Wouldn't it be more useful to put an end to monarchy and set up a republican system?

Question

What's the use of a royal family in a modern society?

Answer 1

The British people think the only reason foreign tourists come to Britain is because they have a royal family.  I have been to Britain 15 times and never once saw anybody in the royal family.  I guess that means I was really cheated.  I can see royal palaces in almost any other country in Europe regardless of their particular form of government.

Sorry,  Angel Lady.  The British  are afraid that if there were no British royal family, no tourists would want to come to the United Kingdom. They feel that everybody would prefer to go to France instead of visiting England.

Angel Lady, you seem to be saying that the only thing Great Britain has to offer to tourists is the royal family.

Answer 2

Yes.!!!

Answer 3

all they do is waste tax payers money, get everything free n get payed at the same time, we don't really need them, it's too much. u n i go to work everyday for peanuts n they live large. it's really unfair

Answer 4

I grew up thinking that what we really needed was to get rid of the monarchy and establish a democratically elected head of state. These days, my conviction is less strong on this. In the main, this is due to the performance of HM herself, whose conduct over her decades of reign has been one of great duty and committment. Looking at the ragbag of presidents around the world, one can be aware too often of raw self-interest, liars, adulterers, embezzlers, crooks, and vicous thugs.  HM represents many things, including stability, social cohesion, continuity, and, though some may deride the concept, nobility. Not the nobility of the hierarchy of the aristocracy, but that of nobility in demeanour and conduct.  It's true, presidents don't have to be crooks and liars, and there will be good examples in history to choose from, just as there have been bad monarchs, but I think the weight of prestige behind the British monarchy renders it a far more stable institution than that of presidents elected on a political mandate. I'd far rather see Britain represented, as a state, by the Queen than by any politician.

Answer 5

This question has been the major question and cause of uprising on ww1 and ww2.  And Carl Marxism was the desspossal of such political belief.  It causes economic resession of too much segregation and the root of racism and leadership by paranoia. Republic principle I wouldnt say its bad. But the problem was it causes so much war by crab mentality dog eat dog society and tyranny against legitimate dessent dignity of expression as well as basic fundamental rights was indescriminately deprived. Republic Politician of One for all and all for one principle of notioned democrasy and never been a motioned democrasy cannot afford to buy absolutely the tittled land and country of which Monarchs of long ancestry been nourishing civilizations, The reality was it has a long standing account of unpaid behest loans not in billion but in trillions. The result was a grave misconduct  against corporate ascendancy morality resulted to legal dessent mobbery and Identity thief and rubbery.  Republic principle must move drastically to norture 55trillion sides of stories and treat its human right fairly, If this republic can respect these kind of global parliament. The term republic might be the replacement of  indespost narrowminded monarch in puppetry of such name was from thieves from the parliament archive of a monarch since 1905.  In my own opinion I think its too late to aspire a republic. I think American politician must start realizing they just lost their bottle of wanna be republic and cannot justify its validity and legitimacy. Never been a republic was a creator of civilization but of politiking and politiking and politiking currupting agenda. A republic of law to lie and be a liar of lies in the people's house for common court composed of anarchist since 1905.

Republic in short is a business of no licence to operate.

Answer 6

I agree.  At least if we have an elected head of state we could vote them out if we don't like them.

Answer 7

There is no place for such an out-dated institution in today's society. I begrudge giving them a penny of my hard-earned taxes - we should at least have a choice of whether we want to line their pockets or not. It's obscene to see them still raking in their riches when pensioners are going without heat and food to make ends meet, children are living in poverty, cancer charities have to beg for private funding - I could go on. So yes, I definitely agree it WOULD be better for us to be a republic!

Answer 8

Sure, then the UK wouldn't be the UK anymore but the Republic of Great Britain or RGB.  Then England would be as messed up as the United States is now.

Answer 9

Yes.

Answer 10

Isn't it strange that the royalists always put out the 'president Blair' argument whenever this is discussed?

You forget that a monarchy is not democratic.  If we had a republic over the past few centuries we wouldn't have had the hoo ha over Edward's abdication, and Diana's accident.

Answer 11

It's high time we scrapped the royal family altogether. They're a set of inbred spongers freeloading off the state, we should bulldoze buckingham palace and turn the grthat   ounds into London's biggest multi-storey free car park. Suck on that.

Answer 12

None. It is historical.

However, if the majority wish it, so be it.

Answer 13

Absolutely. The monarchy is an archaic and expensive institution. It helps perpetuate the class system and feeds the 'we are England'/ 'British Empire' brigades' superiority complex.

We should not get too caught up in the cry of 'Oh no. Not a President Blair!' (Or Thatcher)  We can vote them out if we don't like them - queenie has been there for SOOOOOOOO long and we can do nothing about it.

Democracy - yes! Monarchy - no!

Answer 14

Well it is an institution and perhaps it is outdated, but i don't fancy a presidential style system look what happens in other countries who do have them. You could end up with another Tony Blair only with even more power.

Answer 15

whats the use of a republican in a crazy sick infested evil world???

Answer 16

The answer is of course, yes.  The trouble is that the US proves that Democracy means nothing when corporates essentially run the system.  You simply end up with a puppet at the helm and a bunch of accountants working out the value of human life.

It would be nice to think that the monarch may actually come in useful and act as a check or balance to the increasingly overfunded UK political parties.

Answer 17

Yes - am all for a republican system.  The monarchy is of no use at all.

Answer 18

The thought of President Bush or President Blair or President Brown should cure you of any republican tendencies

Answer 19

President Bush doesn't need any competition! Perhaps the U.S. should consider a royal family like the Lincolns or Sousas! :)

Answer 20

Shocking! I had no idea where were SO many royal-heads on the internet in the 21st century giving people thumbs down because they tell the truth that monarchy is an ancient establishment that should be left in the past.

People who believe in divine right or power must suffer from lack of self-belief as well because they want to behave like a herd of sheep. It's sad. The UK can learn a lot from Ireland, France and Germany.

Answer 21

The Queen and the royals bring in quite a bit of revenue in tourism alone.  The Queen does not sit around all day she works hard as do other royals.

I am proud that we have royalty and heritage, what do we need with a boring old President....Look at Bush, who would want to go around to his house and shake his hand.....no fun there I fear......

Yes we live in a so called modern society but we still have a heritage why should we get rid of this institution, the newspapers would be out of work for starters, think of all the people that make money off the Queens back, believe me there are many.  So Leave her where she is thank you.

Answer 22

It is good to have at least some states who have some traditional values, at least when either Prince William or Prince Harry is going to become king soon, please God. Oh, excuse me, if you are talking about Saudi- Arabia, then indeed it would be more useful.

Answer 23

Well, yes, but the queen's power is only symbolical, the real power rest on the elected officals. This is called a consitutional Monarchy. The Monarch is just there to look pretty.

Answer 24

Yes but do you really fancy President Blair (did you know that George Orwell - 1984 writer - real name was Blair). What else would they spend our money on if we had no royals

Answer 25

What changes when a royal family is removed? It is the politicians who have the power, not the royalty, or the people . Read Animal Farm

Answer 26

Why bother? For most countries with a constitutional monarchy it would cost MORE to change and elect a President every few years.

Personally I prefer to have an unelected, non-political Head of State rather than just another politician. With the apathy of a large minority of the population towards voting, it would be a waste of time, money and effort.

Answer 27

whats the use of politicians in a modern world apart  from feathering their own nest while s******g us down, UK is supposed to  be democratic that's  a laugh when did we get the chance to say no to eu sold down river again,

at least with a royal family we will still have some identity & national pride

Answer 28

What would be the use of putting an end to the status of the royals?

they already have no more real politic function - but they are still great figures at Charities and the like!

and if you compare the whole trouble around elected heads of state, then most of the inherited monarchs isn't half the trouble!

Answer 29

NO! Citizens in the UK have come to the realization that the monarchy is the only instution that protects them from severe political problems as well as the rise of a tyrant or somone who totally desposed of parliment, the representative voice of the people. The current system is not broke so dont fix fix it.

Answer 30

Leave the system as it is. The country is run by a defunct labour government and the Queen is a good wicket keeper.

Answer 31

Despite the hoo-har about monarchies being expensive, they are actually cheaper than presidents.  To get rid of the monarchy would only replace the queen with an elected president.  The only difference in cost would be the expensive election (which can cost billions of pounds).  

Also their role is clearly defined as being above politics and to prevent extremism infiltrating the top tier of politics.  Their roles as ambassadors of charities and organisations, as well as countries, is not bettered by any president or any person for that matter.

The arguments for republicanism are mere idealistic fantasies.