The ballot options were odd and I voted in favor of the monarchy, but I also do not believe that there should be a referendum. You do not make 1000 year institutions subjects to the whims of the moment. In that connection, while I am an American and thus you would not typically think of as a natural monarchist, the case for constitutional monarchy is exceptionally sound and more than deserves respect.
As the historian Michael Luckacs noted, "On the surface of the map of the world they represent the last central cluster of decency, those bourgeois monarchs of northwestern Europe. Churchill knew that: for he was a monarchist not out of mere sentiment but because of his deep historical reason. In a fatherless world they are sources of a certain strength and inspiration..."
That "certain strength and inspiration" more than proved itself during the Second World War, when the British monarchy stood as a symbol around which people rallied at the UK's darkest hour. In so doing they did not simply save the Britain, they did indeed save the whole of Western civilization.
These things are easily taken for granted, particularly in a populist era where the "people" are alleged to be the font of all wisdom and goodness. Monarchy may seem to be an anachronism, but in truth it serves as a politically and socially unifying symbol.
Its political neutrality putting the state outside of politics, and thereby giving people of sharply differing political views a point of common reference and identity. Its splendor serving to give something beyond the mundane and the common.
Indeed, not for nothing do republics tend to invest so much "pomp and ceremony" in their presidents. Whether it be symbolic heads of state, as in Israel or Germany, or executive heads of government, as in France and the United States.
The funny thing in the latter case of the United States being that ceremonies like the State of the Union address or the laying of a Wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown being treated with all the gravity and earnestness as any ceremony that a constitutional monarch might ever be engaged in.
In the end, it becomes monarchy in all but name. Albeit monarchy that is elective and therefore seemingly incongruous. The American or French president being expected to embody a nation's heritage and history and yet, at the end of the day, is a mere transient and indeed partisan figure.
That last point being especially pertinent. The character of the person serving in the office of Head of State then becomes paradoxically more important as such a person can never really much more represent a transient moment in a nation's partisan passions and therefore must ultimately have a limited appeal.
There perhaps being no better example that President Trump in the United States. Whatever the merits of his policies, his penchant for pouring salt in the social wounds must mean that his capacity to serve as a unifying Head of State is inherently limited.
This is not a problem in constitutional monarchy. To be sure, the character of the monarch is not unimportant, but as one in a long line of heads of state who have presided disinterestedly over the nation, their capacity for being a unifying social force is thereby enhanced.
At the end of the day, of course, monarchy must be appropriate to the culture else it cannot work. Still, as Churchill said,
"Ministers come and go, but the King remains, always at the center of public affairs... He is the continuous element in the constitution, one of the main safeguards of its democratic character, and the repository of a knowledge of affairs that before long comes to transcend that of any individual statesman...
The victorious democracies, in driving out hereditary sovereigns, supposed that they were moving on the path to progress. They have in fact gone further and fared worse. A royal dynasty looking back upon the traditions of the past, and looking forward to a continuity in the future, offers an element of security to the liberty and happiness of nations."
A monarch without power is just an ornament, like a decoration. People will always have an interest in the historic aspect of Buckingham Place and would still visit, I find the whole tourism argument a weak one.
It is a good example of the superficial virtue-signaling road we have gone down, we have a powerless Queen.
Not over the Prince Andrew Epstein scandal but in general yes as the Queen is an unelected Head of state there should be but I think the vast majority of British citizens would be in favour of the Royal family espicially in England & Wales. The Prince Andrew thing hasn't done them very much damage and they've increased their support to record levels. Truth is the Queen & the Royals basically own the British Isles and its tied up in the laws, even for a Politician to suggest a referendum is technically treason as they all swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen and to support the monarchy. The laws and government exist the Royals postion to secure the. here's how powerful the Royals are, with what we know but theyve exercised a kind of soft power since the late 1700s. 1. British Royals cannot be arrested and are exempt from civil and criminal proceedings. 2. Except from paying taxes 3. Can refuse to legally recognise a democratic election. 4. Can install any Royal a rank in any of the British Armed forces. 5. The royal family is basically in charge of the entire British military is basically (possibly the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand military too). 6. The Queen owns huge amounts of land in Britain and the commonwealth. 7. The Queen can summon or suspend parliament 8. The Queen can issue or withdraw passports. 9. Power to approve or refuse bills brought yo parliament 10. Give out honours. 11. Has ownership of all wildlife in the uk and British waters (ie dolphins, red deer swans) 12. Owns or gets a cut of all mineral rights in the uk. 13. Pardon crimes. 14. Declare War. 15. Power to create Lords 16. Power to override decisions taken by a democratically elected government. 17. Can fire the entire Australian government 18. Head of the commonwealth 19. The Queen is also the head of state of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom. 20. Religious leader of 85 million. She is head of the church of England, Anglican Church& Church of Ireland.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
The royal family have very little in terms of political power (at least as far as leading the country). They are glorified celebrities but they are one of the few things the country has going for them so making a show of whether to kick then out or not just feels like both a waste of time and money, and destroying history and one of the few reasons this country has anything going for it according to the rest of the world
I'm a Republican and its time we had constitutional democracy. But the thing is there is still overwhelming support for monarchy among British people, in fact over 80%. Newspapers will deliberately censor themselves when it comes to question of Monarchy. Another reason might be Britain is associated with Queen, she's been head of state for decades. So alternative is not considered.
People are also worried that without monarchy PM might hold too much power, like President has in America. Something not palatable for British people. So for the time being British people simply would not consider question of becoming a Republic, and support simply is not there.
To start with we need to remove House of Lords first and replace it with elected senate.
Monarchies can be overthrown.. republics are much, much harder to change. Look at the USA and the historic Roman empires for good examples of how that works out. With a monarchy, you at least have a moral center that can influence the state directly and keep them in check, and the people can keep the monarchy in check.
Right now in the USA, the corporations are unstoppable and have bought out the government and the guy who claimed he would 'drain the swamp' turned out to be the swamp.
Oh it’s bigger than just prince Andrews being involved, go read my Mytake... you’ll see what I mean, I’m doing part two soon which talks about prince Andrews and others involved, but yes they should extradite him to the United States, he’s clearly guilty
the rapist/peado formerly known as prince has had all royal duties removed so we dont need a refendum about the monarchy just because of him... as for the monarchy in general, im no big fan but i think the uk needs another refendum like we need a hole in the head. besides it shouldn't be about getting rid of the queen but about defunding them as they have enough money without state funding
I’m not British. The monarchy still has some benefit, as in they draw a lot of tourists into the UK. They’re the fascinating last link to medieval times.
On the other hand, it must cost the British taxpayers millions, even billions, to keep this institution going, and I’ve heard about Scots grumbling about ‘another freeloader’ every time a baby is born into the royal family. Maybe it’s time for the UK move on from having a monarchy.
I think the whole king queen thing is very outdated. So if my father was good at fixing cars would i be good also? No not necessarily although from being around it I may of picked some skills up from him. So what I'm saying is because someone is a decendent of a good leader its not going to make their off spring good leaders.
Not necessarily, we already have a PM, who does the work of governing, the head of state is usually someone else. Germany has a president elected by politicians for up to two five-year terms.
The Royal family is iconic and an important part of the UK culture. I think it should be more about a UK form of impeachment rather than a dismantling of the current system
Absolutely, i never thought we'd ever leave, I'm glad the country wasn't completely brainwashed by the media, although it would have been nicer to have exited with a bigger margin, would have saved a lot of people, a lot of time, rabbiting on about a second referendum. Always better to jump off a sinking ship before its actually sunk. I think the EU bullying other countries to plug the funding gap left by us could be the final nail in the coffin for them.
Who listens to tabloids? Ever heard of the phase "it's just paper talk"? I was referring to the BBC (whos remit is to remain impartial), Sky, Ch4/5 news and all the radio stations and University lecturers, everyday spewing Pro EU propaganda. All trying to persuade us of how great and democratic it is, its such a sham the EU actually held a vote for the EU presidency to prove they was democratic, the only problem with that was, there was only one name was on the ballot paper!
Oh what? The same ones who predicted armagedon the moment we voted to leave? I did my own research into it and wasn't gonna be persuaded otherwise by the select few who were gonna lose out. Literally all the doom and gloom that was predicted by them failed to materialise. What a surprise!
The Queen could step out on that balcony in broad daylight and swing two babies around by their ankles and bash their brains out on the rail and British people would still line up to kiss her ring.
@David_Kek You re realise the royals have been stripped of basically all political power right? You also realise that these checks and balances can be down without an unelected family for some reason getting to veto laws?
@Ámayas_20 1. No, they have complete political power. The queen could walk into parliament right now and tell them they're all fired and we're doing away with our democracy, and she'd be legally in her right to do so. It'd cause a civil war, but regardless, on paper, that is in her authority.
2. Not if you want your democracy itself to be checked and balanced. If all 3 sides of the divide of powers are elected, then the election process itself can't be checked or balanced. Our current method of separation of powers works better than other other nation, being one of the few areas we do still do best. By it comprising of democracy, plutocracy, and monarchy, it ensures all 3 don't abuse their authority too much.
@David_Kek Actually she couldn't walk into parliament as she literally isn't allowed into the building lmao yknow the law that's been around for 400 years preventing it. Her so called power is nothing more than a formality, a show, she hasn't been able to actually do anything in over 20 years. If you actually want to know how our government works, I'd recommend actually looking at more than formalities and see the reality, the queen is nothing more than a useless figurehead that brings a little tourism and actually impacts the checks and balences since she has no real power.
@Ámayas_20 You're talking about what happens in practice by convention, which is why it works. Convention is not law, it's merely tradition. When it comes to the one with the authority to appoint prime ministers and open and close sessions of parliament, all of that is her will. The only reason why she strictly stays out of politics to the point of not even voting, is because of convention. That's why our monarchy has lasted as long as it has, and also why it hasn't fallen into meaninglessness like Japans. If they did not have that authority, then our form of separation of powers couldn't work.
@David_Kek You seem to be missing the point that they're nothing more than symbols of a time when england were cunts to literally everyone they came across, keeping them around is nothing more than englands grab at 'hey no we're still powerful and important'. If we want real checks and balances, a real separation of powers, and a functional modern day society that doesn't waste tens of millions on keeping some figureheads comfortable we need to get rid of them.
It's a completely meaningless costly institution that is getting less and less popular every year, it's not even about should we get rid of them anyone it's when will we. The majority of under 25s want them gone and considering we're the future they'll be gone in our lifetime.
@Ámayas_20 1. Again, legally this the queens country. That's not symbolic, it's fact. Just because you don't like this country doesn't change that fact.
2. Again, you are factually incorrect. They make he country far more money than they cost even if you only include tourism, which doesn't even include the money from the royal lands or what they do for us diplomatically with other nations in the common wealth realm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
Here's a bit of free advice... under 25s don't stay under 25, they grow up. You honestly think you're the first generation that thought the way you do?
@David_Kek Dude you can 'legally' kill a Scotsman with a bow and arrow in york if they're carrying a bow and arrow, do you really think that that person would be allowed to get away with that murder though? No. Just like the laws surrounding the royals it has no meaning in the modern world.
It really doesn't matter how much money they 'make' as it's beside the point, it's costly to keep them and they provide nothing to the country.
You're right under 25s do grow up!! That's how we will get rid of the royals and yes actually considering it's proven we are the first generation in a very very long time to ever support getting rid of them more than keeping them just going out on a limb here and saying we are perhaps not the first but the first since the last revolution babes.
Please stop simping for the royals, they do nothing for you and you look ridiculous to anyone with even basic knowledge pretending they have any power.
@Ámayas_20 If the law is still on the books and there's no other law contradicting it? Yeah, that's how laws work. When it comes to Queen, there are no contradicting laws. That's not to say that wouldn't change the moment she used her authority to disband parliament, but the fact is as it stands that is in her authority. And because of that fact, it is not in our elected leaders authority to abuse their authority to the point of doing a Putin. The Queen gives as the stability of a dictatorship, without it's iron fist. You do away with the Queen and you'll see this countries party politics regress into an American shit show.
You didn't watch that video or even read what i just told you. The royals cost £40 million a year to the UK tax payer, and make the tax payer over £200 million a year. Do the math.
You really do sound silly. Seriously, I was in your shoes at your age, and trust me, you have a lot of growing up to do. 10 years from now you will look back on yourself and feel really stupid, just like everyone else.
I always thought it was weird that the kingdom still existed. You're a democracy. I know the kingdom really only exists, for tradition, and she has next to no power but still
She has some power. She can potentially deny the formation of a government (although won’t due to the backlash), refuse to sign a law (although won’t again due to the backlash) and apparently the police aren’t allowed to arrest her or at least as long as she is inside Buckingham palace.
Whether they should or shouldn't should have nothing to do with Prince Andrew's pervy actions. If that is the criteria the Catholic Church should be eliminated.
18.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
I’m not British, but I’ve read that the Royals bring in more money than expend. Not sure how. Tourism I guess. And the Parliamentary system you have is Democratic.
Home > Society & Politics > Polls > Do you think the UK should have a referendum on whether or not we continue to support the Royal family or become a republic?
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
Anonymous(25-29)+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Anonymous(45 Plus)+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Most Helpful Opinions