Speaking as a republican, I find it hard to get worked up about the particular misdeeds of individuals who belong to an institution I despise on principle.

I don’t care if they are lazy or corrupt or racist, I just want them gone – and, more importantly, the royal prerogative and culture of deference their existence supports.

In fact, any modernization or reform will just postpone the inevitable abolition of the monarchy.

I tend to agree, however it’s necessary to expose the way the monarchy operates to ensure the debate takes place and the institution is properly scrutinised for what it is.

There is a great deal of nonsense talked about how great the monarchy is – that needs to be countered forcefully if we’re to make any progress in abolishing it.

Having said that the issue of corruption is a serious one, whoever it involves, so it is important to expose. The monarchy and royal household are totally unaccountable and refuse to be transparent in their official business, so this side of our campaign must be done.

We’re not calling for modernisation either, we’re saying it’s a broken institution that has to be replaced, not fixed.

The apparent corrupt practices employed by some, or maybe all, members of the Royal Family cannot be allowed to continue. It is not as if the Channel 4 programme is an isolated incident. Throughout history there has been wayward and wanton behaviour on the part of successive dynasties. It cannot continue. There must, can only be, be a complete break with the past if the establishment is to regain some semblance of trust on the part of the electorate. That means sweeping aside the monarchy and replacing it with a republic, checks and balances being incorporated to ensure that the activities of future Heads of State, whether as part of the executive or in a ceremonial role only, are fully transparent.

This story amply demonstrates that the position of a hereditory Monarch is completely outdated and worthless in 21st Century Britain. The title of Monarch should be consigned to the dustbin of history without delay.
Britain needs a democratically elected Head of State who is answerable to the people,

Completely agree with Shatterface.

At the end of the day, if we are prepared put up with this pointless charade, then it’s no surprise that they’ll take the piss out of us.

Every penny we give the royals is a disgrace.

It isn’t just a couple of Problem Princes we need to deal with – the Mountbatten-Windsors have a whole stream of irrelevants lined up behind them to keep the business in the family – just look up ‘succession’ at http://www.royal.gov.uk/ and while you are there browse the whole site to see if you can find anything truly useful and irreplaceable that they do.
The recent world-wide interest in the US Presidential election shows that politics can come alive when there is a real choice. But you won’t find a list of President Obama’s ‘succession’ anywhere – that will be in the hands of the American people when the time comes.
Here in the ‘UK’, every true Democrat should be a Republican!

What a dull and sour bunch of po-faced Puritans you all are. God Save the Queen and her Royal Household. Long may they prosper and rule splendidly over us.

Do you think one the most corrupt Governments in modern times is going to launch an enquiry into a Prince getting a helicopter instead of a train?

Clearly, there is little intellectual defence of a monarchy. However, its existence is very important to our cultural and national identity and history, plus that sense of differentiation despised by the universal socialists. Above all else, its existence is justified by its ability to piss off every lentil munching, poorly dressed, dreadlock wearing, white middle-class leftie in Britain. Long may it continue.

God save the Queen.

Agree wholeheartedly with ‘Shatterface’s’ comments and the replies. What an excellent programme by Channel 4 highlighting the continued corruption and secrecy surrounding the institution of the Monarchy. Well done to Graham Smith for his fact finding and comments. Isn’t it amazing what one can uncover with the ‘freedom of information act’, (despite the restrictions) We, of course, have been denied this information for years, hence why the Monarchy still ‘reigns’
But when oh when will the British public finally wake up and realise just how useless, corrupt and out dated the Monarchy really is.
It’s all the sycophantic hangers on who really keep ‘this family’ in situ. These loathesome creatures are quite content to run their ‘masters’ errands and to try and clean up the dirt and debris they leave behind, and at the same time feather their own nests at the tax payers expense.
The solution to it all can only be to get rid of each and everyone of them and have an elected Head of State as well as a second chamber. Only then can we say that we are truly a democratic nation.

You don’t have to be a “lentil munching, poorly dressed, dreadlocked wearing, white middle class lefite and universal socialist” to realise that the ‘sycophantic, deferential, flag waving deluded monarchists, who continue to perpetuate this unelected family, that considers itself way above the laws of this land, who are a total drain on the tax payer.

Andrew’s choice of helicopter rather than the train or car, is of course, the tip of his ‘free loading’ iceberg, with the taxpayer footing the bill, whilst hangiing on to their jobs and houses for dear life. In fact we were told that William’s helicopter ride to the Isle of Wight to attend a ‘stag do’ and his jolly dropping in to see Kate in her parents garden, was part of his training, until of course, this was investigated, and then lo and behold, the true cost emerged, otherwise it would have been neatly brushed under the carpet.

Long may the scrutiny of the royals continue.

God save the people…….FROM the Monarchy

“The solution to it all can only be to get rid of each and everyone of them and have an elected Head of State as well as a second chamber. Only then can we say that we are truly a democratic nation.”

Remind me why we’re supposed to care about the ability to ‘say that we are truly a democratic nation’? The fact that the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden don’t qualify under your metric, while Zimbabwe does, suggests it’s somewhat flawed.

A liberal nation, sure – and I’d abolish, hell even execute, the Royals tomorrow if I thought it would have the slightest effect in promoting liberty and social justice.

The problem is twofold:
1) Some people still worship the Royals as demigods – whatever they do. So corruption, drunkenness, squandering taxpayers money all count for nothing, because gods are beyond criticism.
2) Other people maintain that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But it is broke, an out of date and offensive reminder that this is still a country where your birth, rather than your achievements, are what counts.
Apologists also maintain that the Royals due immense good for trade. But do they? And how do Republics get on in that respect. China isn’t doing badly.
When George IV died in 1830 the Times obituary stated “can anyone mourn the passing of this man”. But even he supported the Arts in a way that the Windsors have not only failed to do, but showed themselves to be philistinic and racist.
It’s all cover up these days. I’ve been a Republican since I was 11 and I am now 71 and I’ve seen the cover up machinery at work again and again, manipulating, smoothing over cracks, relying on the short memory of the media.

John B’s note of mentioning just three countries, i.e. the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, where they don’t have to endure and pay for the ever increasing ‘hangers on’, is quite insignificant. So can we look forward to the day when he will abolish or even execute the royals, thus looking forward to a more democratic society, where the taxpayer will be free of this burden and manipulative family.
I have the champagne ready on ice !!

The very idea of an hereditory Head of State is ridiculous, and the idea that the taxpayer should support a veritable army of brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, etc etc (sounds like Gilbert & Sullivan) is a nonsense. We even support one alleged member of the Windsor family who looks suspiciously like a Hewitt. If this is the case then this objectionable lout should pay back every penny he has had from the State. They must continue to exposed for what they are, for only that way can the Establishment propoganda be countered, and those who bow and scrape and consider the Windsors to be some sort of demi-gods, be persuaded that they are only human beings like the rest of us and have to put their trousers on every morning in exactly the same way the rest of us do – unless of course they have a flunkey to do it for them.

Of course the Windsor family doesn’t want proper scrutiny of ANY of its activities, never mind a few thousand pounds on a helicopter flight, etc, etc. The reason for that is that NONE of their activites would stand up to proper scrutiny in the clear light of day. Indeed the very existence of a so-called royal family is an insult to proper democracy and a denial of what should be our inalienable as citizens right to elect our head of state. Of all occasions in this time of economic duress – the worst for a hundred years – we have a right to know exacly what OUR money is being spent on.

“those who bow and scrape and consider the Windsors to be some sort of demi-gods”

As far as I can make out this group consists more or less solely of Peregrine Worsthorne, and even he isn’t a fan of the younger ones.

“The very idea of an hereditory Head of State is ridiculous”

Yes, agreed. The idea of a head of state picked in a national beauty contest, presumably, is 100% irridiculous.

“and the idea that the taxpayer should support a veritable army of brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, etc etc (sounds like Gilbert & Sullivan) is a nonsense.”

S/he doesn’t. The Queen and Prince Philip are the only people who get money for being royal; most aren’t supported at all (aside from their inherited property, but that’s no different from the non-royal side of the UK’s toff classes); and the few who are paid for from the public purse – like Andrew – are paid by government ministries to do specific jobs.

Meh. I guess if you want to gain a rousing chorus of approval from a bunch of old Trots then bashing the idiot toffs is the right way to go about it. But royal-bashing is a trivial sideshow, whose only purpose is to distract from a) the gross wealth inequalities brought about by insufficient inheritance tax on the super-rich and b) the lack of accountability and lack of protection of our rights by government….

This programme proved what many of us already know. That the spin machine surrounding this dysfunctional and useless family puts most political parties to shame. Unlike political parties though our normally ferocious media stops asking questions when it comes to the royals. Channel 4 is an honourable exception to this.

The programme also gave the lie to this notion that, because those like Andrew do not receive civil list payments they are not enriching themselves at our expense. He is peforming a role that is simply not needed in order to give him an excuse to travel around the world at our expense. Rules are waived, accounting practices changed, planning applications nodded through and shadowy tax havens used for the benefit of these parasites. The Crown estates are ours not theirs. Yet our land is handed over to shadowy front companies. What do they have to hide? Plenty it would seem.

I firmly believe that as the more deferential older generations die out we will slowly see the public become more and more resentful of this situation. Now we are in recession the time has come to up the pressure.

Mr MacKian is incorrect. The American people do not get to choose who the next President is; the Vice-President (the heir) automatically succeeds upon the death of the Pres. in office.
See 22 November 1963. And there are many spares provided by law: a “Line of Succession” (Speaker of the House is next) is carefully defined. Google it.

You people will build your “republic” on falsehoods if you believe: that the members of the Queen’s family are “supported by the taxpayer” (they aren’t-they have their own money); that the Duke of York receives a salary for his work as special Trade rep. for the UK (he doesn’t: see the interview in The Times, and his own website); or that Prince William landed in his girlfriend’s garden to pay a social call (he didn’t, she wasn’t there, they immediately took off again. Pilots in training regularly pick their own landing spots, as was reported at the time); or that the RF take pleasure jaunts around the UK and the world at your expense (they don’t). It is all in the public domain but you prefer to keep repeating the myths…easier for the gullible and envious Brit public (those you call “the people” I presume). The tone of the comments here reveals the hatred towards the Windsors…and nothing concerning the “rights of the citizen”-hardly “fostering constructive debate” since you don’t have your basic facts correct in the first place

God save the Queen. ~ chavscum

How strange. You’re all against positive discrimination, no doubt on the grounds of the benefits of the meritocracy, yet you gladly lionise a woman who’s only claim to her day-job is her parentage.

You really are a hypocritical moron, no?

Thomas Rex Campbell, all of the spares provided for by American law are elected as is the Vice President. That is a remarkably stupid argument.

Just because some members of the royal family aren’t supported by the civil list does not mean that they do not get use of public money in a more indirect way. That is what the C4 programme was about. The D of Y gets to travel around the world at our expense on his various golfing trips none of which he declares because of the artificial £10,000 floor places on revealing his travel costs. One can go a long way for up to £10,000. He uses helicopters instead of cars and trains. His daughters are given police protection for no good reason costing hundreds of thousands.

If William did nothing wrong in that helicopter why did they try to cover it up and tell blatant lies that were later discovered. In addition to his trip to his girlfriend’s house (it is immaterial that she wasn’t there) he also used a helicopter to go to a stag do on the Isle of Wight. Legitimate?

They do go on jaunts at our expense. The examples are legion. And it is not on the website. They have promised to be open but have then refused to provide information on countless journeys claiming spuriously that it would be too expensive to collate the information, They declined to answer questions put to them. They hide behind nominees and tax haven companies. It is easy to select information put on a website to make themselves look good but they are remarkably less open when asked awkward questions. It shows they have something to hide. They like credulous people like you who take them on trust. But, as has been shown, they aren’t terribly trustworthy.

“The idea of a head of state picked in a national beauty contest, presumably, is 100% irridiculous.” (Jon B)

What a contemptuous and elitist attitude towards democracy you display. Of course, democracy is far from perfect but it is infinitely more preferable to a system based upon arbitrary authority. At least, democratically elected heads of state can be subject to proper scrutiny, held to account and constitutionally removed if need be. Also, like them or loathe them, a democratically elected head of state has a legitimacy that no monarch can achieve.

“royal-bashing is a trivial sideshow, whose only purpose is to distract from a) the gross wealth inequalities brought about by insufficient inheritance tax on the super-rich and b) the lack of accountability and lack of protection of our rights by government….” (Jon B)

Why on earth are these things mutually exclusive. It is possible to walk and chew gum you know.

“easier for the gullible and envious Brit public” (Thomas Campbell)

What has “envy” got to do with anything? The argument is all about democratic legitimacy. It is rather childish to impute false psychological motivations to your opponents.

Couild Mr. Campbell’s middle name ‘Rex’ suggest that he believes himself to be above the common herd?’

It’s irrelevant to point to countries like Sweden, Denmark or the Netherlands as democracies with royalty, as they all have active republican organisations, and so do Australia, Canada and New Zealand. (For the Swedish Republican view, in English, visit http://www.repf.se/?display=english )