Because 80% of Britons want a Monarchy is a good place to start, it should be the British people who decide whether or not to have a monarchy. It isn't 'outdated' just because monarchy is a year old system. Breathing, eating and drinking are stuff we have been doing for ages, it doesn't mean it's outdated and we should give them up! Plus, other modern countries also have monarchies such as: Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Liechtenstein, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (the last three sharing our monarchy).
The Royals generate billions in revenue from tourism each and every year and, for some bizarre reason, actually keep our taxes down. They are a wonderful figure head for our wonderful country; and there's nothing undemocratic about it when they don't actually have any power anyway!
Long live the Queen!
A hereditary monarchy is the worst way to select a head of state. Just because its parents were hugely powerful and in control of a state, that doesn't mean the baby will be a good head of state. The hereditary principle is outdated, and goes against every fair, free principle that Britain stands for. It is time for a republic.
It's part of our history and prestige. The building blocks of this nation has been shaped by the ideals and actions of the crown. Our current HM generates millions of pounds of revenue for Britain. Royalty has gave joy to millions of the public by announcing weddings, and offspring, and other public holidays. HM also is a great ambassador for Britain welcoming presidents, PM's, and other countries monarchs to the palace. Royalty have done lots for charity as well as awarding soldiers, knighting, and handing out honours. She also delivers a Christmas speech, and writes letters of condolences to people. She has attended over 15,000 official engagements! She works hard for her keep! - and may I add she even has cut her own bills in the recession to keep in line a bit more with the public cutbacks, unlike the MPs who always vote themselves extra payrises, perks, and benefits.
The monarch holds power that can dissolve the parliament and in this day of age is a very comforting thing. The government MPs at the moment are generally greedy self serving pigs, and when the government becomes to corrupt the people can call upon the Queen to elect a new government. This has been done a few times already in history. The Queen is a servant to the people not a ruler. If the government become to evil and corrupt, masses of people are banging on houses of parliament to be heard, she can restore power to the right people's hands with legislation. We hardly live in a day of age where a monarch will become a tyrant ruler, so we should embrace Britain's most welcome and loved resident!
God save the Queen!
This was a great country in its day and the monarchy with the ability to make quick decisive moves is one of the reasons. So I not only support the monarchy, but believe we should abolish our current government with all their idiotic rulings and bring back an absolute monarchy. At least with the monarchy running the country we would not have all these anti-English laws and ruling coming from what is supposed to be our own government.
True, it has largely outlived its original purpose and because we still have it, we could be considered a theocracy, but that is minor when you consider all the other things we have because of it:
1) Money! The monarchy brings in money by the millions, and not just from tourism.
2) Tradition! Granted, tradition is not always a good thing, but I think it should be considered a good thing unless proven bad. If we lost slavery (clearly, we have, but assuming we still have it), what would we gain? Answer: More equality for people.
If we lost the monarchy, what would we gain? A: Not much, if anything. We'd lose a lot of money; that's for sure!
Definitely! The monarchy has worked out for over around one thousand years, why should it suddenly go? The monarchy only costs the taxpayer 62p. In my opinion I don't find that much money. Many other countries have monarchies, and it works out for them: Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Liechtenstein, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And what about the common wealth? Loads of countries share the same Queen as us so we won't just disappoint the monarchy we will also disappoint other nations as well.
KEEP THE MONARCHY!!!
So you would rather a president? Why can't people just accept that we have a royal family that is the qay it is the royal family generate a lot of money into our country. So all the people saying they are paying their tax for them are just ridiculous. I respect the royal family and think it is just plain disrespect people saying they want them out!
Although the idea of monarchy is completely outdated and undemocratic, the fact of the matter is that the British monarchy is one of the most famous and recognisable things about our great nation. If we the United Republic of Great Britain, no one would give a sh*t. And above everything else, the royals bring in more money than they cost: we pay them 40 Million quid a year in taxes to do their thing, and they bring us 160 Million in tourism, which makes them a pretty sound investment, really. Besides, it's not like they have any actual power, even though Prince Charles thinks he does.
The British monarchy is probably the most remarkable monarchy in the world and It adds a lot of prestige to those countries, but mainly in the UK. In Economics the royal family directly gives 160 millions pounds in profits, directly. Besides the billions in tourism. The latest data reports that 80% of Britishes want the monarchy, until this number changes a lot let's keep the monarchy.
If we have a monarchy, we can hit the bullseye, then their house of cards will fall like dominoes. Checkmate!
Scissors beats paper, but rock beats scissors, and paper covers rock! Kif, we have a conundrum.
Now I must go or you will spook my horse felicity, there there boy.
Honestly, I have troubles even forming a coherent thought. So, basically, these people take all of our money so they can live in their undeserved world of privilege, they do unimportant things that we don't care about so we can buy their useless crap, and then because people are so simpleminded to buy these things in the first place, we simply let this outdated principle continue because it makes money off of our money? Really? The monetary argument is absolutely ridiculous, and it's basically nothing but a vicious cycle. If all it takes to make merchandise off of people is to give a bunch of pigs an undeserved sense of importance and constantly repeat what amazing people they actually aren't, then we really don't need the royal family. By this point, we can basically inflate anything else.
Also, another issue with the monetary argument. If the royal family sells so well, why do they even have to continue taking our money in the first place? It doesn't make any sense. Imagine for a moment if a corporation did this. If they demanded you to pay for their luxury, and THEN they sold you their merchandise afterwards. That would never slide just because 'it makes money.'
I really don't get people. So basically the royal family get a mansion at our expense and we buy their trash, meanwhile someone that might legitimately need money to even live in an apartment is called a socialist parasite. But who am I kidding. I actually do get people, and the difference is clear as day. One group of people has the government telling you that they're important, wonderful, and amazing, while the other group of people are downright dehumanized and looked down upon by the government. You'd think with the royal family being state sponsored celebrities (Or as I like to call it, a combination of the two groups I absolutely hate the most) a lot more people would call them out on it.
I'm done with money, so lets move on to the next thing I hate about the royal family. I hate how they function. They live off attention like some kind of parasite, equivalent to celebrities in Hollywood and the TMZ, except a little bit more dignified. But to be completely honest, I actually mind the royal family a lot more than TMZ. To me they're both pigs rolling around in filth to get your attention, but at least TMZ is honest about it. At least they embrace the filth. The royal family however instead pretends to try and be more classy. Sure, they're not down to the same level as the TMZ, but lets not go pretending that just because they haven't hit the same low that they're anywhere class. Lets never forget that they still feed off attention over completely unimportant subject matter.
The monarchy is completely overblown.
By selecting our head of state through birthright, not only do we select a person based on unfair privilege, but we also select a person who is probably one of the worst people to have at the head of a country, someone who has no idea about the lives of the people in it. By having a president in place of a monarch, not only would we save millions of pounds (money that could go to important causes like the NHS, instead of in the queen's back pocket) it would also mean that the people have the option to choose the best person for the job, instead of some lucky sod who happened to be born into the right family.
I actually like Queen Elizabeth II. I think she's a tough lady, and she's been on the throne twice as long as I've been alive. But none of that excuses the fact that she's about as useful as a Christmas tree in August. We have so many budget problems in our country, should we really be giving our money to people who were born wealthy?
The people of England should have overthrew their monarchy decades ago, but they allowed their lazy rulers control them viciously. They do nothing for the people of England, all they do is suck the wealth out of the people and into their wallets and purses. They also should be eliminated to get rid of the mindless world wide royal family propaganda scheme they have going.
Absolute monarchy was very unpopular many years ago because royal families were very abusive, the reason why the people took their powers away. On the other side, constitutional monarchy gives the government power to the representatives chosen by the people and limits the power of monarchs to ceremonial. The purpose of which is to minimize abuses from a single ruler.
The royal family contributes a lot to the economy through tourism, but it is not sufficient reason to give them government powers. Because of they have the government powers, they will not perform their ceremonial powers to the fullest and that on contrary might affect tourism. Tourists love the monarchs just the ways they are.
Here in the UK, we have a small group of people who are born into a family with celebrity status and great privilege. They generate lots of money too, so what's the problem? Well, nothing, if that is all that this group of people does, and stands for. The monarchy in the UK is a problem that needs to be tackled, and exposed, as people generally support it in their ignorance.
The monarchy is actually paid for by the taxpayer's money. While the official figure is that the Royal family costs only about £40m per annum, this doesn't take into account security costs, royal visits and others of less significance. The actual figure is estimated by some to be about £200m every year. Per person, this doesn't cost an awful amount. However, the very principle that there is a state funded band of celebrities who have no merit other than their genetics is absurd. This isn't like funding national health care, taxation to the royals benefits only a select few.
The idea that tradition=good, for some bizarre reason seems to apply to the monarchy in a lot of people's eyes. This confounds me no end. Persecuting gays was somewhat a tradition, as well as owning slaves, hunting 'witches', building an all dominant empire et cetera, et cetera. Now, I'm not implying that tradition=bad, only that tradition is not linked to whether something is good or not, at all. The idea that; because the monarchy is our heritage or national identity, therefore we should keep it, is ridiculous.
The argument that they have no real power so they should be able to stay is also highly confusing. If people use this argument, they are probably using it as a counter to the fact that the monarchy's existence is undemocratic. Well, the reality is, if they don't serve any purpose, (as just argued) then why DO they exist? Eventually this debate can get back round to tourism funds... And we've got a cyclical argument going.
Being the eldest son/daughter in a royal family is definitely NOT the qualification to be the head of the country. If everybody is equal in Democracy, how come we still need to pay TAX to royal family. Britain would have done a lot more if there was not a Royal family.
Leadership is not a birth right. Monarchs living fat at the cost of the poor and popular as actors and singers. Shame on the Brits for not having the rights to choose their leader. Shame on the Brits for forgetting the suffering of their ancestors in the hands of monarchs. Any Brit citizen should have the right to rule their country for the better.
I dont care if they have a monarchy, it won't effect me since i dont live there. From what ive seen and heard, the queen doesn't get involved in anything and just sits on the sidelines calling it "her" country. Monarchy is an old system and hasnt worked well in the past.
My sentiments are with Fox Wolf, the monarchy is unaccountable, undemocratic and out dated and should eventually be phased out, over time. Maybe, it's my perception, but after Princess Diana's death, the enthusiasm for the monarchy, seems to have waned slightly. Also, austerity Britain, with many people, even the middle classes feeling the squeeze. The enthusiasm and hysteria for the monarchy, will probably wane even further?