Should the British Monarchy be abolished?

Wednesday, 17 October, 2018

Should the british monarchy be abolished?

Great Britain, or the so called United Kingdom, is one of the last monarchy´s and at the same time the most famous one in our world for over a 100 years.

https://www.google.com/search?q=british+monarchy&rlz=1C1CHBD_deUS761US761&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikm7OE7o7eAhUBL6wKHciXDjIQ_AUIDigB&biw=1584&bih=772#imgrc=NfcOd2unsMDh5M:

Before I get to talk about pro´s and con´s of the British monarchy, I first want to talk about some facts. The monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth) is the Head of State has many representational or ceremonial functions. For example something like the State Opening of the Parliament. But the monarch has no power to make or pass laws. This power only resides with the Parliament as the elected legislative. The monarch embodies a lot of functions in the United Kingdom. The monarch is the Head of the Armed Forces, Head of the Church and Fountain of Justice. However, he or she always has to act on advice of the Prime Minister, other Minister or a church commission. On a weekly basis, the monarch gives an audience to the Prime Minister, in which he or she has the right and the duty to discuss current government matters.

Now I want to discuss pro´s and con´s about the British monarchy and if the monarchy should be abolished.

Let me start of with the con´s. First of all, the Prime Ministers since the early 1950s have always valued the weekly audience with the monarch. It is a unique opportunity to discuss government matters outside a party environment with a person who has a lot of experience and also political knowledge. Another important point to add is, that the monarch is somebody that stands above all political parties in Britain and therefore can act as a representative of the country in any short-term political interests. On the other hand, the monarch also represents a nonpolitical figure. Which can be of great value in certain situations. But also represents national values and Britishness for the same reason. The British monarchy also showed in the past and recently that it is able to adjust and reform itself to modern times. Prince Charles and the Queen have been paying de-facto taxes since 1993. Prince Charles married a divorced woman. And recently an African-American women married one of the Princes and she has no British citizenship either. It is also very important to consider the positive image of the British monarchy, which helps them in many different ways, especially when it comes to secure trade deals.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBD_deUS761US761&biw=1584&bih=772&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=puTHW462CYzYtQW9wouQBA&q=contra+monarchy&oq=contra+monarchy&gs_l=img.3..0i24k1.3012714.3015931.0.3016186.15.15.0.0.0.0.73.904.15.15.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.15.904...0j0i67k1j0i10k1j0i30k1j0i19k1j0i30i19k1j0i5i30i19k1j0i5i30k1j0i8i30k1.0.2Jm6e2MWVkM#imgrc=jFMKmLIk9VjAtM:

But there are also a lot of contra arguments against the British monarchy. First of all the British monarchy does not have any real political power. The main function are rather formal and could be easily taken over by an elected president or other political bodies. Another problem concerning the British monarchy is, that it is a hereditary monarchy, which means that the crown will always stay in the same family regardless of suitability, previous scandals or character. So there is a high risk, that one day the monarch will be somebody could put the whole monarchy and the United Kingdom itself in a bad light and nobody can really change it. Furthermore, in a democratic state people should be able to exercise democratic control of the head of the executive. This also includes electing the head of the state and electing instruments to check or impeach the current monarch. But none of this applies in a hereditary monarchy. The next problem with the monarchy is, that there is no constitutional barrier against a dictatorship. The monarch would never have the power to stop or prevent a dictatorship. One of the most important contras about the British monarchy is the actual cost of it per year. We are talking about the most expensive monarchy in whole Europe. It costs 40 million pounds every year and therefore succeeds any other monarchy by far. All of this money could be invested in actually important things, like supporting poor people or improve the educational system. But instead the Britains are willing to spend so much money just for a monarchy, which function could be taken over by other political parties and all of the money could be saved. On top of this, they British monarchy also receives public funding. Which makes them the wealthiest monarchy of the world.

I think the contra arguments clearly overweigh the pro arguments. I think the Britains just hold on to the monarchy for one reason, to sustain old values. I also think all the money which is pumped in to them could be used for far more important things.  

Dominik König