What's the Monarchy For?

[Randy Winkman]

Second part of this tonight presented by David Dimbleby. I quite enjoyed the first part but had been almost put off by the title - the programme is a bit more "serious" than that. The first one went through a number of issues with regards whether the monarch really has any power and whether they actually use it to any effect. Tonight's is about the money.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m002n21h/wh...

[Supersam83]

If we got rid of the Monarchy, would that mean Sir Kier Starmer would be UK President or we would have a different system in place?

[Randy Winkman]

Supersam83 said:

If we got rid of the Monarchy, would that mean Sir Kier Starmer would be UK President or we would have a different system in place?

I hope this will come up in one of the episodes. Once we know what they are for we can look at what the alternatives are. Part one was mainly about the political power and it seemed to remain (at the end of the programme) questionable whether they really have any of significance.

I'm not sure they will have time but I'd like them to look at the whole issue of inherited titles. For me that's a much simpler issue to decide on. I'd settle for scrapping all inherited titles but keeping the monarchy if that was up for offer. I dont really agree with the monarchy but can see there's a point to them with regards tourist revenue.

Edited by Randy Winkman on Tuesday 9th December 13:32

[Lester H]

I, like many, was in the better than the alternative camp . Also the revenue from tourism angle. I m getting more cynical. The Andrew business has increased my scepticism, plus the tabloid press venerating and even beatifying Kate and William as they appear at a charity event, etc. Some posters comment on PH being a site for the affluent, but having a couple of lovely cars, plus even a weekend hobby car and living in a decent detached 4 bedroom, not 34 , house ,probably mortgaged, which, in some areas, has entered millionaires row by default, does not even come close, not remotely. And unlike, say a London hedge fund owner, the royals are not at financial risk. They are rich beyond the dreams of avarice, nothing like a few posh folk that you may know socially. So, I think I m finally changing direction.

Edited by Lester H on Wednesday 10th December 18:08

Edited by Lester H on Wednesday 10th December 18:12

[Randy Winkman]

Cheers. I am interested in the "alternatives" as that sometimes gets brought up as (part of) a reason to keep them. By "interested" perhaps I mean that I remain unconvinced we need an alternative. I've not seen part 2 of the series yet though.