Should a modern democracy have a royal family in the 21st century?

Question

Is a royal family an incredible anachronism in this day and age?

Answer 1

Britain needs to become a republic. Accident of birth should not decide who becomes our head of state. That job should be open to all of us and decided through the ballot box.

One of the problems the republican movement needs to overcome is to decide what type of presidency we want. Do we want a figurehead president and retain our prime ministerial cabinet government, like the Irish (my preferref option)? Or do we go for a more powerful president like the French or American models?

I think the first option is better since it retains the House of Commons and its powers and leaves the presidency a non-political role.

Answer 2

No they are not.

There are lots of blatant hypocrisies and inequalities in this country that never get addressed. Yet people are happy to complain about the Royals because its "trendy" to do so.

The Royal Family are part of who we are.

There is a big difference between something that is part of our HISTORY and culture and an "Anachronism"! Are you going to pull down all our historic buildings and get rid of all our customs because they have roots "in the past"??? Tell you what lets get rid of everything that wasn't invented in the 21st century!!!

You can be a a democracy AND have a Royal Family.

If its a question of "taxes" just think of all the other things the Government wastes your taxes on. Its been proven that the Royals don't cost us half as much in "taxes" as we think they do - certainly a lot less than war in Iraq.

Just because some people feel that the Royals are "old fashioned" doesn't mean we all do! I or one would much prefer the Royals to "President Blair" (shudder).

Answer 3

Historically, all democracies start with a Revolution.

The first European democracy was established at Athens [Athena] in c500BC - the establishment of this fragile democracy, consisting of 26,000 male electors only, was achived following a revolution in which the King of Athens and his court of blood suckers were put to death along with any of their supporters.

The next big leap forward for 'democracy' came following the American Revolution when the people of the former American Colonies created the new United States of America a democratic system of government called a Republic. The elected president of the USA has more powere than King George III - but he/she is elected and for only four years and can be got rid of.

Next big [major] step forward for democracy came following the French Revolution which somehow lost it's way but the French eventually got a republican form of democracy.

Next revolutionary move came in c1916 when the Irish Revolution took place and eventually the new Free State of Eire was formed. A major step forward for freedom, liberty and democracy.

Here in UK we do not have a democracy in the modern sense of the word. What we have is a consitutional monarchy which is not the same thing. Parliament must be opened by the monarch and the monarch can disolve parliament and dismiss a government.

In a democracy the only people who can dismiss a government are the people, the electorate.

UK is living in the past, is old fashioned, out of date and not very democratic. Ask any American. We cannot even march on Heathrow Airport with banners unfurled. No such restriction would ever be tollerated by the Americans - this would be war - a Revolution.

Answer 4

The Monarchy represents the history, tradtions, if you like, the heart and soul of the Nation State. Even the USA has a need for this kind of symbolic representation, and it does so by swearing allegiance to its flag. Loyalty to the Monarchy is another way of showing loyalty to ones country: It is an emotional thing, not a dry political thing.

People in the past have fought and died to preserve the values that have been fostered over many years in this country. The pomp and ceremony attaching to the Monarchy, the National Anthem, is a way of giving people a sense of togetherness, shared values etc.

How can here today gone tomorrow politicians, including the Prime minister, represent well over a thousand years of Nationhood. As we are seeing, this Government can't wait to hand us over to a Federal EU. Some loyalty. Political parties, by definition, divide a country, so how can they bring people together?

Our Constitutional Monarchy, does, in fact, play an important practical role, which is not widely appreciated. In order to prevent a rogue Government with a huge majority taking absolute control of the country, the Monarchy has retained reserve powers. That is, the power to dissolve such a Government if it is thought to be acting unconstitutionaly. That is why, the Monarchy is head of the Armed Forces, the Police, and the Legal System. For all practical purposes, however, the importance of the Monarchy is in what it prevents others from doing, by virtue of it having these powers vested in it. It is an essential part of our Constitution.

History shows that most of the countries that have got rid of their Monarchy have lived to regret it, and some have gone on to replace it.

There are also over fifty countries within the Commonwealth that have the Queen as their head of state, not to mention protectorates.

I think that it is the lack of patriotism, largely fostered by the anti-Monarchists, that is driving us toward a Federal EU. We have had a Royal family for over a thousand years, what is so special about the twenty first century? Moreover, isn't culture based on the history and traditions of a country? Should that be got rid of on the basis that it is anachronistic? I am sure that anarchists would say yes, because I am sure that they would love to impose their ungodly left wing strictures over the whole world. This would be the replacement for Culture, the Monarchy, and indeed, the Nation State.

Answer 5

I personally have admiration for Queen Elizabeth and would hate to have any politician as Head of State.............imagine Blair and wife?. Having said that I think the rest of the Windsors should disappear into the sunset after Queen Elizabeth dies.
With our present government if they appointed a Head of State we'd probably end up with someone like 'Gorbals Mick !'
So we're caught between a rock and a hard place.

Answer 6

In theory no but In Scandinavian countries Holland Belgium as well as UK it seems to work. So if it ain't bust don't fix it

I do not know who said it "but democracy is the most inefficient form of government known to man., but it is the only one that works" Those who whinge the most including me should give thanks that we can express anarchistic views without fear of a knock on the door at 2:00am

Answer 7

I'm guessing that you're referring to Britain and their royal family.



The royal family has no power in government. They're basically a figure head for England and the other Commonwealths.

It might be different if they did have a major say in their government, but they don't.

Answer 8

her majesty as far as i know can still stop a bill being passed if it is that abhorrent to her, and still has to sign all bills that get passed in parliament, so not just a figure head but our last gasp for democracy look what happened when the royal family went in russia, germany, spain, italy fascism with all its horror took over, god save the queen, she could be saving us from worse

Answer 9

in britain yes, because the queens new labour ministers are pro european and wish to betray this country under an alian presedancy, against our will, the queen included, if she has the will she could save the country and sack the gov.

Answer 10

Lady Moonlight, have you forgotten that Blair has left the building?

Imagine what it's going to be like when Charles gets in. I don't think there'll be many 'god save the king''s said then.