Should the British Monarchy be abolished?

If they cost more than they make in revenue, then yes the monarchy should go, especially seeing as there are some people in this country living in poverty. That money would be better spent on the poor to make this an equal system. You cannot call our system a democracy with a non elected head of state, it's not fair.

Have a referendum on abolition

No they should be given more power

No, God save the King

I’m neutral

No and the Monarch should be more involved in holding politicians to account, overrule unjust legislation and disolving parliment for election when the govenment does noit have public support

Seriously this is the most stupid question I've been asked in my life and I've been asked if Muslim is a country before, seriously that's so moronic, even Kurt Cobain lyrics look intellectual next to this question why the hell would you abolish the Monarchy be ashamed dude.

No, they're a positive influence on tourism and international relations but if the British people vote for it, it should be abolished

No, they are a positive influence on tourism, charity, international relations, heritage and culture

No, absolutely not. The country, in all fairness, belongs to the monarch and that should always be respected.

No, They must hold more power

The Monarchy is a central piece of British History and should be preserved indefinitely. Furthermore, they should be given more central access to the management of our country

What use are the royal family? They are a pointless anachronism, embarrassing and cringeworthy, and should've been gone years ago.

Get rid of them immediately and take back any land they were “given” through the centuries of the family and sell it back to its rightful owners

they should be gone by now evict them

reduce funding and influence

No, but only because it would cost too much considering the benefits to most of the population.

yes make me the new ruler!

only fund the Monarch

They should not be not be able to charge the NHS and Army for use of their land. They should be tougher on Andrew. I hate them but i understand they are a net positive for our international standing, relations and tourism.

No they are a positive influence on tourism but they should also be self funeded not to charge the tax payer

Should be optional by region within the British Federation

Monarchy should be regional dependent on the peoples choice

Not in principle, but they don't deserve to exist without serving an actual purpose - ceremonial isn't good enough.

No, but they should be regularly investigated and held accountable for their actions

No, but they should be investigated regularly (for example Andrew was found to be a part of the Epstein acts.) and should be held accountable for their actions.

Yes they are a bloody waste of space and do nothing for us hence why labour are wrecking the country.

No but pick a new family line

I personally don't see their value but wouldn't bother me if they continued to exist.

The Monarchy should be empowered to the point of Executive Power, building a Semi-Constitutional Monarchy.

They are good for economy however they should pay tax

They're just people, who don't seem to really care about the general public and only themselves.

No strong feelings either way

No, they should be self funded, no taxes as they are a positive influence on tourism, etc. 'Taxed' funds should be seen to be a posiitive investment in country.

No, but they should pay taxes. And get involved politically

Yes, the royalty are traitors and watched the UK burn from within, doing nothing to stop it.

No, but no tax-payer money should go into it, aswell as all property bought with tax-payer money to be put to better use to help the common people of the UK

Retain their symbolic position, but remove all political functions.

Only pay for duties carried out, they can get jobs and pay their fair share of tax

It needs to be done in conjunction with total reform of the House Of Lords and action against inherited wealth

As a non-royalist and as a starting point were they not to keep taking money from our NHS, land, offshore wind farms and pay it back into the public purse redistribution of wealth should be felt significantly more to all and especially those on food banks and the homeless.

There is no British monarchy, juts the King/Queen of Scots, and the King/Queen of England, and their constitutional position is different. There needs to be major adjustment around their wealth and their functions, which they bhave signally failed to fulfill.

Considering it’s unique circumstance I wouldn’t want to see the British monarchy abolished, but if it had been any other country it wouldn’t have been the same

I don’t really think the British monarchy as necessary as it once was but they also help with funding charities and show care to communities so I don’t know cuz realistically it’s quite outdated

No. Their cultural legacy serves as a societal pillar for the British collective conscious. Having an institutional body separate from parliament with legitimacy could become crucial should the current political system fail.

No, they are a positive influence on some things, but funding should only be provided for immediate family members.

Reduce their spending but give power in some systems like leading the military, right to call elections and dissolve parliament with parliament consent

I feel like they don't do anything like what's the actual point. why do we have a king and queen? . lol.

No, but their influential role in society should be reduced and only serve as a tourism addition to the UK

Gradually phase it out over time as a test before acutally fully transforming into a differenent government

No, but their funding level should be variable instead of only increasing via a ratcheting mechanism like present

No as they bring in cash. They should pay taxes, (especially Hugh Grosvernor) but these taxes should mainly be symbolic (except for the billionaires of the royal family) to show that leaders serve.

Yes, but they should still be figureheads as a ceremonial power, however the british people should not have to give them any money, and some of their wealth should be stripped

No because the monarchy on exists through inheritence which means it is not fair for the king to be removed but only have less power.

NO!! the british monarchy shouldn't be abolished because tourists love coming to see them. and the people that live in the country think the monarchy are a good family who make people smile

Yes, but only under a period of stability under which a republic with a codified constitution can effectively replace it.

Only if they are acting in support of a foreign influence, and working with different churches other than the anglicans

Who do we replace the King with? The idea of President-for-Life Starmer or Farage does not fill me with great joy. At least royal pageantry is colourful and vivid and livens the place up - some grey drone as President would lack something. There is also a good reason why England ditched the Cromwells and asked the King to come back.

Generally the country appears to be pro monarchy (I am not) but if the majority support it as it is, stick with it.

Yes, but ensure a new 'Parliamentary' house or set of positions to ensure effective long term safeguarding against extremist policies (as the House of Lords partly does currently).

No, because of tradition, positive influences on tourism, charity, international relations, sponsorship and executive positions, culture and perception of our culture. They should be given the option to pay tax, but the monarchy should be self funded and separate from government. The King will still formally appoint the PM, and the Monarchy will also remain above the government.

If they can’t have a say in politics towards their own country in a positive way what’s the point in them they’re supposed to be for Britain and we hear nothing from them pointless

In an ideal world, yes. However, they do have a positive influence on tourism. However, I do think they should be entirely self-funded and treated as regular citizens, not exempt from taxes.

Reduce their funding drastically as they are already so rich, and make them more governmentally important rather than charity, etc.

The British monarchy should give back the wealth they stole from Africa India and the rest of the world

It should never be abolished but should be shrunk. Sell some of their assets to pay down the national debt.

No, they are a positive influence on national cohesion and ethos of service, on tourism, charity, and international relations. They should be self-funded and pay taxes, but should also grant multi-generation farmer-tenants the land they've worked.

No, the Monarchy is the reason why the United Kingdom is a Union, and if any change, the King should be given more power.

No they should be given more power and the House of Lords should be restored to a mainly hereditary house.

Yes, but gradually phased out over time and No, but they should be self funded and pay taxes (as a potential intermediate step).

No the monarchy should be restored as a branch of government equal in power to the prime minister and parliament so that a restoration of the British empire can become underway

Only of the wealth is distributed accordingly to the public sectors to improve overall quality of the uk

They should be protected and supported as our most important institution and protector of our democracy

The monarchy should be purely ceremonial. They shouldn't have anything to do with the government and sort of just act as a sight for tourists.

No but they should have reduced funding and have to pay taxes, people need a face to follow and that would be the monarchy otherwise people would resort to chaos

I feel like, while they could definitely be great for tourism, they’re essentially just celebrities with a british twist. sooo i’d say phase them out but keep the buildings n such for touristic reasons.

Yes but we should increase there role in governornment to the lv of the Prussian constitutionalism as so they arnt just siting around basically doing nothing but spend money.

No, if taxed properly and are stripped of any parliamentary power, strictly a ceremonial part, otherwise yes.

In principle yes but it would take up too much of parliament's time and resources for it to be worth it right now

No, but replace them with an elected head of state and don't fund them. They can still live in a normal house though not in the palace.

No, but only provide financial support to royals who carry out royal duties more than five times per year

Leave em, they do'nt have any power anymore anyaway.

Abolish the PM system and go back to monarch ruling ... Allow the country to vote on matters such as deciding where funding goes, allow more votes to happen, and make those votes easier where it can be done online for example .. given a specific code to type in and they choose options on important funding queries etc etc

no they have positive impact for charity and international relations, but should only give money to immediate heirs to the throne

Reduce their role to a purely ceremonial / figurehead role with constitutional powers vested elsewhere.

No but any actual power in government should be removed and they should pay taxes and be self funded.

Charles should stand down and pass on to William, believe they would have more support if he did, so the answer is, I don’t want a royal family with Charles in charge as I do not think he represents well, however, if Will was king, he would be able to promote good and feelings of worthwhile

No. They should not receive as much tax money and it should only be used for regal events and tourism.

Public vote

yes but only when all the commonwealth realms become republics first

No taking away the British Monarchy is taking away yet another British tradition

Put it to a referendum.

No, but legislation should be drafted making clearly the monarch’s role and power.

I feel no type of way

No but they should have either zero influence or full control of the laws