http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607

The Commonwealth has changed some of the rules for succession to the monarchy. First-born girls take precedence over younger males, and the monarch can be married to a Roman Catholic.

But should we be taking a more drastic step, and abolishing the monarchy altogether?

I have tremendous admiration for the present Queen, who I think has done a difficult job admirably for 59 years now. But every time we get a new King/Queen, we take an awful risk. Since 1900, we've had playboy Edward VII (I've met two of his illegitimate daughters!), George V (good but boring), Edward VIII (who was already a disaster before he abdicated), George VI (who didn't want it, but did a noble job nevertheless), and the present Queen.

Supposing that Prince Charles is bypassed (which is not confirmed), what sort of a king would we get with Prince William? He might be great, but we really can't know.

I am not British, but I've always had a great deal of admiration for the Royal Family. When the Queen and other royals make their visits to other countries, my guess is that with them comes a great deal of business opportunities. I would say they are good value for money.

On the political/diplomatic front, they are the cornerstone of much of the commonwealths status. The monarchy carries a huge amount of influence. She meets, she greets, she wines, she dine and she talks to the most important people on earth and she does not challenge them, intimidate them or put undue pressure on them.

If you look at William and Kate's wedding and their trip to the US and Canada, it was a smashing success--for the British people.

Succession is the Archille's Heel of Monarchies. But then elections don't always have the desired result either.

So, I don't have a vote, but if I did....keep 'em!

Charles is a bit of a fuddy-duddy and Camilla is far from being a Diana, but he would make a fine king--he's well trained and my guess is that he would have William and Harry doing a fair amount of the PR work.

they dont have a say in politics , the brits are not brainwashed into a state of rule by them, hey, we even had spitting image !

i say keep them , coming from a UK national, by far they lead a more ' normal ' life then the MP's , so people can relate to them

i would far rather see the uk LEAVE the Euro , and become its old self again, bring control to the borders and make britian GREAT again !

Do it now and banish them to Oz forever. Cameron would like this as it would save on the return first class fare!!

they dont have a say in politics , the brits are not brainwashed into a state of rule by them, hey, we even had spitting image !

i say keep them , coming from a UK national, by far they lead a more ' normal ' life then the MP's , so people can relate to them

i would far rather see the uk LEAVE the Euro , and become its old self again, bring control to the borders and make britian GREAT again !

Yeah kick out all the foreigners and put the spongers back to work. I used to enjoy berry picking...what's wrong with these people?

Get rid of the Royal family?

And then what?

Appoint Tony Bliar as President?

Or Gordon Brunn?

Dave Camoron?

Jeez!! Just think of the consequences before you jump.

Out of the Current EU, yes. But establish a privileged trading position first - together with the several other European nations that would act with us.

Do it now and banish them to Oz forever. Cameron would like this as it would save on the return first class fare!!

Have a heart, Smokie!

I didn't put my own opinion in OP because I hoped some diehard republican would emerge. I am a diehard monarchist myself, for the reasons given, and also because I have a deep sense of Britain's history. The monarchy is a living link with our past. Britain is not just the Britain of 2011; it is the sum of the centuries of history which have made us what we are.

For various reasons a country needs a Head of State; the alternative to monarchy is a presidential system, of which there are two basic types: the American/French type, where the President, in my opinion, has too much power, and the German/Singapore type, where the President is hardly known outside his own country. Britain, I think, gets the best of both worlds.

The only advantage to ditching the Monarchy that I can see, is that we'd get rid of that dreadful dirge of a National Anthem.

And what would be the result in the British Isles - A president of England? Another of Scotland? And Wales is a Principality, so we'd have to keep a Prince of Wales.

Independence for Cornwall?

Northern Ireland?

Anyone who preaches rebublicanism in the UK just hasn't thought it through.

For various reasons a country needs a Head of State

Kindly expand on this please as, being a Scot, all we seem to have now is a bunch of toffs who pop by every summer for a bit of shootin' and fishin'.....

For various reasons a country needs a Head of State

Kindly expand on this please as, being a Scot, all we seem to have now is a bunch of toffs who pop by every summer for a bit of shootin' and fishin'.....

For continuity, for ceremonial occasions, in our case as a Head of the Commonwealth. Every independent country has seen the need for this; an executive president should be too busy to do the ceremonial bits himself (how much of Obama's time is wasted on ceremonial occasions?).

The Scots, and the Welsh, have always resented being mere appendages of England, but I'm afraid that's what you were for several hundred years. Now you have your own parliament, though!

For various reasons a country needs a Head of State

Kindly expand on this please as, being a Scot, all we seem to have now is a bunch of toffs who pop by every summer for a bit of shootin' and fishin'.....

For continuity, for ceremonial occasions, in our case as a Head of the Commonwealth. Every independent country has seen the need for this; an executive president should be too busy to do the ceremonial bits himself (how much of Obama's time is wasted on ceremonial occasions?).

The Scots, and the Welsh, have always resented being mere appendages of England, but I'm afraid that's what you were for several hundred years. Now you have your own parliament, though!

Its a fairly weak argument to me this need for a president idea. Regardless of the pomp and circumstance the UK royal family is a dinosaur which should be scrapped. A useless waste of taxpayers money not to mention the huge estates they have which again should belong to the country not a bunch of freeloaders.

Its a fairly weak argument to me this need for a president idea. Regardless of the pomp and circumstance the UK royal family is a dinosaur which should be scrapped. A useless waste of taxpayers money not to mention the huge estates they have which again should belong to the country not a bunch of freeloaders.

I don't want to repeat it all, so read Scott's post #2. Nice to see praise for the British monarchy coming from (I guess) an American. They have just as great expenses... and no continuity for it. One can respect the descendant of a long line of kings, but who can respect a lame duck president? Or a nonentity?

I don't want to repeat it all, so read Scott's post #2. Nice to see praise for the British monarchy coming from (I guess) an American. They have just as great expenses... and no continuity for it. One can respect the descendant of a long line of kings, but who can respect a lame duck president? Or a nonentity?

If we got rid of them next week it would make no difference whatsoever in the running of the country. Simply my view....it won't happen so it will remain a hypothetical issue.

Unless Scotland votes for independence. Then at some time in the future this line of succession will need to be addressed. A long way off that is though.

I don't want to repeat it all, so read Scott's post #2. Nice to see praise for the British monarchy coming from (I guess) an American. They have just as great expenses... and no continuity for it. One can respect the descendant of a long line of kings, but who can respect a lame duck president? Or a nonentity?

If we got rid of them next week it would make no difference whatsoever in the running of the country. Simply my view....it won't happen so it will remain a hypothetical issue.

Unless Scotland votes for independence. Then at some time in the future this line of succession will need to be addressed. A long way off that is though.

To be honest, I'd rather get rid of one of the parliaments than the crown. For a family that's never had to do a days' work, they put in a lot of hours and appointments. I also think that the residual authority that rests with the crown might come in handy when the politicians jerry-mander something completely unacceptable through parliament.

SC

I don't want to repeat it all, so read Scott's post #2. Nice to see praise for the British monarchy coming from (I guess) an American. They have just as great expenses... and no continuity for it. One can respect the descendant of a long line of kings, but who can respect a lame duck president? Or a nonentity?

If we got rid of them next week it would make no difference whatsoever in the running of the country. Simply my view....it won't happen so it will remain a hypothetical issue.

Unless Scotland votes for independence. Then at some time in the future this line of succession will need to be addressed. A long way off that is though.

To be honest, I'd rather get rid of one of the parliaments than the crown. For a family that's never had to do a days' work, they put in a lot of hours and appointments. I also think that the residual authority that rests with the crown might come in handy when the politicians jerry-mander something completely unacceptable through parliament.

SC

Nothing will happen until Charles becomes king....then there will need to be some reform of the monarchy I reckon. Maybe he'll fall in front of a bus or drive too fast through a tunnel before then....who knows...?

Nothing will happen until Charles becomes king....then there will need to be some reform of the monarchy I reckon. Maybe he'll fall in front of a bus or drive too fast through a tunnel before then....who knows...?

That's for sure... but then there's the problem of Camilla (I gather she's been told she will NOT be queen). I have a feeling QE might abdicate on her Diamond Jubilee( Feb 2 2012)... in favour of William, but with Charles' connivance. After all, she will then be 86, and inevitably slowing (though it's amazing what workload she gets through); Philip, now 90, has already shed a lot of his commitments (and I don't blame him). Don't you think they've deserved a retirement to Sandringham with the corgis?

Nothing will happen until Charles becomes king....then there will need to be some reform of the monarchy I reckon. Maybe he'll fall in front of a bus or drive too fast through a tunnel before then....who knows...?

That's for sure... but then there's the problem of Camilla (I gather she's been told she will NOT be queen). I have a feeling QE might abdicate on her Diamond Jubilee( Feb 2 2012)... in favour of William, but with Charles' connivance. After all, she will then be 86, and inevitably slowing (though it's amazing what workload she gets through); Philip, now 90, has already shed a lot of his commitments (and I don't blame him). Don't you think they've deserved a retirement to Sandringham with the corgis?

I can't see her abdicating....I reckon she'll just carry on but doing less and less visiting etc.....its for sure William and Kate will be doing much more when his army stint finishes.

Will Charles stand aside? Well its the job he's waited all his life to perform.....

A bloke down the pub put forward an idea - Unite with Ireland and create a five nations federation or union . Give one member of the five nations federation/union a 2 year stint at holding the presidency or head of all states , in rotation . A vote is held by the holder nation to elect the acting head of state . Leave the monarchy intact and let it function as a historical attraction , let it pay for itself , pay taxes and create jobs in the tourist sector .

A bloke down the pub put forward an idea - Unite with Ireland and create a five nations federation or union . Give one member of the five nations federation/union a 2 year stint at holding the presidency or head of all states , in rotation . A vote is held by the holder nation to elect the acting head of state . Leave the monarchy intact and let it function as a historical attraction , let it pay for itself , pay taxes and create jobs in the tourist sector .

That's not so far different from what they do in Malaysia, where the Sultans take it in turns being top banana.

SC

A bloke down the pub put forward an idea - Unite with Ireland and create a five nations federation or union . Give one member of the five nations federation/union a 2 year stint at holding the presidency or head of all states , in rotation . A vote is held by the holder nation to elect the acting head of state . Leave the monarchy intact and let it function as a historical attraction , let it pay for itself , pay taxes and create jobs in the tourist sector .

That's not so far different from what they do in Malaysia, where the Sultans take it in turns being top banana.

SC

Bring back the buccaneers , I say !

Bring back the buccaneers , I say !

They were in the Caribbean. Bring them back from where to where?

BTW, the Malaysian Yang di-Pertuan Agong is chosen by rotation from his fellow sultans, and serves for five years. But he's paid for by the Malaysian government, as most sultans are broke.

Bring back the buccaneers , I say !

They were in the Caribbean. Bring them back from where to where?

BTW, the Malaysian Yang di-Pertuan Agong is chosen by rotation from his fellow sultans, and serves for five years. But he's paid for by the Malaysian government, as most sultans are broke.

Bring back the buccaneers , from the caribean of old to the South China Sea of new , I say !

...and then there were the two drunks talking.

One of them said, "Where are the Bucaneers?"

The other replied, "They're on your buckin head."

A bloke down the pub put forward an idea - Unite with Ireland and create a five nations federation or union . Give one member of the five nations federation/union a 2 year stint at holding the presidency or head of all states , in rotation . A vote is held by the holder nation to elect the acting head of state . Leave the monarchy intact and let it function as a historical attraction , let it pay for itself , pay taxes and create jobs in the tourist sector .

That's not so far different from what they do in Malaysia, where the Sultans take it in turns being top banana.

SC

How democratic.