Should the monarchy be abolished? [08/05/2011]

[Grig]

Should the monarchy be abolished?

ENDS: 08/05/2011

With the Royal Wedding just around the corner this really is the perfect debate! Basically, for those who basically don't know Britain is a constitutional monarchy, which basically puts the monarchy as a symbol and the country is run by a separate government. Although, the Queen still needs to approve major changes such as prime ministership changes etc.

To summarize the cons: The monarchy can be viewed as undemocratic- why should someone who was not elected by the people hold power? There's also the concept of it being inegalitarian, so basically if you are born into a royal family you are set for life and don't have to work up the social ladder. Also, why should we (the tax payer) pay for the monarchy, the costs are simply unjustifiable simply for them to live a lavish lifestyle. The days of divine rule are over and they are now more the subject of public embarrassment.

Then to the pros: Monarchs are often a symbolic rule for national unity. For example, in Thailand when the king tells protesters to stop, they stop. Monarchs are a national heritage, not many countries are left with a monarch and we cannot destroy so much history and culture, for it's like destroying the culture of the whole country. The monarchy is cost-effective, much more than the prime minister etc. because of all the tourism revenue it generates. Monarchs can change public opinion and bring up controversial issues that politicians ignore.

So, as you can see it's pretty evened out! Feel free to discuss but stick to the debate forum rules.

[Technologic]

Nope .

Edited by Infectious (Forum Moderator): Please do not make pointless posts, please refer to the debate forum rules for more info!

[Caution]

I can see both sides of the argument, but I don't think it should change. If we didn't have the monarchy, it'd be President Blair or something which is obviously worse. I think the amount spent on them is a bit extreme, I'd like to see them getting on an economy flight, but then there's the security risks.

[Technologic]

I can see both sides of the argument, but I don't think it should change. If we didn't have the monarchy, it'd be President Blair or something which is obviously worse. I think the amount spent on them is a bit extreme, I'd like to see them getting on an economy flight, but then there's the security risks.

The amount of money the treasury gets from the royal estates far exceeds the amount spent on them

[dbgtz]

The amount of money the treasury gets from the royal estates far exceeds the amount spent on them

Yeah but I think what he's saying is that they still get a lot spent on them which could probably be cut easily, and I hope some of it has been cut. They should stay as their image produces a lot of money in various ways (tourism, merchandise) but we should stop spending so much on them, well the lesser known of the family as tbh they don't really need security unless at a major event of some kind. Also they are probably one of the most iconic things in britain, and as obviously shown with the wedding they are highly liked around the world. Well not necessarily liked, but known. Finally, they do a lot for charity too and it's not like they're on their asses all day, with harry doing RAF stuff (and I think wills done some too before). Obviously the queen probably is on her ass a lot but shes old and I'm actually surprised she's able to do whatever she does...

I do think we should be noted on stuff they actually do though because apart from a few things I have no idea.

[GommeInc]

It shouldn't. Even if the Monarchy cost more to keep than they rake in, I'd much rather live in a country with a common face representing the values and morals of the populace than a country who is ruled by a single person for about 4 years, who no-one would particularly care about after they are gone because they do so very little. The Monarchy tend to get out there and bond with the nation, while politicians these days just like to pretend they know what they're doing and act as though they are bonding. There's so very little care or attention when you see a politician talking to a citizen, while with the Queen tends to bond and talk to her citizens, and get involved. The Princes do quite a few things too, particularly when they were in Africa a few years ago. Heck, last week we saw one of the bonuses of a Royal Family and that was the Commonwealth and the World bonding with the United Kingdom to watch the Royal Wedding. You wouldn't get that in any other country, other than for bad news like 9/11 :/

I do think we should be noted on stuff they actually do though because apart from a few things I have no idea.

I think they have a website which tells you what they are doing. Although, I think they're not too public for security and personal reasons. By this, I mean if the Queen was visiting a place in your village, town or county, would you want it publically announced so people who have nothing to do with the area took over the event? The Facebook page used to hold some information and what they were doing. Last time I checked it had Charles going to some public gardens and doing something with the Prince's Trust.

[Mathew]

You can find out what the Royal Family does by going here: http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRo.../Overview.aspx
Just select a family member from the column on the left, then click "A day in the life of..." - quite an interesting read.

The Royal Family costs something miniscule like 66p a year (per person, obviously) to keep running. It's a small price to pay for the masses of benefits they provide the country. GommeInc hit the nail on the head.

[GommeInc]

You can find out what the Royal Family does by going here: http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRo.../Overview.aspx
Just select a family member from the column on the left, then click "A day in the life of..." - quite an interesting read.

The only downsides are that it is a bit of a mess and you do not get too much information on where they have been and who they have visited. The Facebook page is pretty good for an easy to read format, but at the moment it's a right mess of Royal Wedding information

[Syphon]

I genuinely see nobody but possibly the government in power who could benefit from abolishing the monarchy... It's doubtful they would remove the tax which pays for their lifestyle, rather just keep it to themselves and claim that they need it for funding or such.

[karter]

Not if the King is just and peaceful. Like in Bhutan .. I guess?

---------- Post added 12-05-2011 at 04:46 PM ----------

Oh didnt know we were talking about Britain