How would you vote right now if there was a referendum on the monarchy?

[UndercoverElephant]

Let's imagine Labour win the next election and not only abolish the House of Lords, but hold a referendum on whether to replace the monarchy with some sort of elected presidential office with not much power. How would you vote? Or would you abstain?

Also, what would you suggest we replace them with?

[kenneal - lagger]

I would vote for the monarchy. I believe they do a good job for the country providing a focus for ceremonial, a good tourist income and a counterbalance for political power. The armed forces are sworn to the crown not the government of the day so they provide a long term stability to the country.

Also if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Yes, there are a few niggles around the periphery but the core of the Monarchy is fine.

The Lords on the other hand is broke and does need fixing.

[clv101]

Labour are a LONG way from a referendum on the Monarchy! But I would vote against them, not because I have any real beef with that particular family but because of what it represents.

The Monarchy are the public relations arm, the socially 'acceptable' tip of the aristocratic upper class. They provide cover for the dozens of other aristocratic, land owning, multi-millionaire families that make up the British establishment. The Monarchy's existence shores up the class system - a system that is hugely damaging to the average citizen. They'd like you to think it's just fancy dress, unifying tradition and a bit of fun but in reality it's a deeply damaging institution - and one most countries manage very well without.

[dustiswhatweare]

It's a goodbye to the monarchy from me, and for good measure anyone who puts themselves up for political office is automatically barred from doing so.

[BritDownUnder]

It was rumoured that New Zealand would ditch the monarchy after QE2's death but it did not happen as there seems to be no sentiment to get rid of them and Jacinta Ardern is getting unpopular these days. The 1999 referendum on the republic in Australia crashed and burned spectacularly.

They are the pinnacle of the aristocracy but as to the health of the aristocracy in the UK I have no idea. I thought most of them were broke having been ruined by inheritance taxes. Coming to NZ and Australia it was a refreshing change to see the class system left behind in the UK but there is a rich elite in each town here who seem to dominate small business and who are descended from early settlers.

[clv101]

I thought most of them were broke having been ruined by inheritance taxes.

Far from it. Read Guy Shrubsole's book Who Owns England, it's absolutely fascinating. Discusses centuries history, how wealth has moved, the interface between political power the economy, and old money power.

[UndercoverElephant]

I thought most of them were broke having been ruined by inheritance taxes.

Far from it. Read Guy Shrubsole's book Who Owns England, it's absolutely fascinating. Discusses centuries history, how wealth has moved, the interface between political power the economy, and old money power.

Getting rid of the monarchy won't get rid of that Old Money. Only a wealth tax / land reform will do that. Unapologetic levelling down.

[clv101]

Won't get rid, no, but it would open it up to more scrutiny - a required precursor to wealth taxation and land reform.

[BritDownUnder]

Judging by who the Queen's grandchildren married I don't think there is an obvious desire to connect with the landed gentry.

Princess Anne's children both married commoners and seem to want nothing to do with the monarchy. The same I think with Prince Andrew's children. King Charles's children - well best not discussed but don't seem to have connected with English landed gentry. Prince Edward's children are too young for marriage.

There was another Prince William who died in a plane crash in the early 1970s (interestingly at the same airfield that I learned to fly at - WBA) that I saw a YouTube documentary on recently, who also wanted to have nothing to do with the monarchy. Perhaps they want the lifestyle and horses but not all the publicity and meet-and-greet that goes with it. It would certainly drive me around the bend very quickly.

I see the English landed gentry as a rather resilient 0.1% rather than anything more sinister. The same thing of wealth accumulation is happening in Australia but with no inheritance tax here. That book on "Who owns England" seems interesting from the reviews I have read. You must have a pretty good library at your homestead. Mine is somewhat restricted to works that will help in a resource constrained future.

[clv101]

You must have a pretty good library at your homestead. Mine is somewhat restricted to works that will help in a resource constrained future.

I listen to audio books for a few hours a day while doing manual stuff, mostly non-fiction, only buy the hard copy if it's something I might want to refer to again or lend out. I did by the Who Owns England book.

[Lurkalot2]

I think I'd vote to abolish the monarchy although I'm not really sure how it would be done and exactly what it would achieve in some respects. We certainly wouldn't go down the French or Russian route and execute them and I doubt that we'd even ask them to leave the country. Much is often made of how much the royal family cost and I'm not sure how much could be saved. The houses and pomp would most likely still be there as it's what the tourists see after all. I could see lawyers getting rich with the legal arguments on the who owns what issue if the position of monarch is abolished . They are still going to have to live somewhere .
We have Gove in the position of Secretary of State for levelling up , removing an over privileged family would seem to be a very visible way of at least attempting to level society up.

[UndercoverElephant]

We have Gove in the position of Secretary of State for levelling up , removing an over privileged family would seem to be a very visible way of at least attempting to level society up.

That is levelling down. Nothing wrong with that.

[RevdTess]

Normally I'd vote to keep the monarchy, not because they're good for the country, but because I'd be nervous about a presidential system. The Irish system seems to work okay though.

After the bomb tossed into the monarchy by Harry's Game though, I'm pretty sure I'm ready to give up on the lot of em. It's clearly not a healthy system for anyone concerned (i.e. all of us).

[Potemkin Villager]

Ye olde Windsor branch of the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha don't seem to occupy a very happy valley.

Maybe it's a bit simplistic to suggest that a tad too much inbreeding has been going on for ever.

[Lurkalot2]

We have Gove in the position of Secretary of State for levelling up , removing an over privileged family would seem to be a very visible way of at least attempting to level society up.

That is levelling down. Nothing wrong with that.

Up or down it achieves the same I suppose but I suspect people would view a department/minister for levelling down as having negative conertations. Levelling up just seems to sound better , as if everything is on the rise so to speak.