23 November 2009

British Monarchy a waste of time?

The following question was sent via email. It is a question for debate rather than one with a straight answer. There are people in Britian who are pro the British Monarchy and there are people who are against them. The feeling is much the same in any country, whether a rebublic or monarchy. Often the majority of votes in a country goes along with the type of head of state.

I do not understand the British Monarchy. Is it not a waste of
time?
Regards
John, Canada

Further information about the Monarchy
Britain is not the only European country to have retained its monarchy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Norway and Spain still have theirs.
Her Majesty is also Queen of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Barbados, Papua-New Guinea - all in all 16 countries.

Popular questions asked about the Royal family
The Queen
Why does the Queen have two birthdays? Birthdays
Who are the members of the Royal Family? Members
Where can I find information about the guards outside Buckingham Palace?
What are the roles and duties of the Queen and members of the Royal Family? Roles and Duties
Who will be the next King or Queen?
What famous Kings and Queen have ruled Britain? Timeline
Posted by at 22:14
Labels:

34 comments:

  1. The Monarchy will last as long as Queen Elizabeth II or the 1st as we call her in Scotland Lives. Once she goes, then there will be big changes. I can't see King Charles 3 ever being 'popular'
    ReplyDelete
  2. Is it not true that the British Prime Minister already carries far more effective power than a US President? The British Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party in Parliament and probably with a whippable absolute majority. In effect, we already have a "President" Brown just as we had "President" Blair and a "President" Thatcher.
    ReplyDelete
  3. In a recent opinion poll, published in March 2009, 74 percent of the British supported the Monarchy. How many republics match this sympathy record despite constant attacks?
    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't think the monarchy is a waste of time, and hope that they continue to reign. I'd far rather have, however diluted in practice it is, some kind of safeguard against politicians. Governments are formed for the Queen or King, for a reason. To protect us in the long run.
    ReplyDelete
  5. The monarchy gives us a culture. They're part of our history. If the monarchy were to go, what would be left to identify us as British?
    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes the monarchy is a waste of time and money! When the Queen leaves this life we should become a republic. The palaces should be returned to the people that pay for them and not a select minority whose dubious birthright gives them the priveledge of living in luxury.
    ReplyDelete
  7. The Monarchy are cheaper than MP's, a Republic would consist of more MP's & more cost to the tax payer. I am unashamedly a loyalist & come from the working class. Long may the the Monarchy reign.
    ReplyDelete
  8. and you forgot The Vatican Luxembourg Monavo Lieschtenstein Andorra... 44 countries in the world are Monarchies and many entities as well are governed following Monarchial Principles...
    ReplyDelete
  9. No problem! But don't forget, this is the (near) oldest democratic country, and it's working very well!
    ReplyDelete
  10. i was reading your comments because in my graduation theses there is a topic which says if the monarchy of uk should be abolished or preserved. i was thinking if anyone can help me by giving some more facts why the monarchy should be preserved.(i am pro the monarchy)
    thank you.
    ReplyDelete
  11. As a Citizen of the States and not a Subject of the Queen, I know my opinion is not as valid as those of the people of Great Britian. And my ancestors served under Gen. Washington during the Revolution. Our war was more over the policies of King George III than with the common folk of the U.K., but since then, your government managed to avoid any more loss of colonies and today the Commonwealth is a great legacy to this policy.

    A Monarchy seems to offer a certain level of stability, regardless of what government changes occur in Parliament. And you should feel some pride in your institutions, because most democracies follow the British Parliamentary system, not the American system when it comes to govenments, regardless if they have a Monarch or an elected President Head of State.

    The trappings of Royalty are costly, and certainly maintaining this within reason should always be a common goal, of the Monarch and the subjects. But the wealth of greed that is too present in the USA is certainly an excess we are all dealing with in this world wide recession.

    At least with the Queen, you know who she is and where she is and she can not escape her people. Folks on wall street are like rats on a ship, here today and gone tomorrow.

    I feel Great Britian should keep the Monarchy, if the subjects still want it. I remeber in 2006 when Queen Elizabeth came to Virginia to celebrate the 400 years since the Jamestown settlement and later came to Kentucky and the Kentucky Derby, (horse race), in Louisville. It seemed very proper for your Queen to come and visit Virginia, where many of our common ancestors came 400 years ago.

    While I may live in a republic, I still respect the Monarch and the country from which my ancestors came. May both our lands maintain their bonds of friendship.

    From accross the pond, I remain,
    Your Obedient Servant,
    Dr. B. L. Reid
    ReplyDelete
  12. Total waist of time. Part of English History that should become History. As an English tax payer why should I pay for them to have a life of luxury, as if life isn`t expensive enough in the UK ! As for the tourism debate, I think its more the architecture than the royals that bring the tourists here. After all when do they make themselves available for tourists...errr never I think.
    ReplyDelete
  13. Those that support the abolition of the monarchy on the grounds of cost fail to realise that an elected head of state would be just as expensive. The sovereign provides his/her subjects with a cohesive unifying figurehead more easily than an elected president (executive or non-executive) can for his/her citizens. The question for all republicans, be they in the UK or in another dominion such as here in Australia, is what system do you replace it with? The Australian republic debate fell down on this issue in 1999 and while both the current prime minister (Kevin Rudd) and opposition leader (Malcolm Turnbull) are 'republicans' neither seem to want to touch this issue with a barge-pole! As long as the sovereign of the UK and Australia complies with the Act of Settlement I will remain a supporter.
    AG Whitnall, Victoria, Australia
    ReplyDelete
  14. It costs just as much to maintain the elected head of the United States and the British monarch is much more interesting with a much more compelling history. In a time when so little attention is paid to history and the preservation of anything remotely historical, and speaking as an ex-patriate Brit residing in the USA, I say keep the monarchy.
    Dorothy - Mentor, OH
    ReplyDelete
  15. The Monarchy, President or Prime Minister don't do anything for your country. The common working man and woman are the ones that do. Yeah go ahead and keep the Monarchy, its like preserving a family heirloom that has the usefullness of a paper weight. What's funny is when people keep telling me how great Winston Churchill was. What did he ever do other than make speeches? It was the British Tommy and American Yank GI that defeated the Wehrmacht not the Prime Minister or the Queen.
    ReplyDelete
  16. The Monarchy, whether you like them or not. Bring millions into British economy each year, allot more money than it costs us to keep them. Without them the economy of Britain would be allot bleaker than it already is.
    ReplyDelete
  17. The Queen is the head of the church. The royals are not allowed to marry Roman catholics and with the uk's history in Ireland(republic)Prodestants tend to be royalist and Catholics much less
    ReplyDelete
  18. at least with the republic the people get to decide who to spend all that money on, but in a monarchy my son or daughter have no choice. The time of the monarchy is long overdue, either their should be major reforms or they should go. At the end of the day democracy and accountability is far more in the interest of the people...
    Besides this curent monarch is powerless in the face of her prime ministers and is just here to eat away at our tax dollars.
    ReplyDelete
  19. What a ridiculous question! Whose time are they meant to be wasting? The Royal family add so much to this country as many people have highlighted clearly above.
    ReplyDelete
  20. The Royal Family are on duty 24hours a day,
    365 days a year, they are human beings like
    the rest of and sometimes they don`t always
    do, or say, the right thing, but when you
    consider the amount of tourism and trade
    they attract they are worth however much it
    costs to keep them going.
    ReplyDelete
  21. you want a republic? sure go ahead and ruin yourselves to the disportionate spread of wealth we have here in the USA. We dont even have univeral healthcare here? too many people dont understand that with a monarch you have someone you can contain in the highest postion, look at the past president we just had and what could we as americans do to stop him? Be grateful you still have a queen and not a faux republic that cares only for the rich and oil
    ReplyDelete
  22. Removing the monarchy is one more step towards becoming just another EU state, if the monarchy is overthrown then all we need is a change to the Euro and we might as well go ahead and call ourselves the United States of Europe. The royal family are a part of our history and culture which, once gone, we will not be able to replace this time.

    Others in this thread have made reference to the point that they have lots of luxuries in their life which is undeniable, they don't exactly live in council flats in Peckham. However they do have to share their own homes with the rest of the world with camera's constantly peering in, the public traipsing through their home and the media constantly scrutinising every little detail of their lives trying to cause scandle at the smallest of insignificant errors in their manner because obviously the person writing the story has never slipped up in their lives. And lets not also forget that to be the head of the armed forces they first have to have joined the armed forces, the recent press coverage of Prince Harry in Afghanistan proves my point, not to mention that the Queen Elizabeth II is the only living member of the royal family who served in world war II.

    I feel strongly that the royal family have a great part to play in keeping the national pride and spirit high, they are deserving people who have to put up with a lot of invasions of privacy and media publicity which will never cease. I am truly proud to be a loyalist and I am truly proud to be British.
    ReplyDelete
  23. Long Live the Queen!

    Her loyal subject,

    Craig B
    ReplyDelete
  24. As a recent ex-pat to the USA, I witnessed at first hand the whole 'coronation of Obama' thing... It seems better to have a ceremonial figurehead and then a leader of the executive who can be voted out of office at any time (the PM). People can then get emotional about the figurehead and rational about the political leader, rather than jumble the whole thing up...
    ReplyDelete
  25. Re: the Queen being head of the church in England...this is true. Whatever happened to the separation of powers? Ironic that this is a part of the Westminster system of government that we all take very seriously and uphold here in the Land Downunder, while it doesn't apply to England which gave us the system in the first place!
    ReplyDelete
  26. As in previous messages, the monarchy is Britain and without them what would we be. We have years and years of history which other countries envy. In future years we will see a change in how they act etc but I do hope they will still be there.
    ReplyDelete
  27. I've never really identified with the Monarchy and there is much much more to Britain than this feudal relic that has somehow managed to out live the age of superstition servitude from where it originated.
    Britain has contributed much more to the world, for a start the English language is still the international language of commerce, thanks to our American friends. Britain was the last democracy standing in Europe in the face of Naziism and Communism at one point during WW2. We have been a land of democracy, freedom of conscience and free trade for so long that maybe we take these things for granted here, but maybe thats the half the point. A lot of people just don't see the point in scrapping the monarchy when it's such benign institution, especially at a time when our elected politicians are probably the least trusted bunch of party puppets than they have ever been.
    ReplyDelete
  28. That is not true that in republics you get to choose what you spend your money on. Look at the US, the government spends the money on whatever they want no matter what the people think. The monarchy is vital to the UK and I frankly don't see it being abolished anytime soon. Besides, whenever I ask anyone who is a tourist what the first thing they think about whenever they hear the name "UK" they always either say "The Queen" or "The Royal family". The monarchy is what gives Britain it's identity in the world and to get rid of it would be foolish. What I don't understand is why the Royal family get criticized for some private matter when the politicians are doing the exact same thing. If anything I think the office of Prime Minister should be abolished so it would just be the monarch and parliament. Look at most republics in the world, all they do is divide a nation and the president hardly represents the nation, they only represent the people who voted for them.
    ReplyDelete
  29. People tend to forget that England became a republic many years ago, but it was decided that the Monarchy was a stablising influence on the country and it was reintroduced, abeit without its former power.

    I respect the Monarch for what she has vowed - to serve her country the whole of her life - which she has done. Being the one constant in our Governmental system, she has seen prime ministers and civil servants come and go, but has retained a long history and links with many countries around the world.
    She provides us with a constant familiar face in a world of change.
    She is also the head of the Protestant Church, and although it has not been used for many a year (back in the 1800s I believe), she still holds the constitutional right to dissolve parliament forcing a general election without the permission of the prime minister (something I think she should have done given the scandals that are ongoing in our "democracy" at the moment).
    Those that bleat on that they are paying for her life of luxury should perhaps think about the many representations she makes on our behalf each and every year. She rarely rests from her duties - something that was forces on her by birth, and she costs us each less than £1 a year. So are you really paying for her life of luxury with your £1 donation! Go out and see if you can buy ten cigarettes for that.

    And finally, given the choice between a "president" made up of the same greedy pigs of MPs we currently have representing us, or someone who is dedicated to her post and sticks with this country through thick and thin, despite not having much of a say in the day to day running, I'd opt for her every single time.
    ReplyDelete
  30. For those of you complaining about having to "fund" the cost of the monarchy you should check your facts. Rather than the monarchy costing the taxpayer money we get paid to have them. The country makes a profit from the income generated through the Crown Estate (which goes stright to the treasury not to the Queen).

    For example last year we paid 41 million to fund the cost of the Civil List, the fund which pays for the upkeep of the palaces, the public engagements the royal family attend and all the salaries of those involved. In return the Crown Estate paid the Treasury 190 million, not a bad profit margin!

    If we were to become a republic then the costs of the president would have to be met by the taxpayer and would be much higher and would still include the costs of states visit, we would still maintain the current palaces and we would also have to pay for a much larger body of administratiors as well as fund the election processes. Take a loot at the MPs and tell me if you believe they wouldn't milk it for everything they could!

    This of course doesn't even take into account the estimates for the additional revenue the monarchy brings to the UK simply by existing.
    ReplyDelete
  31. As an American, whose government is owned lock, stock and barrel by Wallstreet, who am I to be critical Britain's devotion to a Monarchist lineage that no more than 500 years ago, had a Queen (Mary Ist) who had 600 people burned to death for refusing to convert to her religion. I suppose it is something to be proud of.
    ReplyDelete
  32. I'm happy to pay my 64 pence a year (or whatever it is but certainly less than a pound) to have a monarchy. It brings with it culture and tradition and a sense of identity - ours is the oldest surviving monarchy in the world. Even the cynics must see that the monarchy brings in far more money to this country than it takes out. Why would we abolish something that draws in people from around the world, boosts our tourist trade and which is one of the few things that unites the British public with its sense of occasion. Regardless of our feelings towards individual members of the royal family and their imperfections can't people see we are much better off with them than without them?
    ReplyDelete
  33. Our Royal Family - and particularly our Queen - are hard working and committed to the people of the UK. The Queen has acted throughout her life with dignity, compassion and decorum, setting an example that no other person in a postion of power can come close to. No scandals surround her (although the popular press keep trying from time to time) and she has dedicated her life to her people. The Royal Family bring much needed aid to many charities eg by being a Patron (Prince William is currently supporting Help for Heroes)and they live their lives under constant scrutiny. I would not want to live in that type of "fishbowl" from birth to death for any amount of money.
    And as for money - I would prefer that my taxes pay for our Queen, than than that they pay £1600 a week for a person who has never paid any British taxes to live in a London flat.
    Long may our Royals continue.
    ReplyDelete
  34. it may seem like an old fashioned view but as a serving member of her majestys armed forces i would gladly lay down my life in the protection of my queen and monarchy as a whole
    ReplyDelete

Please select COMMENT AS: Name/URL
You don't need to type in an URL but please leave a name :)

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)