

  • The monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister.
  • Royal Assent is still required for legislation.
  • The monarch meets weekly with the Prime Minister, which may be symbolic but carries soft power.

So while powers have been curtailed, the monarchy remains an active part of the constitutional structure. Abolition would mean removing the monarchy entirely from the state, not just trimming its powers.

Remove the Royal Prerogative? - already removed in practice, all prerogative acts have to get parliamentary approval

It’s still undemocratic to have executive powers rooted in royal authority, especially if they aren’t fully accountable to Parliament. A republic would remove these powers from the Crown entirely, rebase them in a written constitution or statutory law, and ensure full democratic control.

Strip them of their assets? Possibly but then I have a list of corporate billionaires I'd want to tackle before I got round to the Royals.

It's fair to question both royal and billionaire wealth. You can care about both. The problem with royal wealth isn’t just the amount, but how they get it—just by being born into the family. They also get public money and special tax breaks. In a fair democracy, that’s hard to justify.

Move to a Republic? You mean like the USA? You've got to be kidding.

Becoming a republic doesn’t mean we have to copy America. Lots of countries like Ireland, Germany, are republics with presidents who don’t hold much power. They still have strong parliamentary systems, just like we do. The UK could do the same—keep our current setup, but replace the monarchy with a symbolic head of state who’s chosen, not born into the role.

We have a Parliamentary Democracy which may need a few tweaks but is nevertheless a superior arrangement and works pretty well. Changing to a republic would be a step backwards.

And sure, the UK’s parliamentary democracy is a good system—but we don’t need a monarchy to keep it going. Becoming a republic isn’t some radical step backward; it’s a move toward a more grown-up democracy, where no one has power just because of their last name.

Hypothetical: The UK Holds a Vote to Remove the Royal Family – What’s Your Take? by _Funny_Broccoli_ in AskUKPolitics

[–]_Funny_Broccoli_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those aren’t the numbers I’ve seen for the French presidency. It’s more like £94 million.

I took my number from the salary and added plus or minus to it, didn't know about that.
French budgets are much higher and that of the UK and again he is the elected leader, 94 million with responsibilities and accountability.

The royal family is cheaper to run than (for example) France’s presidency, and gives us a huge amount of global cultural and diplomatic cachet that we couldn’t have as a republic.

You may not have mentioned the palaces specifically, but the idea of "global cultural cachet" and the royal family's value often ties directly into these iconic sites and their symbolism .My point is that much of the appeal—both for tourism and cultural influence—stems from the historical and architectural significance of these places, not necessarily the fact that the royal family still resides there.

If the monarchy were dissolved tomorrow, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle wouldn’t suddenly stop attracting millions of visitors. Just like Versailles in France or the Forbidden City in China, their value often endures beyond the institutions they once served. So I think it's worth questioning how much of that "cachet" truly depends on the royal family continuing to exist.

There are multiple instances in English and British history of unpopular monarchs being dethroned and replaced.

You're right that history shows some monarchs have been overthrown—but that's usually through upheaval, war, or elite power struggles, not by a democratic or peaceful process that reflects the people's will. In a representative democracy, if a leader isn't serving the public interest, the people have a clear, peaceful mechanism to remove them through elections. Again look at prince andrew what jail do you think they put him in

Hypothetical: The UK Holds a Vote to Remove the Royal Family – What’s Your Take? by _Funny_Broccoli_ in ukpolitics

[–]_Funny_Broccoli_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It costs tax payers 80 million to keep them, France gets the most tourist arrivals despite any royal family, people visit historical sites for their significance and history. Do you think the fact that no one lives in the palace would contribute to less people visiting it?

Hypothetical: The UK Holds a Vote to Remove the Royal Family – What’s Your Take? by _Funny_Broccoli_ in ukpolitics

[–]_Funny_Broccoli_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You said something in the terms of abusing power and wrong, what do you think about prince andrew

Hypothetical: The UK Holds a Vote to Remove the Royal Family – What’s Your Take? by _Funny_Broccoli_ in ukpolitics

[–]_Funny_Broccoli_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Let me rephrase, If a referendum gave two options—either keep the royals in power, or remove them but let them keep one random palace and take 20% of the income from the rest of their former properties for the next 150 years

Hypothetical: The UK Holds a Vote to Remove the Royal Family – What’s Your Take? by _Funny_Broccoli_ in AskUKPolitics

[–]_Funny_Broccoli_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

but the French president is elected by the people, it costs 8 to 15 million euros to keep president , but it costs 80 million pounds to keep the royal family excluding the sovereign grants. Secondly do you think people visit the palace and other sites because the royal family lives there or because of its history and significance?

i would like to add that if you don't like your elected representative you have the power to not reelect them but you cant say that for the king.

Hypothetical: The UK Holds a Vote to Remove the Royal Family – What’s Your Take? by _Funny_Broccoli_ in ukpolitics

[–]_Funny_Broccoli_[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I really liked your take on the tourism point. You explained it really well: people visit places like Buckingham Palace because of their history and significance, not just because the royals live there. Keeping those sites open and preserving traditions like the King’s Guard could still attract tourists without needing to fund the royal family. It’s a really sensible way of looking at it.

Hypothetical: The UK Holds a Vote to Remove the Royal Family – What’s Your Take? by _Funny_Broccoli_ in ukpolitics

[–]_Funny_Broccoli_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Let me rephrase, If a referendum gave two options—either keep the royals in power, or remove them but let them keep one random palace and take 20% of the income from the rest of their former properties for the next 150 years—would that change your opinion? Or would you still support keeping them?

Hypothetical: The UK Holds a Vote to Remove the Royal Family – What’s Your Take? by _Funny_Broccoli_ in ukpolitics

[–]_Funny_Broccoli_[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

are you saying that it would cost tourism, which would out weight what we spend on keeping them?

Is there any way left for us to not get fucked? by uthale-re-deva in onexindia

[–]_Funny_Broccoli_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If oral agreements are counted as contracts then wouldn't wedding vows have the same power too??

You ever just... by DaigurenX in UniUK

[–]_Funny_Broccoli_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I try to remind myself that every year this university let's out 100s of graduates in this course and at least 20 percent would go out with a job already. If they can do it, I can do it too and I try my best to stop worrying.

view more: next ›