Do you think modern monarchies should be abolished?

Question

I speak of countries like the UK where we still have a Royal Family and it's the tax payers that have to pay to have them do their job. Do you think we live in a world where there is no room for these kinds of things? Do you consider something like a Royal Family to be a Value or a Dead Weight on modern society?

Cormac995 · Accepted Answer

At least in the UK the royal family actually do serve a purpose. I think they are over paid and over privileged for it but they do serve some functions.

1. They are important and largely respected diplomats and envoys for foreign relations.

2. The military actually swears loyalty to the king not to parliament. Believe it or not their system is similar to America. they have a system of checks and balances like us 1. The house of lords. 2. Parament. 3. The crown.

This sounds small but this is an important part of the checks and balances that keeps any 1 of the three branches of government from having to much control over the government. Effectively it serves the same function as America's army being under the command of our Commander in chief. That said our soldiers swear an oath to the constitution not the president but as long as the president doesn't violate the constriction the military is in his hands to keep the courts or senate from having too much power.

Further this has the added benefit of being able to make quicker decisions in war time. When the final call is down to one man it can be made faster than a bickering group of old men debating for weeks on the right course of action. That said that's why it's so important you vote for a good president. The lives of our countrymen and soldiers are at stake.

3. They're culturally important. The royal and feudal history of Britain has had a major effect on what modern Britain has become. The royal family is partially about tradition and culture and the nation's identity.

So do I think they're paid too much? Yes. Do I think hereditary positions are moral? Not really but I do understand why the royal family exists and they do serve a purpose. My source on this is my best friend from Wales who I've spoken with at length about both our governments and history. You'd be shocked how many inconsistencies show up in American news about Europe and the UK when you talk to a local from Britain.

MOST of America's criticisms of their laws are largely because we don't understand why they were written and HOW they were written. In our media they simplify it insanely to the point it's more of a lie of omission than truth.

RavVid · Accepted Answer

Well Australia rejected removing our King/Queen of Australia at the turn of this century and it was a good decision. In point of fact a President was considered at our constitutional conventions in the late 1800's and was rejected because an elected position would inevitably be political.

THE single most important aspect of the monarchy is that it handles the transfer of power from one gov't to the next. Issuing the writs for election and the swearing in of the Ministers of the incoming gov't. . Plus giving assent to legislation.

That should never be a political function cause, if it is, then political decisions could be made over the above items. Simply the Monarch is a trusted umpire. Australians decided in 1999 that politicians could not be trusted that much.

Hell, later on we decided that the worlds largest miner - BHP Bilton - was more trusty worthy than politicians. Australians are based.

Should the Left want yet another referendum drubbing, I would entertain codifying the above constitutional powers to a function of the Chief Justice of the High Court but never to an elected position.

Fortunately we get a Monarchy on the cheap because the UK picks up most of the bills and as a bonus the Monarchy is almost half the worlds circumference away and therefore at maximal distance. So we quite like them due to that..

purplepoppy · Accepted Answer

The cost to tax payers is pennies and it seems a shame to end a tradition that goes back centuries just a appease a few anti monachs of the current day. Once its lost it's lost forever. I do feel they have a diplomatic role to play that's free of politics and of course prime ministers are questioned by the king on a weekly basis to make sure they're at least trying to keep election promises and are behaving. It's effectively the reason you don't see the silliness of Trumps behaviour among British politicians.

katiesmuff · Accepted Answer

I don't live there and it is none of my business! If that is what the people of the UK like or want it is perfectly fine with me. Problem with this whole fucking world right now is everyone wants to stick their noses where they were not invited or wanted.

Zack-Bann · Answer

The British royal family is mostly a figurehead at this point so I don’t think they’re the right example

If you look at Morocco for instance, they have a king that is actually the ruler, and while many people don’t like him it’s undeniable that his influence has given them more prosperity

Spain is another example, modern monarchy, 14th largest economy in the world.
Not insanely great but not so bad

And of course you have all the middle eastern gulf nations, while they do rely heavily on oil money they also have insanely strong economies and internal order maintaining by monarchies

All this to say: while I prefer democracy on principle. There’s a case to be made for a successful model and I wouldn’t want to cast judgement without looking at the merits

Kaneki05 · Answer

Our monarchy helps our economy, helps the pound be worth more and brings in tourism so no. Also we don't pay anything really to them, the tax is super low and for how much it brings in it's 100% worth it.

Also the philosophy of been ruled by monarchy has already been sudo abolished we are democratic and vote pms which do what pretty much the president does.

So it does no benefit to anyone in UK to get rid of them. Also I am getting deja vu I feel like this question happened before.

Syntosi · Answer

There are arguments against modern royalties. Economics is not one of them. These families are WEALTHY to the point where for example in the UK its not the king that is benefiting from the government but the government that is financially benefiting from having access to the kings properties and assets.

The role of the monarchy is not entirely pointless either and it serves several roles such as a central point of national culture, a point of stability in a revolving door of politicians entering and leaving office, a uniquely prestigious diplomat that you can use for important meetings and just simple tourism.

So monarchies do serve a purpose and they do provide a benefit. The question is if you value them enough to overlook that they have special privileges and that you do not live in an equal society. Personally I am neutral on the subject. I would not go out of my way to establish nor abolish a monarchy that serves purely a ceremonial purpose.

Shiprex · Answer

No I don't as long as they are apolitical and have service to the nation as their core purpose. The notion of an elected head of state to represent the values of the nation authentically. The culture of a place has to take into account it's history both good and bad and continue to listen to the people of the nation and be a "check" on the political classes misusing the power they are awarded in elections because there's more to nations culture that just it's economy

A political head of state like a president is too variable and inconsistent. The notion that a bias for one way or another is somehow a better representation of a country is ridiculous and should be held in a regard commensurate with that of any other commoner. It is also too easy to corrupt politicians like you can see in the US where it's openly bought by special interest (rich) groups who will expect their pound of flesh should their "choice" get in to power.

Stevepro68 · Answer

It's the human condition for reasons that boggle my mind to elevate some above others. Be it a president a queen or just Taylor Swift. I say let the people choose since I don't have royalty in my country just people who think they deserve it. I think if the royalty has made it this far. They want it let them have it

Lynx122 · Answer

We don't have a monarchy. If other countries want to pay taxes for that then it's up to them. I wouldn't be for it if I was English but I'm not so they can decide. It'll probably be around for another 50-100 years and then it'll be ended, that's my guess.

Sunrising · Answer

I agree remove all the dead weights, including Presidents and Politicians. We do not need them! Turn the buildings they reside into apartments! Tax payers can then rejoice!

CupcakeTheDestroyer · Answer

I don’t think it really matters if there’s royalty or not, governments are still governments and there’s very few I’ve seen that make people universally happy.

OneViewpoint · Answer

Dead weight for both figureheads with no real jobs like the British royal family and monarchies that play an active role in government like the Saudis and the Jordanians.

CaptainSmartass · Answer

Nope. Republics and presidencies, on the other hand, should be abolished. We need LESS politics in the world not more. #PoliticiansForPrison2025 Simples...

Anonymous · Answer

While many Brits arrogantly criticize Americans for not embracing the metric system, they maintain a ridiculously antiquated system of royalty. . . and they drive on the wrong side of the road.

NicholasRedone · Answer

I need the modern monarchies 👑 👀 @thegreenyogi

WonderingManII · Answer

@thegreenyogi that is a very interesting question. I think the Royal Family is unneeded now. But it is apart of the UKs identity, as a nation.

jamesgoldman · Answer

Costs us about $100M a year Nets best part of $4B 40x... I probably only manage that a couple of times a year

Anonymous · Answer

Yes. Exactly. Greenland, the falklands and Canada are the countries in the Americas still ruled by a monarch.

exitseven · Answer

Countries have the right to keep any form of government that works for them.,

genericname85 · Answer

I unironically think a good monarchy is better than a terrible democracy.

Fromdusktilldawn · Answer

its kinda tradition and representation but on the other hand its a huge waste of tax payer money that could be spent on more useful stuff

TallAnon · Answer

Being Dutch, yes. No one should be above another by birth.

andreasderjuengere · Answer

Monarchies aren't modern. But they have some touristic value.

Anonymous · Answer

Some of them yes, but not all of them. I actually like some monarchies.

glennos89 · Answer

They are the cancer of society

Dongie · Answer

NO! 👑

EmmiL · Answer

Yes pointless except for tourism

Anonymous · Answer

Absolutely. What a joke.

Panthero80 · Answer

That would be up to those countries.

Staximus · Answer

Dead weight

Yohenis · Answer

I agree.

beefcakebradybatson · Answer

Yep.

Anonymous · Answer

I worship them

Do you think modern monarchies should be abolished?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should we still have monarchies?

Do you think modern monarchies should be abolished?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should we still have monarchies?

We're glad to see you liked this post.