If you were British (or are British), would you support retaining the monarchy?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

i'm more in favour of a republic and a presidency.

Welcome in the mess!

[dead0man]

Of course not.

A meaningless figurehead presidency is a good idea, but making the position lifetime, inheritable, and vested in the richest family in the country<snip>

This.

I'm a little saddened so many of you are for this.

[Coburn In 2012]

Yes.  If they got rid of it, obama would only be bowing to sheiks and islamo-fascist dictators.

[Hash]

Yes.  If they got rid of it, obama would only be bowing to sheiks and islamo-fascist dictators.

Please go to Mexico and get swine flu.

[You kip if you want to...]

Yes.  If they got rid of it, obama would only be bowing to sheiks and islamo-fascist dictators.

Please go to Mexico and get swine flu.

Pretty please.

[bgwah]

Eh, sure. Though it would be nice if they could somehow kick Charles out of the line of succession.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It would be cool if they at least shaked things up or whatever by perhaps taking the next 100 people in succession line and then hold a lottery or something to determine who would take over. Or a rock-paper-scissors tournament with the next 128. Yeah, actually that would be the best.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Eh, sure. Though it would be nice if they could somehow kick Charles out of the line of succession.

Charles could convert to Roman Catholicism and that would kick him as well as William and Harry out of the line of succession, making his brother Prince Andrew next in line.

[Smid]

I voted No in November when we had our Republic Referendum here.

[Bono]

No, but only if the president of the new republic was head of government as well as state, and independent of parliament, so that the current mockery of separation of powers would end.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I'm a royalist and support the monarcy here in Sweden, so yes I would, of course.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

I would support this, William would be a better king.

If Charles converted that would only make him lose his claim to the throne, children of catholics can still inherit the British throne, as long as they were raised protestant. 

I'm curious, if the monarchy was abolished in the United Kingdom, what should we call it? The United Republic (sounds weird), or will England, Scotland and Wales become indipendant from each other?

[ChrisJG777]

Personally I don't think any political position, which a monarch basically is, should be inherited.  Instead I'd much prefer it if the UK as it is now was to adopt a Semi-Presidential system of government, where the President has executive powers, but the cabinet/ministry is dependent on the support of parliament, like it is now in the UK.  In fact this sort of system is used in France I believe.

Of course I'd settle for just a figurehead president like in the Republic of Ireland, either way I don't think the British monarchy should be retained.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm a royalist and support the monarcy here in Sweden, so yes I would, of course.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would support this, William would be a better king.

If Charles converted that would only make him lose his claim to the throne, children of catholics can still inherit the British throne, as long as they were raised protestant.
[/quote]

Yes and no.  You are correct that I was mistaken as to the effect Charles' conversion would have on William and Harry as they would still be in line for the throne, but for children of Roman Catholics, it would depend on when the parent converted or marries a Roman, not whether they were raised Protestant.

Say for example that Princess Beatrice of York marries a Protestant, has a child, converts to being a Catholic and has a second child.  Even if both children are raised Protestant and are never professing Catholics, while the first child would be in the order of succession, the second would not, for under the Bill of Rights, 1689, for purposes of the succession, Beatrice would considered to be dead as of the moment of her conversion, and dead people can't generate heirs.

[Lief 🗽]

Yes, of course. I wish the United States had one as well.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Sure.  How large is the republican movement in Britain?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Personally I don't think any political position, which a monarch basically is, should be inherited.  Instead I'd much prefer it if the UK as it is now was to adopt a Semi-Presidential system of government, where the President has executive powers, but the cabinet/ministry is dependent on the support of parliament, like it is now in the UK.  In fact this sort of system is used in France I believe.

In facts no. Since the French presidential mandate is yet of 5 years instead of 7 (making general elections happening just 3 months after presidentials), the general elections are just a way to give a majority to the elected presented and it make of this majority a quasi-slave to the president, actually that's what happening here. If you add to this that the French president already had huge powers, I wish no one to have such a constitution. I really don't like how it works here. Add to this that Sarkozy got that sit and, hell...

[Sbane]

Yes, of course. I wish the United States had one as well.

Why?

[ChrisJG777]

Personally I don't think any political position, which a monarch basically is, should be inherited.  Instead I'd much prefer it if the UK as it is now was to adopt a Semi-Presidential system of government, where the President has executive powers, but the cabinet/ministry is dependent on the support of parliament, like it is now in the UK.  In fact this sort of system is used in France I believe.

In facts no. Since the French presidential mandate is yet of 5 years instead of 7 (making general elections happening just 3 months after presidentials), the general elections are just a way to give a majority to the elected presented and it make of this majority a quasi-slave to the president, actually that's what happening here. If you add to this that the French president already had huge powers, I wish no one to have such a constitution. I really don't like how it works here. Add to this that Sarkozy got that sit and, hell...

First off I'm well aware of the fact that the term length for the French presidency is 5 years.  Secondly I said that I'd like the UK to have a system of government similar to how France's works in theory, not necessarily in practice.  However, I don't think I made that part all too clear though.

Whatever the case may be, I still say "Monarchy bad!".