What CONSTRUCTIVE arguements are there for and against the British Monarchy.?

Question

I'm looking for some balanced arguments, please. I dont want "Dere pointless, lets abolish dem". Thanks.

Answer 1

What's the alternative ?  Can you just imagine President Blair or President Brown in charge ?  Well, I'm sure Blair would never have relinquished the post if that had been the case !

A monarch as titular head of state acts as a buffer, a safety net, which prevents a corrupt (!) government from really stamping on the people. HM the Queen is head of the British armed forces, and I feel sure that in the event of a potential revolt by a corrupt British government, those forces would act as she wished, i.e. to protect the British people.

HM the Queen pays for the household of Buckingham Palace, and in her other residences, NOT the tax-payer.

Sure, they drive around in flash cars, BUT most of which they have bought themselves. Only a few are officially provided.

They don't have jobs ?  What a laugh !!  HM the Queen is probably the most hard-working person you will ever hear of. She works EVERY day of her life. And if it is not actually a productive job in terms of actual results, ask yourself how many tourists come to the UK just to see her or her houses ! (Ask yourself how many would come to see President Brown !!!)

And the Queen is not the only one who works. Her immediate family have official engagements all the time, although once again, it is difficult to measure the contributions they make to our economy.

All the Royal Family pay tax. Look up the Duchy of Cornwall on the 'net, for example, and you will find details.

I've been lucky enough to travel to many places overseas in my career, and you can stick your republics "where the sun don't shine", as far as I'm concerned. Most of them suck, in the vernacular.

Yes, I'm all for the monarchy - and I'm proud of it.

Answer 2

the younger members have no respect for their position especially harry.

Alot of people have no respect for the royal family anymore.

I personnally don't see what function they serve.

They cost alot of money.

The are not truely entitled to the throne.

It is stupid to keep doing something just because you always have done.

I believe that englands suffers nowadays because all we do is look to the past. Whereas countries like america achieve alot because they look to the future because they have no past to look at.

Answer 3

What do they actually do?

They live in a big house in London which we pay for.

They don't have jobs

They drive around in Rolls Royce's Range Rover's Trains Planes and Ships all paid for by us.

They are German

They don't pay taxes

They are comparable with any council estate family everything they do we pay for.

Answer 4

Having a monarchy in the 21st century does not make sense.  It is totally undemocratic.  Why should the job go to someone simply because of who their parents are.  It makes complete sense to have an elected head of state.  It gives the British public a say in the matter.  

I also get sick and tired of all the minor Royals who seem to be on permanent holiday.  What is their purpose in life???   It is quoted many, many times that the monarchy cost each tax payer hardly anything.  That is very, very misleading.  Why do we pay for the up keep of so many Royal residences?   The Queen is a very wealthy woman, but does not pay to maintain, Buckingham Palace, Sandringham, Windsor Castle or Balmoral.  We do.  Why should we pay for Prince Charles to take a R.A.F helicopter to a polo match?  All these extras add up to a huge bill for the tax payer.  The monarchy are so out of touch they think we SHOULD pay for them to have  such a privileged life.  If we had an elected head of state I know it would still cost money, but it would cut the bill to the tax payer tremendously.

Answer 5

the monarchy is a waste of money

having a president would be Democratic

Answer 6

"Dere", "dem"???!!!! Go back to school!

I personally think that they no longer play such an important role in todays society, however, there is not much left of this country that truely resembles "Britain", so for that reason they should remain as they are.

Edit: him above makes a very good point, thumbs up!!

EDIT AGAIN; My apologies for the "" comment. Obviously this annoys you also! Have a nice day x

Answer 7

In a country of about 60 million people, only an extremely tiny minority can become Head Of State. Not as a result of being suitable for the job, but because they have inherited the role through one of their parents. Furthermore, that role can not be held by an Atheist, Agnostic, Catholic, Jew, Hindu, Muslim or person of any other background than a white Anglo Saxon Protestant. As a rule, this person is not usually acceptable if they are female. The people of this country have no say in this matter, we just get what we are given.

All this, and we supposedly live in a democracy. This really is a pathetic situation.

Answer 8

Off With Your Heads !!!!!

Answer 9

They are part of YOUR history and heritage.

Answer 10

Agree 100% with Adrain and they are the symbolic head of our nation. - When an American thinks of Britain they immediately think of the Queen.

We are one of the most traditional countries in the world and we aren't about to scrap our most traditional feature even if they are just figureheads now.

Her ancestors lead this country through thick and thin including the great British empire.

Plus its a great tourist attraction (so the government is happy)

(Thats why theres always more Chinese, and general foreigners in London than actual English speaking people).

Answer 11

Against. They hold their Power by force of Arms handed down from generations past. They are not elected, and you have no powers to vote them out of office.

A President can be proposed and voted into office by the People, for a set term of x number of years.

A President can belong to any Faith or Non. Also any Colour or Class.