British monarchy - Should they stay or should they go? Yona Oshrat
The nurse Jacintha Saldanha was looking after Prince William’s wife Kate – who was suffering from morning sickness – when two Australian DJs called the hospital impersonating The Queen and Prince Charles. Believing the call was genuine she then transferred the call to the ward where Kate was staying where another nurse gave information about Kate’s condition. The nurse found hanged after the hoax call to the hospital - she committed suicide.
The British Royal Family is well known all over the world, partly due to the fact that Britain once ruled large parts of the world, but also because of all the scandals and difficulties that have made bold and sensational newspaper
…show more content…
Moreover the annual cost of around £37 million is good value for money. In any case, Monarchy is meant to be majestic, yet there seems to be a deliberate move to diminish the majesty of the Monarchy. So long as the Monarch remains a symbol of the nation, then no expense should be spared. A nation which values itself will treat its national icons with prestige and respect.
In addition The Monarch is a national icon. An icon which cannot be replaced adequately by any other politician or personality. This is because the British Monarchy embodies British history and identity in all its aspects, both good and bad. When you see the Queen you not only see history since 1952, when she took the throne, but you see a person who provides a living sense of historical continuity with the past. A living continuity between the past, the present and the future. That's something that no politician can provide. All politicians come and go, but Monarchy is forever. With its traditions, its history, its ceremonial, and with its standing and respect throughout the world, the British Monarchy represents a unique national treasure, without which the United Kingdom would be sorely impoverished.
The monarchy has existed in its current form since the 10th century. Although the monarch plays only a ceremonial role, having lost all political power, the monarch is still the head of state. This basically makes the case that inheritance of public office is wrong in principle,
I argue for Great Britain to still continue being a Constitutional monarchy. Why you may ask, Well I argue for them because it makes Great Britain running smoothly. If they change it may cause money problems and more. On page 29, it says "According to the rule of male primogeniture, a female could take the throne if there were no direct male heir to fill the seat. In 2013, with the queen's support, a new law was passed to end that rule. As a result, Great Britain may have even more queen in the future." That means Queen Elizabeth II believes that there are going to be queens in the future and I'm sure that nobody doesn't want to not be queen or king of England.
Thomas Paine is not an advocate of monarchy. In fact, he called monarchy institutionalized robbing. In his work Rights of Man, the political philosopher contrasts old government with new government, defining the former as hereditary and the latter as a representative system. Specifically, Paine had two major objections to monarchy; first, he argued that a hereditary government is a imposition on humans, and secondly, “it is inadequate to the purpose for which government is necessary” (Paine 113). A hereditary government unfairly binds future generations, this would make the monarchy illegitimate because a government must have continuous consent in order to be legitimate. If a monarch inherits a kingdom he too inherits its people, Paine says to inherit people is to treat them as farm animals. To sum up this point, Paine exclaims that a hereditary monarchy reduces humans to beasts.
The U.S. would never workout if it was a monarchy mostly because we are the country that we come for freedom that citizens want more than what people want for them. Our mother country, Great Britain, is doing fine right now, but being in a monarchy such as them it would not change at all considering your making the same decisions as your ancestors. Which the country would like a change and other people might have better ideas on how to run the country better. More ideas and more money ideas because in reality the world runs around with money. The Declaration of Independence saved us from becoming a monarchy and having the same traditional things and fights for the same thing. Not all bad come from monarchies though. There come good in
A lot of people say that the Queen does nothing to help Canada, so why shouldn’t we get rid of the monarchy? Well, I believe the opposite because by removing the monarchy it’ll just cause even more problems than solutions. One of the big problems is that to remove the Monarchy you would have to create a Constitutional Amendment, which would mean that whole parliament and all provinces would have to agree with this decision; most likely this will tear Canada apart. This brings me to the second problem, which is that the provinces would just start to ask for more demands, specifically Quebec and/or Alberta. So if you really think about it, the Monarchy isn’t really causing any issues that need to be fixed and that it would cause even more problems if we got rid of
Monarchies have lasted in a society, because of the king taking order of the people. There is a lack of trust between a
“The power of the monarchs of Britain - which I'm taking to mean "of England, then Great Britain and then the United Kingdom" - has waxed and waned over the years.” as reviewed by quora.com
Every nation has a particular figure who rules the country. Throughout the world, there have been a tremendous number of presidents, kings, and queens. They leave their own achievements either in the political or diplomatic area, which future generations, such as historians and the public, evaluate to determine whether the accomplishments are effective. Among all the British kings and queens, Queen Elizabeth I is regarded as the most influential queen, since she brought about a great change in her nation. Elizabeth paved the way for Britain becoming the British Empire through her resolutions of the conflicts of religion and military forces, spreading the trend of slavery and the use of English, which allowed the British Empire enjoy its governance in the world for decades.
She was one of the most famous and liked monarch. Mainly throughout those fifty years Elizabeth maintained the stability of England through wars and political turmoil. Queen Elizabeth grew up as a typical royal child receiving education and strived in art and music. Elizabeth was able to inherit and control a male dominating word and she did it well. Ruling with genuine love for her people she was able to provide the stability a nation needs to strive.
The members of a monarchy are the faces and leaders of their country. Hamlet is the
Generally over the years the Monarch’s role has slowly decreased as more jobs have been put on the PM’s.
Also if there is a smooth running society that has no political oppression or any political warfare there would be no reason for a monarch to abuse their powers. There would have to be a reason for a monarch to abuse their powers. They would have to either be mentally ill or stressing from either political warfare or oppression. For a monarch to abuse their powers they would most likely be a valid reason why. Monarchy has worked for thousands of years and yes there have been many monarchs that go down into history as bad monarchs, but that's just another reason why people study history so that we don’t make the same mistakes as we did in the past.
Great Britain's political elite structure represents those fortunate enough to reap the benefits of being born into royalty or wealth. Derived from mostly royal influence, Britain's governmental structure symbolizes the lineage of the political elite. From an American perspective when viewing British government, I see many similarities and differences. Specifically, Britain's government and political structure is comprised of three components: a unitary state, constitution monarchy, and a parliamentary system. Those three components are akin to the United State's three branches of government. But, the influence of Britain's political elite affect all three components as well. Furthermore, Britain's high commendation of the royal family and the like provide enough influence on public opinion in order to determine what is best for the nation. In my opinion, Britain's political structure as well as their elite possesses vast amounts of qualities conducive to a successful economic, governmental, and social structure. Moreover, there are many qualities the British
Firstly, the abolishment of monarchial rule was a result of European state constitutions and the idea of individual rights; an idea derived from the Enlightenment. Not only did constitutions present items such as freedom, and property to citizens, but it also renounced two main aspects of royal authority: taxation without representation, and the passing of unjust laws. As stated by Harris, “By such concessions there disappeared--at least on paper--those two powers that lay at the base of the absolutism of the Old Regime.”
The common people hate the royal family and they have revolted several times. But, none have been successful.
The queen was cold and out of touch and unempathetic. It was a public perception that makes her very judgemental about going public about Princess Diana’s passing. The queen is looked at being a stereotype for Britain, it goes upon beliefs for individualism, fairness, and supporting the underdog. Britain believed that Elizabeth was going to be like her uncle that walked away from becoming king so that he can marry Wallis Simpson. The British say it was a mistake for Elizabeth to becQueen because she was overseen by the institution of the