OT: Andrew

That wasn't a bridge to die on for the monarchy

It's never been tested

Absolutely TNP. If we take Republic's figures of £510m a year to fund the monarchy, that's under £9 per person per year. A f****ng bargain to keep shites like Blair/Johnson et al. shut out. And we would still pay a shedload for those bastard and they would not bring any in tourists and their tourist spend.

Well the converse situation didn't turn out well for Charles I.

And yet after Cromwell, and the Protectorate, we overwhelmingly decided to have a king back, but to limit his powers.

Hence the suggestion that we have limited them to the extent that his pointless.

Maybe and maybe not. Trump - and others - just love all the pompp and pageantry and historical s*it. It's a lever. Also in the final analysis the armed forces are loyal to the crown, not the government

Right. I think it was a case of Tails you win, Heads you lose. ;-)

In message <10nk42g$3qvpn$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, at 12:03:28 on Tue, 24 Feb

It's not just that, you need someone to shake hands with visiting Heads of State from other countries, throw a banquet etc.

In message snipped-for-privacy@uninhabited.net, at 12:35:51 on Tue, 24 Feb 2026, Roger Hayter snipped-for-privacy@hayter.org remarked:

AIUI both the French and German Presidents each cost the country more than the British Monarchy.

ps I went to a wine and cheese party at the Elysee Palace about 25yrs ago hosted by Jaques Chirac. Tenue de Ville. Most exciting part was the motorcycle escort from the conference hotel. A few years later I went to similar event, but that was just the Mayor of Paris at his gaff.

Polls about abolishing the monarchy seem to be split 50:50, at least while Liz was in charge. I haven't seen any recently. My guess is that it won't have changed much.

My feeling is that if we changed anything lots of people would immediately regret it.

The other question is "What powers would be granted to this President?"

If none - the office is entirely ceremonial - then why bother making the change in the first place?

If the President is to have powers, who decides what they are, and (presumably) the Prime Minister would have to ceed those powers to the President? (I wonder how eager an incumbent PM would be to accept this loss of authority?)

In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, at 18:31:49 on Tue, 24 Feb 2026, Bernard Peek snipped-for-privacy@shrdlu.com remarked:

The Monarchy is of course a 'family' with many (although decreasing) numbers of "Working Royals". So if you want someone to open your new Hospital or Village Hall, there's at least half a dozen to choose from.

I'm not sure that even the wives of Presidents of France, Germany etc have a role of that kind, let alone their children, cousins etc. So it's the President or nobody.

Depending on who the President is, the "First Lady" of USA may or may not get involved in such things. Similarly the wives/husbands of UK Prime Ministers.

Would you want your Village Hall have a plaque saying it was opened by Hugh O'Leary? No, I've never head of him either, but apparently Liz Truss's husband.

Priceless in fact. He relieves the PM of all the entertainment crap so the PM is free to ruin the country. How much would you charge to have a 4 hour dinner with a d*****ad like Trump?

A massive +1

It depends on whether or not I was allowed to choose the ingredients for the meal.

The other thing we will not know and will probable never find out is how many stupid ideas a Prime Minister might have had, got sunk during the regular meetings between monarch and PM.

:-)

There are two parts to politics.

1. Getting elected
2. Running the country

Mostly the requirements for each are entirely contradictory

Mushroom Wellington?