no, most of the people  i know who are in favour of the monarchy are stringet nationalists, tourists probably wouldnt notice or care, so long as they can still tour the historic sites, lol

Running of Office of the President with his Executive Office (which is non electable, and creates a rift beetween Cabinet and Presidents Office) would cost tax payers much more money, and for the reasons i said above monarchy actually helps democratic system.

the issue is the fact they are unelected, we get no say in who they are or anything and there is no accountability, we dont know what they stand for or when they might decide to interveen in govermnent affairs, which they do have the power to do.

better tax money goes to elected representetives of the people than unelected people looking out for there own intrests alone with no accountability if we dont like what theyre doing.

sure it may cost more to have a president, but atleast we get a say in who it is and we know what they stand for and stuff.

at the moment were wasting money on an unelected monarchy, i say we spend money efficently on having an elected, democratic, accountable head of state.

to elaborate furhter on my point, i would not be in anyway opposed to a member of the royal family standing in the election to replace them, thats there perogative, if the queen for instance was elected to her role as head of state with more accountability and clearer guidelines on what her role would be, then i would be fine with that, obviously we wouldnt call her "queen" but "president" but you get the point.

She signs new laws passed down parliamentary stages such as the "House of Commons" and the "House of Lords", via "Royal Assent".

They simply cannot intervene in government affairs, powers of Royal Perogative are passed to the Prime Minister therefore he is accountable to the public, Monarch has no political power, and he does not politically represent country abroad. Even lordship is decided by the politicians in Westminster. Having strong power in Westiminster is better then have to centres of power of President and Prime Minister, especially when they would always fight for power. (look at issues beetween congress and US Presidents, for example clinton)

But i dont mind cutting spendings on the Royal Family to minimum, they have enough land and property to sustain themselves, with some staff reductions.

But i prefer a Uniting , non biased ,non political Monarch who only has symbolic and representative powers, then someone like that idiot that is now president of Poland.

Monarchy is something that makes UK what it is, radical change is not always what is needed.

im pretty sure they can intervene. but im not an expert on there power right now

if you think they should have no power at all, then why have them at all, essentially youre saying you want a head of state with NO power, NO opinion and NO accountabiliy, all youre advocating is having a pointless figurehead monarchy that takes taxpayers money, we may aswell ask the PM to burn £40m+ or whatever it is of taxpayers money, for all the use your system would be.

the house of lords is nonsense, these are people choosen based upon who there family are and who they give/gave money to, we get no say in who they are, and we cant vote them out if we think there decisions are stupid or wrong, much better to have an elected second chamber imo, that way we can hold them to account

Again House of Lords hardly have any revision power over government , they just go through the bills, looking to make them more coherent. Again whats good about HoL is lack of politicisation of this chamber, people put their expertise and experience into practice above interests of groups they represent, political parties and lobbyists. Only form of scrutiny they have is a option of delaying bills for a year before they come into power, they cannot veto nor alter what House of Commons decides (which is usually what Government decides).

Plus Hereditary peers are pretty much gone.

Going back to Monarchy, yes i think thats the point of it, having a uniting national figure that serves purely as a representative head of state without political power, to leave political decisions in Hands of polticians that represent their Constituents, Business Interests, lobby groups. Head of State should unite all people not just those that have voted for him or those that have similar interests.

Monarchy is similar to what Germans, Italians have with their presidents being elected by national assemblies, people with a lot of experience , not politicians but figures.

Having both strong President and Prime Minister with PArliament only creates political problems.

British System works well, so why change it?

the lords can block bills that go through the house of commons though.

you say lack of politicisation, but thats bs, all people in government have views and agendas, its niave to assume otherwise, why do you think there are Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem lords?

you really think say Peter Mandelson has no agenda?


why not just make the PM head of state? from what youre saying doing so makes no difference to how the system works now, except that we save £40M+ a year.

there is no such thing as a person with unanamous support, otherwise i wouldnt be here would i?

The Queen's roll is mainly ceremonial.

The Monarch is not allowed to be involved in politics in anyway. This is symbolised by the opening of Parliament each year where they slam the door in the face of one of the Monarch's messengers.

The Queen does have some powers, called the Royal Prerogorative, but these are only used upon the "advice" of the Prime Minister.

She remains, as with many of the customs and traditions of British politics (there's an official mace carrier, the speaker must be dragged to the chair at the start of their term, people must address each other as "honourable gentlemen" (due to the fact that Parliament sittings were much violent, and it would often come to swords-drawn if people got pissed)), simply because they make British politics different, and because it's not really something worth changing.

That being said, though, the Monarch is slowly losing the rights to some of their powers of the Royal Prerogorative, such as the power to declare peace/war which has been a Bill moving through the Houses for quite some time, now*.

Other customs are slowly going with time, with every constitutional reform act, a piece of tradition dies with it (not that I'm against that, I'm for completely rewriting the entire British political system).

*The Royal Prerogorative is seen as giving the Prime Minister too many powers. The PM has the ability to do many things without consulting Parliament, so the powers are slowly being moved to Parliament to reduce the power of the PM. It will go much faster, soon, though. As David Cameroon has essentially said that movement of the RP will be in the Tory manifesto next election, and they're almost certain to win it.