[Tudor]

I recently had discussions with my friends about whether the monarchy is still needed today. My opinion was that although they may never participate in many governmental discussions they are still British Heritage and that we should feel special that we have a ruling family stretching back years. I would just like to know what your opinions on it.

Many thanks, Tudor

[MrJohnDClare]

Vastly wealthy while some people are still dying in poverty.
A relic of a class/privilege system which is not just nowadays inappropriate but downright wrong.
I'm an out-and-out republican.
I'd guillotine the lot.

[Tudor]

Apart from my above reasons i coudn't agree more Mr Clare. I would agree with the guillotine i just don't want to be accused of treason. Joke! lol.

Many thanks for your input, take care, Tudor.

[Alexis]

I am not one of these 'staunch monarchists' mainly because I'm not a heavily nationalistic person, but do like the fact that the Armed Forces are sworn to the Queen rather than the executive branch. It is an important safeguard more so because the Royal Family is not concerned about next elections and their actions are driven by much longer-term goals. All in all, I think this country achieves a very good balance compared to most western nations, However, assuming nations today still need a 'head of state' to butter up foreign presidents etc. then I have to say the Queen does a brilliant job and certainly is a lot more palatable than a nominee of our political rulers. Just imagine, President Brown/Bliar, Kinnock, Mandelson or even a christian redneck like President Bush! Also, as the Queen is not a political appointee, more able potentially to act as a rallying point against a possible dictatorship and our constitutional monarchy is infinitely less expensive than a presidential system anyway.

[Georgia <3]

I'm very glad that I found this topic.

My thought on the matter is that there is no need for them, like Mr Clare showing a class/privilege system is totally wrong nowadays.
I've always said they haven't done anything why should they be there.
Many discussions have been had between my mother and I about this and she thinks that they give a great deal in mostly tourism which I can understand but still that's my opinion on it. After all they don't do much other than enjoy being the royal family and I understand that they are part of our heritage but it really wouldn't affect too many people if they were taken away.

I really hope more people will come into this discussion it is a fun one!

[shootingstars210]

I don't believe that it is needed anymore. From what I know all the royals are just there not to help.
Very interesting topic!

[CharlieMaggie123]

I think that a monarchy in this country is part of our history and something we shouldn't lose, though in today's society i can't really see our monarch's active role in the country, except to open important things and hold a few speeches etc... The decision making is done by our government now. In some ways, this could be a good thing, because it means the power in this country is spread out. If the monarchy was to be removed, what would replace it?

Charlie-x

[Snorri]

I am pro monarchy.

[RedRevolver]

MrJohnDClare, on Aug 27 2007, 01:56 PM, said:

Vastly wealthy while some people are still dying in poverty.
A relic of a class/privilege system which is not just nowadays inappropriate but downright wrong.
I'm an out-and-out republican.
I'd guillotine the lot.

I would be dumbfounded to find a good History teacher who is anything but!

[RedRevolver]

I am anti-monarchist, for the pure reason that whilst their is an unelected head of state, our democracy can never be fully achieved. Now, I am unsure where I stand on a codified constitution in the UK - I think entrenched human rights and clear seperation of powers are a good thing, as well as setting out the relationships between certain political institutions and limiting the powers of the executive etc. - but I also agree with a guy (sorry, I forget his name!) who is a key constitutional theorist in modern Britain, who has advised government on how to proceed in reformation of the constitution. To fully codify the constitution we would need to stop government, which is unworkable in a country of 60,000,000 - it would be the bad kind of anarchy almost.

So, ultimately, my reasoning does not lie with a codified constitution - but a head of state, in my opinion, should be seperately elected. Or alternatively, I think Parliament should elect the executive amongst themselves, therefore creating a cross-party executive and electing a head of state themselves. We would need a reform of the electoral system.

Meh. I basically dislike the idea of the institution of the Monarchy. I believe quite what someone's 'old fashioned teacher' said about the King of France and the Palace of Versailles - if Tourism via the Queen brings in so much money, how many of them actually meet the Queen? Or even care really? It's just to see the pretty palaces, end of. Therefore, tourism would not suffer, and the abolishment of the Monarchy could even be monopolised upon, if people care so much about the money the Monarchy supposedly brings in.

[Snorri]

This is a good argument for monarchy from the webpage: 'Abolish the Monarchy Debate'.

Quote

* The Crown is absolutely essential and without it "Britain's whole sense of security" would fall apart;
* The behavior of individual Royals is irrelevant to the institution of Monarchy and cannot affect it in any way;
* The behavior (or misbehavior) of individual Royals threatens the Monarchy's imminent destruction;
* The real point of the Monarchy is constitutional, to embody the state in a different identity from the politicians of the day (the "would you want Ken Livingstone / Maggie Thatcher / Gordon Brown as your President?" argument);
* The real point of the Monarchy is the "work" the Royals do, opening schools and hospitals, bringing business and attracting tourists to Britain;
* The Monarchy is of no real importance either way, so we might as well keep it;
* Any attempt to do away with the Monarchy is a fundamental assault on our national way of life.

And I like this justification of the monarchy at: 'Sovereignty: Making the Case for the Monarchy'.

Quote

AN IDEAL HEAD OF STATE
So long as we believe in nation states and so long as we need governing systems to govern nation states, then we will continue to need Heads of State: people who can represent the nation to itself and to the world. A Head of State can provide a personal identity to an impersonal State, and a collective sense of itself.

A Head of State who does not owe his or her position to either patronage or a vote can more properly represent all the people.

Consider that a President who has been elected, often by a minority of a minority of the electorate, cannot adequately speak for the people who did not vote for him or her.

It is even worse if the President has been appointed, because then he owes his position to a small clique.

So, the accident of birth is the best means of appointing a Head of State. Someone who has no party political axe to grind, or special favours to repay to a vested interest.

Someone whose allegiance is to the people. Not just allegiance to the people who voted for him or his political party, but allegiance to all the people of the country equally.

Far from being "incompatible" with democracy, a Monarchy can thereby enhance the government of the land.

A DISTINCT SYMBOL OF NATIONAL IDENTITY
The Monarch is a national icon. An icon which cannot be replaced adequately by any other politician or personality. This is because the British Monarchy embodies British history and identity in all its aspects, both good and bad.

When you see the Queen you not only see history since 1952, when she took the throne, but you see a person who provides a living sense of historical continuity with the past. Someone who embodies in her very being a history which extends back through time, back through the Victorian era, back into the Stuart era and beyond. You see the national history of all parts of our islands, together, going right back in time.

A living continuity between the past, the present and the future.

That's something that no politician can provide. When we look at Tony Blair, for example – whatever you may think of him – we see nothing meaningful on a national scale, pre-1997.

All politicians come and go, but Monarchy is forever.

With its traditions, its history, its ceremonial, and with its standing and respect throughout the world, the British Monarchy represents a unique national treasure, without which the United Kingdom would be sorely impoverished.

If you value national distinctiveness, you should be a Monarchist.

If you are anti-globalist you should be a Monarchist because Monarchies represent the different national traditions and distinctions among the nations.

The desire to secure, strengthen and promote your own distinct national icons, whether your Monarch, or your own unique national identity, should be your concern, whether you live here in St Andrews, or whether you live in St Petersburg, or whether you live in St Paulo.

As the global financial system rushes us all towards a world intended to eradicate all local and national distinctions, the Monarchy stands out as different, distinct and valuable.

Constitutionally, practically, spiritually and symbolically this nation would be impoverished without Monarchy.

OBJECTIONS
"The Monarchy Sustains Class Injustice"
This is just rhetorical hum-bug. If you want egalitarianism then look at Norway and the Netherlands – both highly "egalitarian" societies, and both monarchies.

If you want oppression and class injustice then look at the countries in South America, almost all of which are ... republics!

The Monarchy is a concept which can transcend class divisions in the sense that, in the eyes of the Monarch, all are equal before the Crown.

"It's a Costly Extravagance"
The annual cost of around £37 million is good value for money. In any case, Monarchy is meant to be majestic, yet there seems to be a deliberate move to diminish the majesty of the Monarchy.

The pageantry, the ceremonial are all part and parcel of Monarchy – not intended to glorify Mrs Windsor, per se, but intended to elevate the national icon. So long as the Monarch remains a symbol of the nation, then no expense should be spared. A nation which values itself will treat its national icons with prestige and respect.

"Look at the Behavior of the Royals"
Don't confuse the personalities of the Royal Family with the concept of Monarchy itself. Personalities come and go but the principle remains.

"It Encourages People to Live in a Fantasy Land. They are a Diversion"
On the contrary, the Monarchy is real. It is television and the media which deliberately diverts people and encourages them to become obsessed with pop stars and soap operas, which are fantasy.

"Inherited Privilege has no Place in our Society"
A privilege is a special right. It is the privilege of the Monarch to reign. It is the privilege of the Monarch to serve.

If by "privilege" you mean the enjoyment of an advantage not bestowed upon others, then, you should judge the Monarch by how she uses that privilege.

"What does the Queen do?"
She reigns. That is her job. That is her purpose. That is her duty.

"The Royal Prerogative is Exploited by the PM"
The unfortunate fact that the Prime Minister has usurped the power of the Crown is not an argument to abolish the Crown or even to reduce its powers, but rather an argument to restrict the power of the Prime Minister and restore the Monarchical authority of the Royal Prerogative back to the Crown, where it belongs.

"The Monarchy will Eventually be Abolished"
The truth is that Monarchy is forever.

Even if the Monarchy were officially "abolished", it only takes one person to say, "You are my King" and the Monarchy lives.

THE REPUBLICAN CASE FALLS DOWN
It argues on the superiority of democracy only, without realizing that the Monarchy can be integrated into the democratic process.

Moreover, the republican case falls down on:
- Its failure to provide a consistent critique of the present system
- Its small minded, envious objections to petty things like the cost, or the ceremony. The fact is that the Monarchy provides extremely good value for money.
- It fails in its inability to explain the nature of the system which would replace the Monarchy.
- It fails in its lack of historical consciousness. Some of the worst bloodshed ever has been a result of the overthrowing of monarchies.