The British Monarchy

[halfcenturyup]

Well no, there are always multiple reasons but most commentators put the election method as the most common one for switching from yes to no.
Public opinion was in favour before that decision.

Most commentators probably didn't know diddly-squat. It's easy to rationalise something one way or the other after the fact. Not so easy to predict something that may happen. As all this just confirms.

 

[heslops barnet]

Highly inaccurate. For example, Windsor Castle belongs to the king or the royal family not the nation, which is why you can visit the gallery of Buckingham Palace as the ticket income paid for the repairs to Windsor after the fire and for other upkeep.
Sandringham and Balmoral Castle are the private property of the king……etc.

Private property, there lies the problem!

 

[KS55]

Most commentators probably didn't know diddly-squat. It's easy to rationalise something one way or the other after the fact. Not so easy to predict something that may happen. As all this just confirms.

The case was quite the opposite. Don’t let facts get in the way, tho’.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I'm no republican, but it's clear the case for having a royal family is diminishing over time and I imagine all those problems are solvable. I am more worried that such a significant constitutional change would be fucked up by "politicians". If we have learned anything in the last decade it must be that structural changes must have overwhelming support and be properly thought through. I have zero confidence in the British political class to see that through. I am much more confident that keeping the royal family will cause much less chaos, tbh.

This is the important issue and one that is going to be seismic to introduce (and will doubtlessly cost a fortune).

Would anyone have trusted Johnson to produce a rational option? Would Conservative voters think Labour will either?
A bit like when Blair 'tried' House of Lords reform and then backed appointment by copying the Commons percentages - what would be the point of that?

Coming up with something that works and can't be subverted by the political parties is not a small job. It would need a very long period of planning. We don't really seem to have a plan for what a reformed House of Lords should look like, and that's much easier to address.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The case was quite the opposite. Don’t let facts get in the way, tho’.

I agree that the Australian referendum about 20 years was most definitely set up to fail, as the option put forward was awful.

 

[Abattoir Blue]

Thanks for your input mate, can I interest you in a commemorative mug starring the royal of your choice ;-)

My dad still has a 'Joe Royle's Blue & White Army' mug if that's any good?

 

[halfcenturyup]

The case was quite the opposite. Don’t let facts get in the way, tho’.

Not looking for an argument about this because I don't really care one way or the other but the only facts I can see is that some polls suggested the necessary majority for a republic on some basis or another, and a referendum, presumably on a different basis, that was rejected.

None of that shows as a fact that the proposal was rejected because of a difference between the poll question and the referendum. And I don't know how you would show that as a fact with any degree of certainty. A conclusion with a percentage probability maybe, but not a fact.

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

It’s what you replace the monarchy with a “republic” ? technically nothing changes it won’t affect me or mine in any way.
I would still be taxed for the upkeep of the president and his estate, unless it’s proposed to re-distribute the Crown estate wealth and give us all a handout, the king gets to keep all his personal wealth and property “nothing changes” there is no point in agitating for change.

Change makes no difference to me or mine I could probably watch all the castles and houses go into private hands or fall into disrepair as so many do and I get to vote for a president in an election which has to be paid for out of public money I’m happy with the way it is.

I know how as a country we work surely that’s the point the case for a republic is long gone and in the past, when the majority of people were poor with no future.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Why did Starmer get heckled and booed when he went a visited within a few days after the attack having only been in power a couple weeks, yet Charles visits weeks later and is labelled courageous and inspiring?

 

[TinFoilHat]

Why did Starmer get heckled and booed when he went a visited within a few days after the attack having only been in power a couple weeks, yet Charles visits weeks later and is labelled courageous and inspiring?

Because fascist fuckpigs respect their king and don't use him for social media likes.