Should The Monarchy be Abolished?
822784
The above question is neither for or against the Monarchy, it is asking your opinion!! So not jumping to conclusions on whether or not YOU personally want rid of them I shan't insult you as I answer. As a previous answer states the vast array of anti-monarchy answer show just how many people have "sour grapes" Things like: Why should people be born into wealth? and: Why should they get to spend vast sums of money on frivolous things when they have never worked a day in their lives? Easy answers to those two really- the first is just jealous people who are irked because they weren't born into wealth. The second is slightly more worrying. The people who say this don't seem to have a grasp on reality, everyday there is some TRASH written in tabloids and rags all the country over slurring the royal family or revealing some dirty secret. Everyday the Queen has to listen to inane country legislation and discussing it, some days more important than inane. In times of rememberance and worry the Queen is there-someone to look up to and listen to-indeed someone to respect- the countless charities that exsist solely because of Her? RSPCA? RSPCC?  The thousands She has raised for charities? The millions upon millions She and her family bring to THIS country. Which by the way is HERS'! We were given the right to rule the country as a democracy-we were not GIVEN the country! And why should we be? Why shouldn't somebody be born into Her Impossible position? The weight of a country on your shoulders every day the stress of constantly being within the publics focus. If all this isn't a job that is worth more than it's weight in gold I don't know what is. Besides all that there are millions of other roles that She fills that I don't even know about. Things like being able to dissolve parliment and dissmiss ministers. The powers that she has over govertment may not have been used-yet.but they are there and very real (reassuring yes?)  Her father when crowned was known for saying it was the worst thing ever to happen to his Very happy family why? Because it is hard work being the Head of State, and he knew what this meant for one of his daughters and so on forever down the line. Constant Hard Work. Better somebody be born ito this position than fighting and striving (you might say lusting ) after such a position of power- somebody with an agenda, their own ideas, not a neutral source to look to when these "somebodies" start getting unreasonable. The Queen should stay She more than works for all that is Hers and this land is indeed still hers, rightfully so!!!
404268
The Queen actually has no ruling power & her position exists merely due to our (UK) Constitutional Law. The Government could remove her power simply by stopping her income (but she & her family would still have a vast private income). The power she seems to hold is an illusion and only in existence because of historical precedence!\nIf she actually has no 'real' power we might ask why she even exists - this is an individual thing.\n\nThe simple fact is that the Queen & the Royal Family are excellent envoys & create more revenue than it costs the UK tax payer to maintain them!
689830
royalty is always great, not necessarily England only. I'll try and say why i think so:\ntradition \nstability \nblood-linkage with other royal families of the world, that would make state unions or treaties easier to sign. \nthe idea of something worthy to sacrifice for\netc (you think of something)\nI am a firm supporter of royalty, although I live in a semi-presidential republic. my country has been for over 40 years under communism, but before that it has been a constitutional monarchy. maybe i haven't lived under the monarchic rule and maybe i am a little over-romantic, but that is how i feel. ban me if you don't like it
589629
No one, they are a Constitutional monarchy\nKing & Prime Minister
138871
Yes, although it does have a Constitutional monarchy. The Prime Minister of Japan Junichiro Koizumi was recently re-elected.
887786
When our ancestors lived under the rule of royality ,they had no rights .\nThey were to praise the king and queen ,not question their authority or refuse to pay unfair taxes.\nWhen they left England they came with the idea on how not to live .\nThey set up a government accordingly.
239297
I would disagree with your claim that Monarchies are more stable. \n\nLook at Nepal, it's falling apart... the reason why one might think that Monarchies are more stable is that they are less frequent and therefore thier demise doesn't register in our memory compared to the collapse of Democratic systems.\n\nDid you know that Egypt was a monarchy for instance? and like the previous person who answered, many countries, including China were also monarchies? \n\nI believe that Monarchy System of Government is just like any other system, if the people are happy with it, it will will prosper, it not, then it would eventualy collapse. \n\nBesides, most of those countries you mentioned have no reason to be unstable, they're well-managed and thier people are living in relative ease. Why would people go through the trouble or even want to change the status quo?
1158107
Answerman is a bit off on the question here, since a monarchy is a form of government and might have very little to do with his statement.\n\nA government is essentially a body of rulers who make decisions for the society they govern.  Usually these decisions are ones that an individual of the society cannot or should not make by themselves because of their education, caste level, ect.  A good example of this is crimes against an individual.  If we allowed everybody to make the decisions on how to punish someone who committed a crime against them, the amount of homicides would probably be up.  In this example, the government makes the decision, creating an objective view to the crime.\nDepending on the type of government, the control can be from only one person (monarchy) to, theoretically, every member of the society (perfect democracy), and usually depends on the education and technological level of the society.  For example, a democracy would not have worked back in the 12th century, because most people were not and could not be educated up to a level to make a significant rational choice, which left the smaller educated class of king and higher subjects to rule.
345915
No, but I think religion should be a personal practice and have NOTHING to do with the government at all. Until that happens, yes it should be repressed from all governmental function.
1105364
i would abolish it.  the government that governs best, governs not at all.
445325
I'm the American son of a British father, so I hold dual national status and carry both US and UK passports. I am thus able to view this from both perspectives, I think, so I'll toss in my two cents/pence.\n\nThe Royals are indeed pointless in terms of actual power and general usefulness (the Queen is only the titular head of state and wields no real power that I can see -- and quite right too!) and they cost the British taxpayer an absolute fortune to house, clothe, feed and protect in the almost obscene luxury and style to which they are accustomed. \n\nThat said, they also bring in mega tourist dollars/pounds/euros and all the media attention associated with prestige, pomp and circumstance. I sometimes wonder if they are more beloved in the former British colonies than at home. Odd, that. Still, there are very clearly many Britons who remain loyal and supportive of the titular monarchy, even as there are many who would love nothing better than to see them deposed and made to work for a living. It is quite a conundrum, isn't it?\n\nAs to your query about why they interest people so much, your guess is as good as mine. I expect it's because we live in such a celebrity culture (on both sides of the pond and in most other modern, westernized nations, as well) and people just can't get enough of this sort of thing. It goes without saying that I am made nauseous by this fact, but I am hardly representative of either my fellow countrymen or those in the land of my forebears. \n\nFor what it's worth, I think the much-maligned Prince Charles is actually an intelligent and generally decent man with sound ideas regarding the environment, architecture, etc. His father is a complete jackanapes who puts his foot in his mouth on a regular basis. The Queen herself is okay with me, albeit as pompous and dowdy as a modern monarch could even dream of being. I always liked the late Princess Diana and was sorry for her tragic loss. I like Fergie, as well. Prince William seems a decent and responsible sort but Harry is trouble and will doubtless remain so, his training at Sandhurst notwithstanding.\n\nI'll not bother with the rest of the Royals and I expect you have your own well-formed views in any case. I think the best and fairest thing to do would be for the British people to hold a referendum on the desirability of the monarchy, literally a popular vote with an up or down verdict. I confess I would be very intrigued to see the end result. Please keep me posted, ok?
334631
constitutional monarchy
392874
The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy.
1051068
America did have a royal family of its own. It was called the House of Hanover, and they fought a little something called the American Revolution to get rid of it. \nAre you seriously suggesting that you would like to have a royal family to sit around as nothing more than figureheads, and putting a tremendous drain on the public purse, or do you want them to be ruling royalty, and throw out the democratic process? \nI somehow don't think either of those options would be very popular.
446204
In a ideal situation we should remove the laws that restrict posession by law abiding citizens.\n\nBut more importantly...\n\nENFORCE the laws we already have.
546203
It provides a long term stability and a focus for the people as an assistance to National Identity. It is a good way to govern in circumstances where a public vote would lead to a greater mess. i.e. in times of war or where anarchy is developing. \n\nIt is also good in these circumstances for other governments to deal with a familiar face that they may have trusted 20 years before rather than some passing democrat with an ego!( I just ruined this..lol )\n\nActually a problem that i have noted is that when Monarchy was popular as a way of ruling life expectancy was about 45 so you took the thrown for 20 years say from 25-45 1 generation) the trouble now is life goes on for say 75 years so you rule between 55 and 75 and frankly you are a bit wiser but equally a bit more past it.
654894
Nothing really.All it is another way to run another contry. Its a monarchy.Really I don't know what is so special about royalty.Their just normal people like us.