End of the Monarchy?

[ElBurroSinNombre]

I have been a life long republican - the personalities of the Royals involved are not really important IMO. It's what a system like this represents to our society. Several posters have stated that 'we are all equal'. The problem with that view is that this story illustrates clearly that we are not. Perpetuating a system where someone is born to rule is the opposite of that. Andrew has behaved in a way that would see him in prison if he were a commoner. Instead he has been protected and the truth has had to be dragged out bit by bit. The idea that the police will go after him now because he is a commoner really illustrates that we are not equal under the law.

If we ever want to be a modern country we need to move past this feudalism. Most of us want meritocracy, if we are actually serious about that then this system that perpetuates inequality has to end.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

And we have a monarchy as a figurehead and an elected government and that seems to work well enough too.

I think this story illustrates that it is not working very well. We have had the state protecting someone who looks very much like a sex offender because he is a part of the monarchy.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

Good piece in the National published yesterday;

THE NATIONAL

Mhairi Black: Andrew losing titles isn't the end. Where are the Epstein files?
Jane Cassidy
@MhairiBlack
OPINION
1ST NOV, 2025 05:00 AM
AS a staunch republican, I find the existence of and deference to the royal family an absurdity but this week I find myself commending them.

King Charles finally took the long-overdue actions necessary to strip his brother, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, of his royal titles and honours.

One of the main consequences is that Andrew can no longer live in the 30-room Royal Lodge mansion, gifted to him by the late queen, and will instead reside on the Sandringham Estate.

It should go without saying that the king’s decision is to be welcomed, but I fear we may be witnessing a grandiose PR exercise to preserve the image of the royal family, rather than a meaningful step towards holding powerful men accountable. I hope I’m wrong.

My cynicism comes mainly from the length of time it has taken to come to this decision.

Prince Andrew staying in touch with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein even after his first conviction

No real action was taken when Andrew was photographed in New York going for walks, and staying at the home of Epstein after the latter had been found guilty of sexually abusing underage girls.

Similarly, no action was taken when it was alleged in 2014 by Virginia Giuffre that Andrew was one of the men Epstein trafficked her to. The following year, Buckingham Palace actually issued a statement defending Andrew when he was named in Epstein court documents.

It was only several days after Andrew’s utterly disastrous 2019 interview on Newsnight with Emily Maitlis that it was announced he would be stepping back from public duties.

Similarly, it was not until five months after Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit against Andrew in the US that the palace decided to strip him of his military affiliations and royal patronages in January 2022.

The palace long made the argument that it had no responsibility for Andrew given his status as a “non-working royal”, only to then publicly accept it does.

Earlier this month, a newly leaked email showed Andrew telling Epstein, “keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon!!!!”

after the date he had told Maitlis he had ceased contact with Epstein. So, what has prompted this escalation from the king all of a sudden? Amid the debacle of the Epstein files in the US and the publication of Giuffre’s posthumously published memoir Nobody’s Girl, Andrew’s association with Epstein has continued to make headlines.

According to royal sources, a “tipping point” was reached when the king’s historic visit to meet Pope Leo at the Vatican was overshadowed by stories about Andrew and Epstein.

At every turn the palace has sought to do as little as possible, with as much resistance as possible, in the hope that this unsavoury story will simply go away.

The most recent statement from the palace said: “These ventures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.”

In other words, these actions have only now been deemed necessary because nothing else has successfully quashed the story. Simultaneously, I hope there is sincerity when the King made clear his thoughts and sympathies are with the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.

More than our thoughts and sympathies, our admiration, gratitude and priority should be given to survivors.

Andrew was but one part of Epstein’s larger web. The best way to honour victims is to continue to dig until justice is served.

US attorney general and Trump loyalist Pam Bondi had claimed that the so-called Epstein list was on her desk and would be released upon Donald Trump’s election.

This position was then walked back so far as to deny the existence of any list at all. Given Trump’s own friendship with Epstein, it seems obvious that the Republicans are fearful of what may be uncovered. Indeed, Republican speaker of the house Mike Johnson is still refusing to swear in a newly elected Democrat to prevent the release of all Epstein files.

Arizona representative-elect Adelita Grijalva pledged that her first act in Congress would be adding her name to and thus triggering a vote to publicly release files related to the federal investigation of Epstein.

The former “prince” Andrew is only now being forced to face some semblance of consequences for his alleged actions because of the dogged determination of people such as Giuffre and their persistence in challenging and picking away at some of the most powerful people in the world in the pursuit of justice, one slow step at a time.

Giuffre never lived to see this significant moment, so the best way we can honour her and all the victims of Epstein and others is to continue to dig.

 

[Brazil]

And we have a monarchy as a figurehead and an elected government and that seems to work well enough too.

In Portugal,the elected President is more than a figurehead. He or she appoints the PM,who then forms the government. The president scrutinizes and ultimately either approves bills passed in Parliament or sends them back for alteration or amendments. The elected president is a figurehead,correct,but is more than that.
The UK has no elected titular head of state. Just an entitled royal who personifies privilege and a deference that,in my view,belongs in the bygone age it came from.

 

[Brazil]

I think this story illustrates that it is not working very well. We have had the state protecting someone who looks very much like a sex offender because he is a part of the monarchy.

I was going to add a subsequent post replying to 20s saying exactly this.

 

[bfcpete]

Another report today on Andrew giving the owner of Pegasus, a crypto mining firm, a private tour of Buckingham Palace while the Queen was in residence. One of the benefits in return was a £1.4m donation to Sarah Ferguson.

 

[20togo]

Good piece in the National published yesterday;

THE NATIONAL

Mhairi Black: Andrew losing titles isn't the end. Where are the Epstein files?
Jane Cassidy
@MhairiBlack
OPINION
1ST NOV, 2025 05:00 AM
AS a staunch republican, I find the existence of and deference to the royal family an absurdity but this week I find myself commending them.

King Charles finally took the long-overdue actions necessary to strip his brother, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, of his royal titles and honours.

One of the main consequences is that Andrew can no longer live in the 30-room Royal Lodge mansion, gifted to him by the late queen, and will instead reside on the Sandringham Estate.

It should go without saying that the king’s decision is to be welcomed, but I fear we may be witnessing a grandiose PR exercise to preserve the image of the royal family, rather than a meaningful step towards holding powerful men accountable. I hope I’m wrong.

My cynicism comes mainly from the length of time it has taken to come to this decision.

Prince Andrew staying in touch with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein even after his first conviction

No real action was taken when Andrew was photographed in New York going for walks, and staying at the home of Epstein after the latter had been found guilty of sexually abusing underage girls.

Similarly, no action was taken when it was alleged in 2014 by Virginia Giuffre that Andrew was one of the men Epstein trafficked her to. The following year, Buckingham Palace actually issued a statement defending Andrew when he was named in Epstein court documents.

It was only several days after Andrew’s utterly disastrous 2019 interview on Newsnight with Emily Maitlis that it was announced he would be stepping back from public duties.

Similarly, it was not until five months after Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit against Andrew in the US that the palace decided to strip him of his military affiliations and royal patronages in January 2022.

The palace long made the argument that it had no responsibility for Andrew given his status as a “non-working royal”, only to then publicly accept it does.

Earlier this month, a newly leaked email showed Andrew telling Epstein, “keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon!!!!”

after the date he had told Maitlis he had ceased contact with Epstein. So, what has prompted this escalation from the king all of a sudden? Amid the debacle of the Epstein files in the US and the publication of Giuffre’s posthumously published memoir Nobody’s Girl, Andrew’s association with Epstein has continued to make headlines.

According to royal sources, a “tipping point” was reached when the king’s historic visit to meet Pope Leo at the Vatican was overshadowed by stories about Andrew and Epstein.

At every turn the palace has sought to do as little as possible, with as much resistance as possible, in the hope that this unsavoury story will simply go away.

The most recent statement from the palace said: “These ventures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.”

In other words, these actions have only now been deemed necessary because nothing else has successfully quashed the story. Simultaneously, I hope there is sincerity when the King made clear his thoughts and sympathies are with the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.

More than our thoughts and sympathies, our admiration, gratitude and priority should be given to survivors.

Andrew was but one part of Epstein’s larger web. The best way to honour victims is to continue to dig until justice is served.

US attorney general and Trump loyalist Pam Bondi had claimed that the so-called Epstein list was on her desk and would be released upon Donald Trump’s election.

This position was then walked back so far as to deny the existence of any list at all. Given Trump’s own friendship with Epstein, it seems obvious that the Republicans are fearful of what may be uncovered. Indeed, Republican speaker of the house Mike Johnson is still refusing to swear in a newly elected Democrat to prevent the release of all Epstein files.

Arizona representative-elect Adelita Grijalva pledged that her first act in Congress would be adding her name to and thus triggering a vote to publicly release files related to the federal investigation of Epstein.

The former “prince” Andrew is only now being forced to face some semblance of consequences for his alleged actions because of the dogged determination of people such as Giuffre and their persistence in challenging and picking away at some of the most powerful people in the world in the pursuit of justice, one slow step at a time.

Giuffre never lived to see this significant moment, so the best way we can honour her and all the victims of Epstein and others is to continue to dig.

I'm a monarchist so you are never gonna change my view on the fact that i am proud we have one. I won't defend Andrew because he is a bad apple and deserves whatever punishment comes his way both from the monarchy and the state. But to say the monarchy isn't working very well because of one bad apple just highlights your prejudice and shows that you are incapable of looking at it objectively.

Now i am sorry that VG is dead and that she felt the need to take her own life but whereas she is clearly the victim in this whole sordid escapade i don't believe she is totally the innocent victim. She was clearly prepared to accept at that time 12 mil to keep quiet. She was perhaps happy to pose for photographs with people and she was prepared to travel from place to place where these "offences" took place. Of course her family are now at the forefront of what is happening but i don't recall them being about at the relevant times. Is it reasonable to think it was quite a story for them to tell to their friends that their daughter/sister was at the time hobnobbing around the world with royalty and others with positions of power/influence. Please note my key point is saying "at the time".

So i'm not at the point at all of "honouring" her but yes keep digging to expose every sordid detail of the people involved.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

I have been a life long republican - the personalities of the Royals involved are not really important IMO. It's what a system like this represents to our society. Several posters have stated that 'we are all equal'. The problem with that view is that this story illustrates clearly that we are not. Perpetuating a system where someone is born to rule is the opposite of that. Andrew has behaved in a way that would see him in prison if he were a commoner. Instead he has been protected and the truth has had to be dragged out bit by bit. The idea that the police will go after him now because he is a commoner really illustrates that we are not equal under the law.

If we ever want to be a modern country we need to move past this feudalism. Most of us want meritocracy, if we are actually serious about that then this system that perpetuates inequality has to end.

I think getting rid of the royal family, would be a step in the direction of actual meritocracy, getting rid of the other titles and an appointed second house might be the first step. Making the UK an officially secular nation (which it predominantly is) and scrubbing religious practices from all educational establishments (including private religious schools) would be another step (understanding that higher powers do not exist). The step I think is most important is to adopt humanism (hence my opposition to religious practices) and have governance and legislative process based around humanistic principles ie, people get put before systems and institutions. That way the politicians, the corporate leaders, the functionaries of the judiciary system are firstly reminded that they serve the people and hopefully eliminates or at least reduces the exceptionalism that is a cultural norm now for those people.

 

[southshore]

No the power would go to my head and I would have to be polite to people.

I think Charlie is trying his best and William may offer some hope.

God could you imagine?

'that man, go and get me a zero % Guiness now'.

 

[Wizaard]

The sooner William takes the crown the better - if charles tries to drag his reign out it may be the end.

He won't be abdicating, so how does Charles 'not drag out his reign'? Die?

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

A lot of people are quick to forget the huge amount of charity work the Royal family do Princess Anne in particular Prince William to a lessor extent but FFS his wife was diagnosed with cancer 18 months ago as was his father.

The royal family bring in by far the biggest amount of foreign cash into the country with millions of people visiting royal castles/museums etc.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

I think getting rid of the royal family, would be a step in the direction of actual meritocracy, getting rid of the other titles and an appointed second house might be the first step. Making the UK an officially secular nation (which it predominantly is) and scrubbing religious practices from all educational establishments (including private religious schools) would be another step (understanding that higher powers do not exist). The step I think is most important is to adopt humanism (hence my opposition to religious practices) and have governance and legislative process based around humanistic principles ie, people get put before systems and institutions. That way the politicians, the corporate leaders, the functionaries of the judiciary system are firstly reminded that they serve the people and hopefully eliminates or at least reduces the exceptionalism that is a cultural norm now for those people.

I agree with all of that.
Your post reminded me of the time when at a school parents evening I said to the headteacher;

'Why isn't there a school where you have to prove that you are an atheist to get your child admitted?'.

It didn't go down very well obvs. but I have long held the view that the education system allows discrimination on religious grounds that would be illegal in any other settings [for instance, 'we only employ Catholics' would be against the law].

 

[Wizaard]

A lot of people are quick to forget the huge amount of charity work the Royal family do Princess Anne in particular Prince William to a lessor extent but FFS his wife was diagnosed with cancer 18 months ago as was his father.

The royal family bring in by far the biggest amount of foreign cash into the country with millions of people visiting royal castles/museums etc.

Urban myth.

The Royals bring in by far more foreign cash?

How much? Ahead of whom?

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

Urban myth.

The Royals bring in by far more foreign cash?

How much? Ahead of whom?

The 13 royal residencies annually bring in over £50m a year so please tell me what other foreign travellers to this countries attractions beats it?

We’ve had a Monarchy for over a thousand years one bad apple isn’t going to change anything soon.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

I agree with all of that.
Your post reminded me of the time when at a school parents evening I said to the headteacher;

'Why isn't there a school where you have to prove that you are an atheist to get your child admitted?'.

It didn't go down very well obvs. but I have long held the view that the education system allows discrimination on religious grounds that would be illegal in any other settings [for instance, 'we only employ Catholics' would be against the law].

ALL religious institutions get to practice discrimination and that discrimination is PROTECTED under law.

When I was listening to the post office enquiry testimonies, it was clear that many of the individuals who took the oath under god were clearly lying, including the CEO and the chief legal counsel who went through a whole religious ceremony before stating his oath, which was obviously performative in asserting his credibility, of which he had zero. Its the same with Blair at the various enquiries when he stated he would be judged by god, rather than a war crimes tribunal.

I think this is one of the big problems with religion and being educated in a religious manner, firstly it teaches, more accurately indoctrinates people to be obedient, it teaches hypocrisy, and it instills subjugation at numerous level, which includes the god given rights of royalty. Dissenting views are not tolerated, which also means creativity and originality are not tolerated.

 

[Sven]

I’m far from a monarchist but some people love it and I can see there are some benefits. I’d be in favour of modernisation rather than abolition, providing they’re offering value for money and benefitting the country.

I think they’ll survive but we need more transparency because they’re looking pretty dodgy atm.

 

[gjr]

A lot of people are quick to forget the huge amount of charity work the Royal family do Princess Anne in particular Prince William to a lessor extent but FFS his wife was diagnosed with cancer 18 months ago as was his father.

The royal family bring in by far the biggest amount of foreign cash into the country with millions of people visiting royal castles/museums etc.

We could all have a better look around them if they didn't live in them, bring in even more tourists, France is the most visited country on the planet, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle and all the other houses on the Windsor Estate could bring in more visitors than Versailles.
They are compelled to do charity work to give themselves any credibility at all.
Personally i would have them all put in Sandringham or Balmoral where they could all live together in luxury in a type of Royal Zoo/reality show. They could opt out and stand on their own two feet or carry on living in the aristocratic freak show!
TV ratings would be huge, would bring in loads of money to the UK.

 

[southshore]

The only justification for the monarchy in my book is a financial one. If they ‘earn’ more for UK PLC by attracting tourists and promoting goodwill through overseas visits than they cost to run, then I’m for keeping them. Like TAM however, you won’t see me bowing and scraping to them. ( unless I’m offered a Knighthood of course, then all you minions can kiss my entitled arse)

 

[Costero Poderoso]

The 13 royal residencies annually bring in over £50m a year so please tell me what other foreign travellers to this countries attractions beats it?

Maybe 1 in 1000 people who visit the UK come to specifically see "royal residences", it might be on the agenda for people visiting but, numerous other attractions are the principle reason for visiting. Without a royal family he various palaces could be turned into actual tourist destinations. I'm pretty sure that there are many foreigners who would pay very good money to sleep and eat at one of the places. The top six PL teams bring in more foreign tourist revenue than all the royal palaces combined.

 

[Wizaard]

The 13 royal residencies annually bring in over £50m a year so please tell me what other foreign travellers to this countries attractions beats it?

We’ve had a Monarchy for over a thousand years one bad apple isn’t going to change anything soon.

Where does that money go?

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

Where does that money go?

I’m not Jenny Bond FFS.

 

[Wizaard]

I’m not Jenny Bond FFS.

You said they bring in far more than any other foreign business. Justify it. It's nonsense.

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

You said they bring in far more than any other foreign business. Justify it. It's nonsense.

And I’ve already asked you what other attraction brings in more money?

 

[Wizaard]

And I’ve already asked you what other attraction brings in more money?

Attraction? Business makes far more.

As an attraction, London as a whole brings in far more visitors. The most visited place for foreigners is the British Museum.

Of course, you're too scared to go to London.

 

[gjr]

The 13 royal residencies annually bring in over £50m a year so please tell me what other foreign travellers to this countries attractions beats it?

We’ve had a Monarchy for over a thousand years one bad apple isn’t going to change anything soon.

One bad apple! What history books have you read!

 

[20togo]

Maybe 1 in 1000 people who visit the UK come to specifically see "royal residences", it might be on the agenda for people visiting but, numerous other attractions are the principle reason for visiting. Without a royal family he various palaces could be turned into actual tourist destinations. I'm pretty sure that there are many foreigners who would pay very good money to sleep and eat at one of the places. The top six PL teams bring in more foreign tourist revenue than all the royal palaces combined.

absolute nonsense. 1 in 1000? So you reckon all these visitors who i would imagine take in London as part of their trip don't go and see Buckingham Palace . It will be high on their list to see. Like it not , and you clearly don't ,foreign tourists visiting this country love the history and the pomp and circumstance that being British is.

Meanwhile, you just continue to spout your hatred and bile from overseas.

 

[20togo]

One bad apple! What history books have you read!

ah you deliberately misread. It's pretty obvious he means currently. If you want to talk history, then lets get rid of the pope, eh!

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

One bad apple! What history books have you read!

I don’t need history books.

I deliberately didn’t mention Harry as it’s a personal family feud same with Dianna.

King George abdicated the throne for his love life.

Not one royal has stooped so low as Andrew.

 

[gjr]

ah you deliberately misread. It's pretty obvious he means currently. If you want to talk history, then lets get rid of the pope, eh!

Id get rid of the pope too, but at least popes go through a form of election process where their peers vote them in on merit.

 

[gjr]

I don’t need history books.

I deliberately didn’t mention Harry as it’s a personal family feud same with Dianna.

King George abdicated the throne for his love life.

Not one royal has stooped so low as Andrew.

Full of opinions but no need for books, each to their own.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

The 13 royal residencies annually bring in over £50m a year so please tell me what other foreign travellers to this countries attractions beats it?

We’ve had a Monarchy for over a thousand years one bad apple isn’t going to change anything soon.

Weak argument Those residences would still be there if the monarchy was abolished
Do tourists not visit Versailles ?

 

[20togo]

Attraction? Business makes far more.

As an attraction, London as a whole brings in far more visitors. The most visited place for foreigners is the British Museum.

Of course, you're too scared to go to London.

yep, but the British Museum is free to get in. And I'd say there isn't an overseas tourist in London that doesn't go and stand outside the gates of Buckingham Palace. But let me guess, I'd say it's pretty much a certainty that a significant part of the British Museum is connected to our monarchy.

So really, was the BM a good choice of yours to quote?

 

[Wizaard]

yep, but the British Museum is free to get in. And I'd say there isn't an overseas tourist in London that doesn't go and stand outside the gates of Buckingham Palace.

Probably not, but they don't come just to see the Royals, as was claimed. They'd come anyway and do, despite the building being empty most of the year.

 

[20togo]

Probably not, but they don't come just to see the Royals, as was claimed. They'd come anyway and do, despite the building being empty most of the year.

see the rest of my edited post.

 

[bfcpete]

Probably not, but they don't come just to see the Royals, as was claimed. They'd come anyway and do, despite the building being empty most of the year.

Absolutely correct. Most people visit palaces and castles when there is no Royal Family there.

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

Weak argument Those residences would still be there if the monarchy was abolished
Do tourists not visit Versailles ?

I thought Versailles was in France?

What’s that to do with this country?

 

[Seasider1]

The whole royal family thing, takes you to the old age debate of " nature or nurture ". Being born and brought up knowing nothing other than being waited on and bowed down to. Having a life hidden away from the real world and the way the majority of people have to live day to day. It's no wonder they see the world different, again with privilege and opportunity it changes a once decent person.
Just take a look at the politicians that work there way up from being well meaning and wanting to make things better for everyone. Then suddenly achieve a position where they soon realise if they follow certain codes of conduct and join the club they can milk a system to their own benefits soon forgetting why they wanted the gig in the 1st place.
Until the law and punishment is equally handed out no matter what sort of club you belong to there will always be an inequality and an us and them society.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

I thought Versailles was in France?

What’s that to do with this country?

It’s a comparator of tourists visiting royal palaces in a country that no longer has a royal family demonstrating that you don’t need them for the tourists

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

It’s a comparator of tourists visiting royal palaces in a country that no longer has a royal family demonstrating that you don’t need them for the tourists

Fair enough but I was specifically on about what the royal family bring in to this country regarding foreign tourists and cash flow.

 

[bill40]

Go on. Spill the beans. You know you want to.

The royal family was always based on having the public's affection nothing else mattered. William is the most entitled future monarch ever he demands that everything royal be about him and only him. You'll see.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

And I’ve already asked you what other attraction brings in more money?

The premier League attracts over 1 million foreign visitors worth over 700 million pounds.

The British grand Prix brings in more direct foreign tourism money than the royal family, as do the various golf tournaments. Wimbledon fortnight generates about half a billion pounds, I think about a third is from foreign visitors

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

The premier League attracts over 1 million foreign visitors worth over 700 million pounds.

Well we might as well talk about foreign owned premier league clubs as well while we’re at it as only they have the finances.

That’s why the premier league is the greedy league locals who fancy a day out at a game can’t buy tickets these days due to foreign visitors snapping up the tickets.

Maybe all these foreign visitors should try watching the likes of Barrow or Fleetwood as an alternative to the likes of Arsenal, City, or United? Maybe foreign investors should buy clubs the likes of Barrow and Fleetwood?

I take on your point however but 20 premier league clubs half of which are foreign owned v one family is hardly a great comparison.

Back on Topic you cannot tarnish the whole Royal family due to one bad apple and yes I’ve mentioned others previously in this thread but they’ve been family Freuds so hardly on a scale of Andrew so apart from hanging or beheading him I think the King has dealt with it admirably.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

Well we might as well talk about foreign owned premier league clubs as well while we’re at it as only they have the finances.

That’s why the premier league is the greedy league locals who fancy a day out at a game can’t buy tickets these days due to foreign visitors snapping up the tickets.

Maybe all these foreign visitors should try watching the likes of Barrow or Fleetwood as an alternative to the likes of Arsenal, City, or United? Maybe foreign investors should buy clubs the likes of Barrow and Fleetwood?

I take on your point however but 20 premier league clubs half of which are foreign owned v one family is hardly a great comparison.

Back on Topic you cannot tarnish the whole Royal family due to one bad apple and yes I’ve mentioned others previously in this thread but they’ve been family Freuds so hardly on a scale of Andrew so apart from hanging or beheading him I think the King has dealt with it admirably.

But the statement I was responding to was what things pull in more foreign tourism, and there are literally hundreds of reasons to visit the UK that don't include the royal family, and hundreds of things that are financially more beneficial.

It's also not about tarnishing the royal family because of the actions of one member, there were members who were Nazi sympathisers in the run up to WW2, Charles was taking bag fulls of cash from Saudi leaders just a couple of years ago, various members have been embroiled in financial scandals of one sort or another. Andrew should have have been dealt with a decade ago, but a financial settlement was deemed appropriate by the "family".

It's really about, for me anyway, the rationale of maintaining a ceremonial head of state that has no responsibility to the public and no inclination to stand up for the public whilst at the same time expecting reverence and privilege, and also they don't even reflect modern Britain, and probably never can with all of their antique protocols. As I've said before the idea of a monarchy coming from divine authority in a largely secular society, seems outmoded. If you want to take that aspect further, there are more practicing Catholics and Muslims than practicing church of England believers, so maybe the royal family should reflect those divine commands.

Psychologically getting rid of the monarchy opens up many other questions and insecurities about national identity and with the political state of affairs with right wing jingoism, it could lead to wider problems, but the 21st century has wider existential issues, war, increasing poverty, the environment, government corruption etc etc and monarchy along with it's institutions and institutional agendas is not equipped to deal with them. The basic idea of democracy and equality for example is undermined by the idea of monarchy.

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

But the statement I was responding to was what things pull in more foreign tourism, and there are literally hundreds of reasons to visit the UK that don't include the royal family, and hundreds of things that are financially more beneficial.

It's also not about tarnishing the royal family because of the actions of one member, there were members who were Nazi sympathisers in the run up to WW2, Charles was taking bag fulls of cash from Saudi leaders just a couple of years ago, various members have been embroiled in financial scandals of one sort or another. Andrew should have have been dealt with a decade ago, but a financial settlement was deemed appropriate by the "family".

It's really about, for me anyway, the rationale of maintaining a ceremonial head of state that has no responsibility to the public and no inclination to stand up for the public whilst at the same time expecting reverence and privilege, and also they don't even reflect modern Britain, and probably never can with all of their antique protocols. As I've said before the idea of a monarchy coming from divine authority in a largely secular society, seems outmoded. If you want to take that aspect further, there are more practicing Catholics and Muslims than practicing church of England believers, so maybe the royal family should reflect those divine commands.

Psychologically getting rid of the monarchy opens up many other questions and insecurities about national identity and with the political state of affairs with right wing jingoism, it could lead to wider problems, but the 21st century has wider existential issues, war, increasing poverty, the environment, government corruption etc etc and monarchy along with it's institutions and institutional agendas is not equipped to deal with them. The basic idea of democracy and equality for example is undermined by the idea of monarchy.

I do get what your saying I just didn’t think the premier league was a great example to use thats all especially when most clubs are already foreign owned.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Personally (as perhaps as my previous posts suggest) I am sick of the lot of them
I’m not inherently an anti-monarchist however when you have the royal family protecting scum it makes you reflect on what exactly their role is in the 21st C
Tell you something there is no chance of me ever bowing to the German inbreds

The role of the monarch is to stop anyone else trying to usurp power as head of state. In that sense I'll go with them for now.

 

[20togo]

The role of the monarch is to stop anyone else trying to usurp power as head of state. In that sense I'll go with them for now.

very witty.

 

[bfcpete]

Another report today on Andrew giving the owner of Pegasus, a crypto mining firm, a private tour of Buckingham Palace while the Queen was in residence. One of the benefits in return was a £1.4m donation to Sarah Ferguson.

You ought to read the full report on this on the BBC website. Not just the Palace visit but the active role that Fergie had with this dodgy company and it's owners. Went bust, after ripping off investors. They are rotten to the core and funded themselves by all sorts od dodgy relationships and deals.

 

[Lala]

You ought to read the full report on this on the BBC website. Not just the Palace visit but the active role that Fergie had with this dodgy company and it's owners. Went bust, after ripping off investors. They are rotten to the core and funded themselves by all sorts od dodgy relationships and deals.

Fergie is a leech.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

very witty.

It wasn't a witticism. It was a statement.

 

[20togo]

It wasn't a witticism. It was a statement.

yes but with an element of witticism in view of what the alternative is, i would have thought.