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

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

No, God save the King

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 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 all be shot

they should be gone by now evict them

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

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

The monarchy shouldnt have any power and they should be paying tax, however them being a thing brings alot of money into the uk from tourists

Put it to a referendum.

No, but they should be self funded and pay taxes except in areas where they benefit the country economically, and should be preserved as historic patrimony.

They should be self funded and pay taxes, also further investigation into criminal activity and they should not appear on Scottish currency or stamps

No, but they should have no power in government, the monarchy should be strictly a social and moral monarchy not a governmental one.

In principal, the monarchy would be abolished due to its existence meaning that a single family is treated far more favourably than all others in the UK simply by nature of what family they were born into, but there is also the practical fact of the immense money the royal family bring in as a result of tourism, and also the royal family provides a strong link between the Commonwealth Nations diplomatically. Ultimately, the monarchy should only be abolished in the event of a national referendum to do so, separate from party politics and actions of individual politicians.

Yes because I believe the United Kingdom should reform to become a Constitutional Republic with a Confederal System.

They should be completely self-funded in the short term, in the long term they should be completely abolished.

the priminister rules over the country so the king would not do much. i would say to make sure that the king has the power and let the priminister be like an advisor for the king or a bishop or something of that equivilent role.

After the queen passed away, the royal family should’ve been slowly stopped due to the fact that they are not praised/used like they once were before. They are no longer important and are ruled by more of the government than themselves.

They do nothing and just have title and barely contribute to the governance of the country in anyway.

Yes and all money made from tourism to the royal palaces should go towards the NHS and helping homeless people

No, and the King should have more power to act as a neutral overseer to ensure corrupt governments can not destroy the nation.

Only keep the immediate Royal Family as a job. Change the financial system so this is a mute point. Join the 1000 thousands and change the world.

The repairs women of nz which come alone times and french Maori as women and men's has influence disease

No, but require them to provide financial support for services such as healthcare, emergencies and education. This financial support can be given by them as a required royal duty. Also, establish an Act that makes sure that the British Monarchy is respected, and should respect the citizens, and stay neutral, and provide a substantial amount of money to the government to pay for public services.

No, but take away their influence on the BVI's, Canada, and Australia if they wish and don't use public funds on them.

YES, AND FREE SCOTLAND. Despite the positive influences it has on our tourism, charity, and international relations. It's about time.

They should be removed from a Constitutional position but should still hold a place in terms of an example of morals to be shown by British people and the British government.

No, they are a positive influence on the economy and international relations. In principle, I am monarchist, but support reform, such as higher taxes, and possibly transforming it into a more democratic and elective position.

They are no longer relevant in their current form but could potentially become a beacon of morals, dignity and a celebration of traditional values which could be a positive impact on society.

They do have a positive effect on tourism etc but I think the funding should be reduced and they should have to pay taxes

I would be interested in a system whereby a monarch is selected by sortition from the House of Lords or the general public to serve for a year.

No, but lower the amount they receive and they should pay tax. We should be able to see earnings and spending

Yes and no I believe we should vastly reduce their funding and remove all power to make decisions for the country as the only reason they have any power at this point is luck and war royal blood is not actually a real thing the are the same as anyone however they do bring tourists so I think we should keep them just in a performance type way

No, but the civil list should be drastically reduced to the regent and immediate heirs only. The rest self funded.

No because they benefit tourism, charity and international relations however, funding should be reduced and only immediate airs to the throne should receive financial support

They are a positive influence on keeping government in check (or should be), but funding should only be for vital causes including diplomacy and they should pay tax (to understand how the rest of society has to cope)

I don’t think they need to be abolished, but have much less power! however I don’t think the UK should give so much money to their events out of taxpayers money.

They are an important part of english history, tradition, and english economy. And also do much charity work. So they do benefit people. So i believe they should remain as an english entity and not have any association with Scotland.

Land they own should not be the crowns but for all of the UK. It wasn’t there’s to thieve in the first place. Wealth should be redistributed to communities. Lords should not inherit a historic title or land/money from ancestors anymore as it is a grotesque historic job for the boys entitlement. All wealth in this country should be distributed fairly.

No, they are able to give a long term vision on national and international views and should not be influenced by political game playing of our policitcians.

No - they are a positive influence on tourism, charity, and international relations BUT they should pay taxes and have reduced funding, especially for non direct family members

No, but they need to step up as examples to the public and take responsibility for representing the general public e.g taking a stance against animal cruelty by stopping their hunts and stop using animal skins such as bear skins. Less public money should be spent on ceremonies.

They should be seen to also take a responsibility for there country's poverty and make the decisions themselves selves how they can help

Yes. After the prince Andrew debacle the lot needs to go. I get that they draw in tourist cash but they represent the worst of the elites.

No, but they should be more accountable and transparent in their use of soft power for shaping legislation (e.g. tax).

I am completely uninterested in the monarchy. If it is working then leave well alone. Do not want a superannuation politician as a president instead. As a principle, a monarchy is difficult to justify

We should keep the monarchy but they should be made to do their Constitutional duties.
The King should personally read every single piece of new legislation (Royal Assent), sign the good legislation that protects the rest of us, and reject any bad legislation that favours banks and transnational corporations over the rest of us.
The King's job is to protect us from corrupt tyrannical governments.
It's about time our monarchy done their jobs.

No, but remove their access to taxpayer money, create an elected a head of state and repossess a large amount of their properties

I believe that they should also have to had a job providing income to the country, as well as their current role

No as I think they’re good for country and tourism but I think only the working royals should get houses and money

No, The United Kingdom would cease to be the United Kingdom without a monarchy, and other European monarchies such as Norway are some of the happiest and most democratic countries in the world

Yes, but only with a more effective democratic system that does not lead to single focus of power. Switzerland Federal Council or something similar would be the only elected system I would support. I would rather have a monarchy then a presidential system.

Absolutely not they are part of what makes Britain! We are already losing our country they are way to important and make our country!

If I was starting a society, I wouldn't have a ruling monarchy established. However the UK has a monarchy, and whilst they have their issues, they do bring us a link to our own history. In all fairness no family should be treated higher than anyone else though.

No, but we should abolish the commonwealth so places like Canada and Australia can become more democratic.

No, and the rightful monarch-Francis I, the King Over the Water, heir to the Stuarts of blessed memory-should be enthroned, instead of the Hanoverian usurper.

They have a positive influence on tourism but I believe they should be funded a lot less. They have so much money that they don't really need

The current monarchy is corrupt and controlled by Jews. But a monarchy in principle is not a bad idea.

No, but they should be self funded and pay taxes and take an ethics test and undergo training on privilege, politics and ethics.

Yes, but replaced by a head of state chosen by lottery. This would enable us to keep our traditions without all the costs of paying for a family to live a life of luxury whilst those who pay for them struggle. It would also allow palaces to be fully opened to the public boosting tourism in a similar way to the Palace of Versailles being the world's most visited attraction making Paris the most visited city.

No, they are an integral part of the fabric of the nation and the very notion of abolition is treasonous

No, they should receive money from tourism as they bring a lot of tourism, pay taxes, and be liable to the law

Yes, and they should also be investigated since several members of the family either associate with known paedophiles and traffickers or have serious accusations made against them.

Maybe. Only the spouse and children and immediate next in line to the through should get funding or any kind. The ex-monarches children shouldn't get any funding (e.g. Andrew Windsor).

Only if we can find someone to take over sending out the cards to centenarians and long-married couples.

No, they are a positive influence on tourism, however they should be more self funded and they should absolutely pay more taxes than any other class in the UK. They can help their country more than they do.

No, they are historic and good for tourism/ the economy. Other countries have ceremonial monarchs still too

I think I would like to reconsider my answer to the death penalty question. Only for people claiming to be monarchs.

The monarchy should stay as it is drive for tourism, however, they should not be funded by the tax payer.

No, they should retain all titles, as they have a positive influence on tourism, charity and international relations, but their positions, privileges and responsibilities should be considerably reduced, and no amount of tax-payer money should be received by the British Monarchy