I don't think they are needed and it would be more of a democracy if the head of state was elected. I also don't think the king of England (especially Charles) should be Canada's military's Commander In Chief - it should be a Canadian like my neighbour who served in the Canadian military most of his life. Cheers!

My wife is a staunch and active anti-monarchy campaigner. Every five minutes at the moment she's moaning about the £100 million the coronation is costing us.

I'm a campaigner for PR however neither big party will ever support it as they know it means highly unlikely they will ever get to be in power in their own again. Bit it reflects better the profile of the population, means everyone has a vote that counts etc etc

I agree with pretty much all of that. On the subject of "the money they bring in" nobody ever seems to be able to put an accurate, fact-checked figure on it. And, what people that say this don't seem to consider is that they cannot be erased from history. So they would still "bring money in". Buckingham Palace, for example could be a very lucrative museum, as could other sites.

We don't need a monarchy at all. They wouldn't have to be replaced by anything.

I very much agree with you. The monarchy should be phased out, starting with Andrew and his mistresses, Harry and his wife, and others who are not pulling their weight. Apart from the financial cost they are symbols of a hierarchical outlook alien to ideas of an accountable democracy.

Your ancient traditions and history are that of a monarchy. You'll probably recall that modern Parliament was created around the time of the Magna Carta. Around the time that the French were cutting off the heads of their monarchs, England refrained.

Your kings were so prone to abuse of their powers that they had to be curtailed somehow. George III is one example, and one whom Americans remember fondly.

On that note, it would require something of a revolution to remove the monarchy in the UK. Most of the people love the queens and kings, and you'd be fighting your own people to initiate such a change.

Nope but they do bring a lot of revenue into the country and it is nice to have some history I guess

We don’t need chuck and his horse..

We can't just focus on one branch of government. The executive is so powerful that an elected head of state would be just as token and ineffective as the current incumbent. I would pay MPs whatever they need to keep their minds on the job and stop them from seeking other employment, have a small and indirectly elected upper house of properly salaried representatives to scrutinise legislation, and have the whole lot overseen by a monarch acting more as a chairman than an appointee of god. Not so bothered about the expense - most Britons appear to think it is value for money - but yes it is a bit crass in the current economic climate.

I don't care what you do, but please, please, take Harry and his wacky wife back would you? Thanks in advance.

Elected head of state or Monarchy? Zero difference. EH will simply do wha the Monarchy does.

I sometimes need a touch of colour, even a touch of something that makes no sense. Long live the King! He has a lot of unearned money - well not unusual! At least Charles is someone with a billion or so who actually has very little power, unlike many others who control the media and influence so many in so many underhand ways. Camilla I actually like. That said, little interest in the ceremonies as such. I won't be watching. Those camping out since tuesday to get a front-line view? Love them! Long may the nutters reign.

Better rules to hold MPs to account to start with followed by PR. Removing the monarchy is much more complex than just replacing with an alternative head of states and would take decades to bring about.

For the realms outside the UK I'd agree it is better for someone in their own country to be the figurehead but ultimately it is their choice.

To me, as a non-British person, your post sounds a bit like the political program of the Liberal Party.

I very much agree. But can the elected prime minister not do both roles?

careful now...you're sounding like a democratic republican

Good for you

I wish I could get in this conversation, however I am from the US and our government is totally different. Not knowing anything about your, I w
Oils like to point out one important yhing that we need to change and that is “we need term limits” Career politicians become corrupt and power hungry.

Americans don't.
No debate.. unity. War.

The King of a Nation is supposed to be a Leader, unquestioningly loyal to His people, not some spoiled, sordid little pervert adulterer who couldn't keep his peepee in his panties. Neither chuckles nor cowmilla deserve to be King and Queen, which is which, I leave up to someone else to decide? 🥴

A republic! Why not just pull it back? Make it half the size? And please take Harry back.