The Role and Influences of the Royal Family in Uk Society Today

In recent times many commentators have pointed out that the UK’s Prime Ministers are increasingly acting like Presidents- of course the UK Prime Minister cannot actually become a President as the system would not allow it. Below I shall be analysing and explaining the factors that highlight the growth of presidentialism in the UK, as well as the points which suggest that the UK’s Prime Minister is still a Prime Minister.

1. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with the British monarchy involve its straying from ideal government, the unjust placement of one individual above all others, and its hereditary aspect. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with King George III in particular are his personal transgressions against liberty. Thomas Paine, firstly views government as “but a necessary evil” (15), and therefore it should be both as limited as possible and also tied to the more positive society. The ideal form of government, thus according to Paine, is a simple republic where the elected are forced to be accountable to their electors (16). The British monarchy fails in all accounts; not only does the prescence of a monarchy at all eliminate the accountability of a republic, but the complicatedness of the British monarchy system makes it worse in this aspect than even other monarchies. Although absolute monarchies are horrid in that they give no power to the people, they are still simpler than the British monarchy; this makes issues much more difficult to handle in the British monarchy (17). The other problems that Paine has with the British monarchy apply to monarchies at large. Paine argues that the placement of one person above all others is an unnatural divide; there is no explanation for the division of people into “KINGS and SUBJECTS” (22) such as there are in other forms of division that humans live with. If it does not make sense to place one individual above all others, then such should most certainly not be law; therefore, from this logic, monarchy, which is entirely based on the principle of placing one person (and their relatives) above all others, is an invalid and unnatural form of government. Of course, some people could, arguably, have earned the admiration and respect of their peers through important action, and thus be deserving of a leadership position. In a republic, by listening to their electors, the elected earn their right to lead. However, the hereditary monarchy removes this earning of the right to lead, and Paine takes issue with that. There is no guarantee that the descendants of a good leader will also be good leaders, and therefore the government of a country should never be left to heredity (29).

Princess Diana is considered to be the most favored member of the Royal Family in the history of the British Monarchy (biography.com editors 1). She is the former wife of Prince Charles, and the mother of Princes William and Harry. Her charitable work with impoverished children has formed her reputation as a role model for the people of Britain and much of the world. Much of Diana’s life has been devoted to traveling the world to help others. Her work in Africa with the children injured by landmines brought her into the global spotlight (Wexford 3). Princess Diana was more than just a public figure and royal, she was a loving person who brought light to social issues and cared for those who are destitute.

In cases where both the subjects and the monarch are happy with shared views on absolute ruling properly, the ruler should first unify his people to have the same goals as him which is to help their country be successful powerfully and financially. If the absolute monarch uses his power to his advantage, then the the subjects would not share the same view as their monarch, because they are living in poverty and unfair conditions, whereas the king is living in luxury and enjoying all the food they please. The subjects' view depend greatly on how they live their life, they might want everyone to live equally with enough food and money to get by, and to get rid of the gap between the powerful and the powerless. The rulers and the subjects have one ideal in common which is to help their country expand and prosper. Both the ruler and the subjects' views are so different since they are leading such contrasting lives, but a common ground they have is their country. They want their country to be great and powerful and they both hold much pride in living and calling it their

Imagine a world were only one person had the sovereignty of a nation through his bloodline and was not chosen by the people of the nation. This form of government is known as absolute monarchism which was practiced since the beginning of the middle ages till this day (Pope Francis, Vatican City). When it comes to a monarchy, it is composed of an individual(s) (king or queen) who reigns till his death and has a divine right appointed by God to be the ruler. The divine right was a doctrine that plead in favor of absolute monarchism, which means that the power of the rulers came by God’s authority and could not be downsized by any earthly organization such as the government or even the parliament. The Queen Elizabeth I, ‘The Virgin Queen’, also

Princess Diana was an inspiration for many people around the world and used her royalty to highlight major social issues. Diana’s dedication to humanitarian work helped to promote awareness and raise money for a wide range of charitable causes, including her campaign against landmines and her kind hearted approach to the AIDS predicament. Diana crossed boundaries to offer support to casualties and worked hard to change the opinions of the general public, which didn't particularly follow royal protocol because she lead from the heart, not the head.

Evaluating the Argument that Powers and Privileges of Parliament Increased Steadily at the Expense of Royal Power

The Commonwealth is a voluntary intergovernmental association between many different states that are mostly ruled by the Britain

During the reign of Elizabeth I, the Privy Council and court were the centre of the Elizabethan government. Although parliament was Elizabeth’s necessary method of legislation and raising taxes, it was far from being a regular part of the governmental system (only being called 13 times during her reign). A leading debate arose when the historian Sir John Neale argued that there was a considerable amount of conflict between MPs and the queen. Whereas revisionists, such as Graves and Sir Geoffrey Elton, challenged this view and argued that the relationship was one of co-operation. I agree with the views of Elton that over Elizabeth’s 46 year reign there was much success, however she faced 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

The power of the crown and the authority of the government is limited by the Declaration of Man and the Citizen. One situation where the government is limited is where “Men are born free and remain equal in rights.” (1789, Art, 1, DRMC.) The government must give all men equal rights. The rights of man include “liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.” (1789, Art, 2, DRMC.) Both the power of the crown and the authority of the government are limited by (1789, Art, 3, DRMC.) “no individual can exercise authority which does not emanate from it expressly.” If authority does not originate directly from the crown or a member of government, they may not exercise said authority. “The law has the right to prohibit only those actions harmful to society.” (1789, Art, 5, DRMC.) Neither the power of the crown nor government can prohibit an individual from doing something that is not harmful to society or force an individual to do “what it does not order” by obstructing or changing the law. “The right to concur personally or through their representative in its formation… must be the same for everyone.” Authority must give the same rights to everyone to “concur personally or through their representative.” (1789, Art, 6, DRMC.) In Article 8, the government or power of crown may only punish a person if “strictly and plainly necessary.” (1789, Art, 8, DRMC.) If unneccessary, a person may not be penalized by government or the power of the crown. Individuals

Generally over the years the Monarch’s role has slowly decreased as more jobs have been put on the PM’s.

A monarch is in control. You are being what to do by someone you do not even want ruling your country. What could you do? This is how your world works, it’s always worked like this, so why change it? Simply change it because you are unhappy with the way the world is, you deserve to enjoy the country you live in. That there, change the society, is exactly what the Enlightenment thinkers wanted to do. The Enlightenment thinkers are a group of people who found countless flaws in the way people decided to run the countries. Therefore, of all the Enlightenment thinkers, I believe John Locke, David Hume, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau impacted the world the most due to them having a full grasp on the ideologies of humanity.

As Habermas puts it “the relationship of the individual to the state has increasingly become one of client or consumer services, rather than citizen” (Roberts & Crossley, 5). Due to the limited agency (citizens’ roles) within this sphere, we can conclude that the ongoing competition and negotiation for a role in the public sphere ends with strictly dominant views. In such a monarchy, ordinary citizens such as lower classes and women have limited input when debating politics among other things. The ideal of a place where all opinions are counted, so to speak, fails to provide a sense of individual identity. This is due to the fact that it is pre-destined by the state itself and then turned back to the people- telling them what they will think about particular issues; shown especially through the controlling lens of the media.

Throughout Common Sense, Thomas Paine shows that he is against Monarchical government, and he says that the government type itself is not a reasonable means of ruling a nation. To support this, he sheds light on several reasons in which a monarchy is a bad choice for government. Paine says that all the power is unbalanced and vested in the hands of a single person, which most of the time leads to the King of the nation using the powers he has, against his people, for the benefit of himself, and those around him. Paine also says that to have hereditary succession of a monarch is complete nonsense. Paine uses his reason to support this case by showing that maybe a nation is lucky and has a well fit ruler as a King, but who is to say the King’s successor will be best fit for the position of King or Queen of a country. The notion that one ruler is fair and just, does NOT guarantee that the successor will be as just or as fair.