POLL: The Monarchy – Keep it or scrap it?

My next poll asks whether Britain should keep or scrap the monarchy. Read the pros and cons and then have your say in the comments below:

Pros (Reasons for keeping the monarchy):

  • It makes Britain different from other countries by having a monarch
  • It has been a tradition for hundreds of years
  • It brings in money from tourism
  • The monarch is only for decoration and a de jure head of state
  • The Royals are patrons of some charities
  • It costs about 50p per person per year

Cons (Reasons for scrapping the monarchy):

  • The monarch is an undemocratic and unelected head of state born into power
  • The Royal Family gain £300m from the tax payer every year
  • Britain will always be unique for its history even without the monarchy
  • Millions of British people will never have the chance to become the head of state
  • Britain would still gain money from tourism (Paris gains more money than London which doesn’t have a monarch. Also, Chester Zoo brings in more money than Windsor Castle)
  • The Royal family do not represent the beliefs and values of ordinary British people



23 thoughts on “POLL: The Monarchy – Keep it or scrap it?

  1. Reblogged this on The Greater Fool and commented:
    Personally I’d change it to be no longer part of the constitution with all it’s assets transferred to the State and the core Royals made employees of the State. A directly elected Head of State and Upper house is essential before we can call this country a democracy.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. They descend from Murderers, Rapists, Thieves, Paedophiles.
    The list goes on.
    Also it’s not only just the royals in buck house we pay for, what about ALL the hangers on.
    They cost.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Before I voted to scrap the monarchy I would want to be very sure what we want to put in it’s place. .Being unelected is not the worst feature of a Head of State who inherits the position. At least they are not involved in party politics. Look at what is happening in the USA. Do we really want a self-seeking, power mad politician not only as Head of State but Head of the Government The monarchy could be restructured to fit the 21st century rather than than maintaining it in it’s present mediaeval form. We could cut out all ties to the military as we do with politics, streamline their ceremonial duties so that their main responsibility was to act as hosts to visiting Heads of State or represent our country when invited elsewhere. Charity work could be done in their own time and at their own expense. Many changes could be made to meet most of the criticisms of the present system without facing the possibility of a Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair becoming President. After all what has the Queen ever done to cause harm to any of her subjects ?


  3. The Monarch’s are the true benefit scroungers. Working Tax payers all too often blame the poor, which causes somewhat of a class divide. Thats what they want, to divide the people-divide and conquer. To cut a lot of that out, How about the royal family pay all benefits instead? It would mean those in work will be able to keep more of their wages and also make it easier for benefit claimants to get a roof over their head and have a much better chance of finding work.


    1. I am neither anti Britain, gay or scum – atheist perhaps but would say more agnostic than atheist. I believe so much in Britain and the British people that I don’t want an unelected head of state or a self-serving Tory govt – all members of the 1% enjoying the high life at the expense of the 99%.

      How does having a monarch making us different? Different from what? Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Spain, Belgium – just a few of our close neighbours who also have monarchies but many more in the Near and Far East also have a king or queen – so, what makes Britain different? Nothing!


    2. Interesting argument there, David. I see you’ve clearly thought everything through in a well researched and clear way. However, I’m struggling to find any information from my gay friends as to whether this is a requirement for being an anti-royalist. In fact the one pro-royal person in the group was unable to figure out where you gathered your research? Do you have anything I can pass on?
      Also, we were unable to ascertain the meaning of the word ‘libtard’ as it doesn’t appear in the dictionary we have handy. Perhaps it’s a colloquialism to your area?
      I also took it upon myself to speak several of my Christian anti royal friends who, again, have found no research to support your claim that all anti-monarchy supporters are atheists? I guess you can see why we’re confused. Hopefully you can enlighten us.
      Kind regards.


    1. Some of their private estates are self funding.
      The 300 million is not necessarily accurate either as the anti and pro monarchy forces do often quote different figures on actual costs and costs which would still remain if the monarchy was abolished.


  4. Those Pros and Cons are very biased towards the cons, with no facts provided to compare incoming v outgoing, before we even start on what values they do or do not have versus “ordinary” British people. How much have they helped generate for Charities also? If you are going to do a poll with Pros and Cons at expect it to be taken seriously then you need to try much much harder.


  5. I’m not a fan of the royal family, but this poll is bogus.

    For example; the claim about the royal family costing £300m isn’t true
    “The annual report states that the monarchy costs the UK approximately £35.7 million. That works out at about 56p per person, per year for the taxpayer. The revenue paid to the UK from the Crown Estate is at a record £285 million. So, take away the Queen’s £35.7 million, and the UK is left with £249 million.24 Jun 2015”
    That doesn’t include the £500m generated through tourism.


  6. How can anyone criticise the unemployed and people receiving benefit aid when the head of state and her entire family live off of government handouts. The only difference is the size of handout. Pathetic.


  7. Without the monarchy, parliament would no longer have an incentive to respect common law rights, and you’d have tyranny within a generation. The monarchy must stay to defend the constitution.


  8. You’ll never know how valuable something is, until it’s gone. The U.K. should keep its monarchy, forever. Otherwise, face the possibility of a ruler that threatens the very existence of the USA: TRUMP…!! Long live the Queen!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s