Why are people against monarchy?

Question

I am 100% for it. In fact, I believe that Russia, Germany, Italy, and France should all return to the monarchy system. It has been proven that every country in Europe with a monarchy supports the US because Bush has been proven to be closely related to every remaining royal family in Europe, and they operate as one big family. The US's toughest criticism comes from Germany and France, which has no monarchy. Russia was much better off with the Tzar than they are with Comrade Putin. I personally support it so much because I am a cousin of Queen Elizabeth, so I view her as part of my family. I am very loyal to my family. If someone insults the Queen, they are insulting family, and I will argue with that person until they shut up. If someone tried to kill any member of the Royal Family, I would personally hunt that person down and kill them.

Answer 1

Well, it depends on the countries that have monarchies. If they think the monarchy gets in the way of certain quarters, they need to justify before using all means to turn the monarchy into a republic. Otherwise, they're doing it against the will of the majority. In my country, Malaysia, there's an elected monarchy and so far most Malaysians including me don't have any hard feelings on the King and the sultans of the Malaysian states. To tell you the truth, one prince who'd got married a few weeks ago didn't use public funds for his wedding at all because he suggests that public funds shall be used for the benefits of the people. That's how the good member of a royal family should do.

Answer 2

Advocates of a Republican form of government argue that representative democracies are better forms of government than constitutional monarchies because

1) The trappings of monarchy are symbols of elitism. Everyone at birth should have the same advantages and disadvantages, and his or her advancement should be based on ability rather than on family background. Sovereignty ideally should rest in the will of the people and their elected representatives.

2) Self-evident rights of a democracy include each competent adult's right and responsibility to elect a Head of State. In turn, each adult (with a few exceptions) should be eligible to hold that office, and that ruler, in turn, should be accountable to those he or she governs.

3) A monarch's prerogative powers can ordinarily be more easily circumvented than a ruler elected by a democratic process. There is no written constitution in the United Kingdom, for example, so only an elaborate system of traditional checks and balances reigns in the monarch.

4) A Constitutional monarchy/parliamentary system is a very expensive form of government.

Pointing out that a constitutional monarch reigns but does not rule, advocates of constitutional monarchy argue that the king, or queen, is a visible symbol of national identity and unity--not to mention a symbol of continuity and tradition. If they are British, they then point to how the nation rallied around the Royal Family during the Blitz.

Incidentally, although the British have sent their share of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, George W. Bush and his policies are very unpopular in the United Kingdom--not to mention in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway (all constitutional monarchs). Consequently, the British will be pulling their troops out of Iraq within the next year. The Queen has remained silent on such matters as is the custom.

Answer 3

a modern guardian/ICM pollexhibits that a extensive majority nevertheless reckon the monarchy ?? appropriate t? national existence, m?k?? Britain extra respected around th? worldwide ?nd ?? extra valuable th?n ?n? option. a solid majority between people of all political persuasions and social communities think of that Britain could be worse off without the monarchy. on a similar time as in basic terms 26% think of the rustic could be extra valuable off removing the royal relatives, sixty 3% say the different. it somewhat is in no way taboo to debate this whether privately or publicly. the final public people whilst we seem on the alternative innovations have the opinion that our device works properly, often using complicated artwork and dedication of our Queen for the final 60 years. Even many socialists and supporters of the left like myself have faith that there is no reason to alter issues, an previous adage "if it somewhat works, do no longer fix it" seems to be the general opinion.

Answer 4

Quick answer. Name one positive piece of legislation, or law reform that has been effected by either Queen Elizabeth(the 2nd cause the 1st did have power) or the Windsor dynasty. Of course you can't, because they don't effect the country save symbolically. Incidentally, you'd find a great number of Russians who would find the Tsar a great deal less enjoyable than Putin, though its a nonsense argument since nobody's been alive there long enough to contrast the two.

Answer 5

Oh get real, please. It's a free world. We all *should* have the say whether we want a monarchy system or not. And nobody's in the right mind would want to insult the dear woman who did nothing but the best for the monarch and her people.

Answer 6

I am 100 % against monarchy.
Every time I've read my American Bill of Rights and Constitution I'm reminded of our last English Tyrant.
President Bush is in his last elected term of office.
You've got Charles for life. I'm soooo happy for you.

Answer 7

i completely agree with you. i had thought about for some time now. i guess there's really no answer for why people are against it. do they just not want the same person and family ruling them for a long time? or do they not want to go back to the past? oh and are you actually related to the royal family? :)

Answer 8

have your cousin invited you to dinner lately? did you receive an invitation to prince Charles' wedding? do you attend family reunions?now i understand why your cousin Mr. bush thinks he's king of the united states.

Answer 9

Are you for real?

Answer 10

you must have gotten the retard genes.