Should we really still have a monarchy in the 21st cenury?

Question

Should we really still have a monarchy in the 21st cenury?

Answer 1

Although not a royalist I believe we should still have a monarch. It brings in lots of tourism and revenue for the country, I do however believe it should be streamlined. After witnessing the FA cup final a couple of years ago where the I think it was Prince Michael of Kent was presented to the players there was a child with each of them and he ignored every child there, one youngster was following him down the line to shake his hand and it sickened me to watch him, so am not in favour of the likes of him, but The Queen has served this country very well at all times. Long may she reign.

Answer 2

Of course,

The Queen is the God's respresentavive on earth in the Anglican religion.

Answer 3

Good question... but to replace something that is so well established  we would need something that would IMPROVE things and I don't see anything that could be an improvement on what we have. What alternative is there ? NONE in my view.  So I prefer the monarchy NOT because I think it is the best system of government but because the alternatives  disgust me.   G W Bush has a JOKE for a brain. He is not the only one. Who can remember the idiot Reagan (God rest his soul) ?   And do you know something ?  Do you wanna bet the CLOWN  Schwarzenegger will be the President of the USA one day ?  And Nixon ?  Scandals like Watergate which in my view was one of the most shameful periods in the history of the USA. ?  At least the monarch isn't in power MOTIVATED BY MONEY which seems to be the motive for every member of governments around the world not least in the USA..

Answer 4

This may appear slightly naive, but I really don't see anything wrong with monarchies as long as they give basic rights to the people. Democracies are nice, but they're far from perfect(for instance, look at the bickering, partisan, can't-get-much-done Congress we have right now).

Answer 5

I've never understood any monarchy.  Thank God I was born in the USA.  I cannot worship or bow to a man or woman.

Answer 6

No, it's embarrasing

Answer 7

No. We are supposed to be a grown up, modern, forward-thinking nation, yet we cling to this notion that this bunch of ne'er-do-wells are better than us.

Answer 8

The monarchy is a defunct institution, they have no power to prevent tyrrany, as if the queen refused to sign a bill the government would organize a coup and become even more powerful.

I say remove the monarchy and create a PR elected house of the land; which would need to approve all bills. It's a modern safeguard which works for the people while being composed of the people.

Answer 9

It is so med evil a throw back from the ancient times of believing some man was chosen by God because of who his father was.  I mean Pharaoh was God in the flesh and so was his son.  Until they drowned in the red sea.

Or one of the plagues.

NOW it is religious clerics saying God talks to me and he just likes me so listen to me I am very important.

Why can't we just find out how smart this guy is and elect him and if he doesn't do a good job kick him out.

But thinking this guy is smart because his daddy says so is a little naive.  I think it is just plain stupid.

Unless it is Jesus Christ as king the others are just fooling themselves.  But as long as they can fool the people into believeing they are some how gifted, and give them millions of dollars.  I mean it works for the TV evangelists.

Answer 10

Got a better suggestion?  Would you prefer George W Bush, or perhaps President Blair?  The monarchy is the only safeguard we have against unscrupulous politicians.

Answer 11

Of course we should...Who would want any Politician residing in one of the Palaces. ...They would lord it over us and in any case it would cost a lot more money than whatever the Royals do. More so they would want to be like they live in the States with more money, and they would milk the system drier than they do now. Oh no !! do not remove the Royals, this Country is in a bad enough state as it is without making it any worse. In any case why would you want to remove them ? they don,t do you any harm...!!

Answer 12

No, they are born lucky they don't earn respect

Answer 13

I thought that it might be wise to look at some of the previous comments from people supporting the monarchy, before diving straight into tearing apart the monarchy and I have to admit that there are indeed some advantages to having a monarchy such as the barrier to complete control wielded by that of a president. Our current prime ministers operate in a far weaker position with a royal as head of parliament. The Anglicans can of course claim that their religous beliefs put the monarch as Gods English representative and head of their church. To the first point I would say that  the monarchy is undemocratic and ultimately this is a far worse state to be in than a fully fledged democracy. A compromise could be brought about that gives us a head of state based on merit not on their bloodline. To the Anglicans, who created the reformation in 1517, I challenge them to say whether their religion speaks for all British citizens and whether a New Age prince of Wales will even make a good head of the church when he eventually comes to throne? Some people argue that the royalty bring a lot of money into the economy through the tourists that they attract, but does France who became a republic in 1789, not attract many tourists to its' publicly owned palaces such as the world renowned Louvre palace without the need for royals? Yes they do much that is good in the world of charity, but that should be our politicians jobs and the money we spend on the royal family could directly help those causes. We the British public finance the royals in their extravagant lifestyles through our taxes, not the other way round.