Negatives and the reasons for elimination
Even though there are varied positive arguments for the monarchy which are well supported with facts, there are still some disadvantages. While the monarchists keep picking up the issues of effectiveness of the monarchy, the republicans claim that there needs to be a more democratic system of choosing the head of state supporting this with strong arguments.
Smith (2012) declares that the British monarchy is undemocratic, as the British monarch has not been elected and has become a ‘head of the state’ only because of his/her luckiness to be born into a particular type of family. This idea is contradictory to British society where children are used to be encouraged to work hard and not to marry up the social ladder. Therefore it seems to be unfair for some people to live expensive lives just because they were born in a special family and for the others to struggle to survive.
According to MacLeod (2013) people say that the monarchy is an undemocratic system, which favours people who are lucky enough to be born into a certain family and that they need a more democratic system where all the citizens can aspire to be the head of the state and not just one over-privileged family.
Moreover, Danker (2012) claims that economically, there seems to be no need for a monarch. Many people say that monarchy is the reason why plenty of tourists visit England, but according to Visit England, none of the royal residences are in the list of top 20 tourist attractions. England’s most visited historic attraction remains the Tower of London, which is no longer run by the Crown. If there were not monarchy anymore the country would have gained a fortune from having Buckingham Palace and other residences fully open to fee-paying tourists.
According to Kingdom (1999) the republicans say that the monarchy is out of touch, and they claim that the monarchy is a sense of vulgarization and that is why the popularity of it is falling. The republicans also claim that the Royal family is dysfunctional and promotes inequality as the British monarchy, unlike other constitutional monarchies, represents an “aristocratic iceberg of inherited wealth the survival of which is one of the political wonders of the world”. Thus it legitimates elitism and helps capitalism to rise in society. Republicans argue that the neutrality of the royals is a myth and the neutrality of the monarchs is not actually true. This is supported by the fact observed by Kingdom (1999) that the Queen is the head of Anglican Church, which is long described as the Conservative party at prayer. (perefrazirovat a to plagiat) Also it is claimed that the Queen had difficult relationships with Margaret Thatcher, hence the myth about the neutrality seems to be impracticable. The republicans believe that this unreliable information brings to democratic deception of the country.
MacLeod (2013) reports that, the republicans believe that the existence of the royal family is a waste of time and money. To the republicans it seems unnecessary to spend a huge amount of money on such ceremonies like expensive lunches, because actually most people do not even want them. The republicans argue that the royal family belongs to an elite that no one can afford and even if they do not need more than they have, they still take more, while most of other people all over the world live difficult and poor lives.(perfrazirovala toka ne znayu pravilno ili net).
Kingdom (1999) noted that the republicans say that the Queen has had a life experience only in her personal circle which consists of aristocracy only. She is believed to have no actual concept of the feelings of the ordinary people, therefore she cannot show any understanding about what the poor need.
Kingdom (1999) adds that the idea of morality of the royal family has become almost risible: the Princess Margaret denied herself marriage to Group Captain Peter Townsend because he was divorced, although she and three of the Queen’s children were themselves divorced. Moreover, the romance (rephrase!!)of the Prince Charles with his mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles, while he was in marriage with Diana, completely breaks down the idea of morality.
Childs (2006) observed that the justification for retaining the monarchy was that the Royal family should give the nation an example of traditional values. However, by 1996 the Queen’s only sister, Margaret, was divorced, as was the Queens the only daughter, Princess Anne. Anne’s brother Andrew was from his wife Sarah and one other prince remained unmarried. Mentioned by Childs (2006), there were rumours about Prince Philip, the Queen’s husband. Anne made history when she remarried in 1992. This was the first remarriage since Henry VIII. Therefore the royal family, which was supposed to be model of a moral family, showed itself unstable.
It seems that the UK spends a quite big amount of its finances on the Royal family. Childs (2006) notes that the monarch paid tax until George V in 1930, but the Queen agreed to pay income taxes only in 1996. It is difficult to determine how rich she is partly because of some of her admirers in the Establishment obscured the sums involved. The royal yacht and the Queens flight are paid by the Ministry of Defence, the royal train is paid by the Ministry of Transport and so on. Few people could realise that even the clothes worn by the Queen and the royal family as a whole were paid by the taxpayers. According to the Independent (1996) Princess Margaret’s week in San Francisco in 1995 cost the taxpayer £7,200 for her clothes, while Prince Edward’s tailor presented a bill of £2,200 for his four-day trip to Swaziland in 1993, and in the same year the Duchess of Kent’s four days in the Seychelles cost £4,300-worth of tailoring.
Supporters of the monarchy argue that the history of the Royal family helped to bring more tourists to the country, but the French are not less able to attract tourists to Paris or the USA has never been unable to attract people to see the White House in Washington.
A SodaHead blog contributor ‘Ann’ (2011) questioned who pays for Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding, which could discharge the Queen’s reserve finances just before her Diamond Jubilee. This wedding is possibly the most important event for the Royal Family since the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer, but the Queen is unlikely to be able to finance the wedding on her own, therefore the question whether Parliament could help financially or not is raised. It was widely criticized by the public when John Major said that the Parliament would help the Royal Family if Windsor Castle catches fire, stated SodaHead (2011).
It has been discovered by SodaHead (2011) that Diana’s wedding ring was worth £85,700 in today’s terms. However, for this wedding Prince William has given the Queen’s ring to Kate Middleton. SodaHead (2011) also noted that the dress cost for Diana was £9,000, which is now worth £25,700 – more than the average cost of £21,000 for the full British wedding. According to SodaHead in 1990s the Queen agreed to freeze her salary due to economic downturn in the country. Consequently, it seemed to be difficult for her to fund her Diamond Jubilee if she did not claim for her income recover. But this is a fact that the Royal Wedding indeed attracts a lot of foreign tourists to come and see such a great ceremony. As a result, high tourist turnout positively affects the economic trend of the country. But, SodaHead (2011) pointed out that other people criticize the wedding by saying that British people give 50% of taxes annually to Royal Family for its “ceremonial” events and eventually do not even taste a cake from that party.
According to SodaHead (2011) the Queen agreed on cutting Royal household spending by 14% in 2012/2013 as well as cancelling £50,000 Royal Christmas Event. Most likely that Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding will be played in the City of Westminster, where the Queen married herself around 50 years ago. It has been claimed by SodaHead (2011) that the Council of City of Westminster will not take responsibility for the security of the event and its participants. Kingdom (1999) mentioned that although in 1761 King George III agreed to give up the income from Crown Estate, which is today worth £95 million per annum, he still asked for a regular grant from Parliament. This grant was called The Civil List and the expenditure related to the monarch’s social duties needed to be covered by that grant. The same was under the Queen Elizabeth || (proverit dostovernost infy) - set at £7.9 million in a year up to ten years. This did not include the expenditure on the upkeep of the five palaces. The travel costd which were cost almost 2,500 official engagements annually were also financed by Grants-in-Aid by Parliament. The royal yacht Britannia was the one of the most ostentatious expenditures by the royal family, which in addition to its annual running costs of some £2 million, required £5 million rent every three years. The Queens private expenditure is covered by her own private fortune in 1999 was estimated to be about £100 million. Sandringham and Balmoral were the two (tak two ili five?!?!?!) royal residences and only certain items were not held as private property of the Crown. Hence, the British monarchy has always been expensive.
As was observed by Debatewise (2013) the taxpayers pay about £75 million the Queen and the Royal family every year. Forbes (year?!?) states that the Royal family remains the one the richest families over the world and they cost about £650 million per year. According to the research of Debatewise (2013) debaters argue that that amount of money spent on the Royal family could be used to provide free education for the poorest people in the country.
National attitude
According to the polling data from Ipsos Mori found by Easton (2012), only 18% supported a republic in 1969 and in 1993. In 2002 it was 19% and it showed 18% last year. The remaining part of the population – three-quarters wanted a monarchy. With all the advantages and disadvantages of the monarchy it still seems to be popular. And it is not because the country has any strong factual reasons for it.
According to Glover (2011) a majority of the population strongly believe that the monarchy is something that helps to maintain and improve Britain’s image around the world. 60% support this view, only 2% say that monarchy does not improve the state, and 36% say that it makes a little difference.
It is possible that the monarchy maintains its high rate of popularity because of the current queen. According to Easton (2012) the system of inherited privilege and power still seems to be popular since the Queen Elizabeth II assumed the throne. Moreover, according to Glover (2011) the Queen Elizabeth II’s death will hugely affect people’s attitudes to the monarchy. It was mentioned that about 89% of the British think that the country will have a monarch in 10 years, but the number of the believers drops rapidly when they are asked about the next 50-100 years. Danker (2012) expresses the view that it may well be the case that the Queen has brainwashed the entire nation - the Royal Family probably spends plenty of money on PR - but she is certainly a more revered leader than any of the current political elite. Following the lives of the royals offers a unique brand of escapism that cannot easily be replicated - it is akin to watching a real-life fairytale, or perhaps an expensive version of a soap opera EastEnders. Or maybe the monarchy is popular because of the boom regarding to the death of Princess Diana. As mentioned by Glover (2011) 67% of people questioned thought that the monarchy was relevant, and almost the same turnout as 10 years ago. It seems that the country is not in the mood to have another revolution after the death of Princess Diana, they are happy to accept the situation in the way it is. Or maybe monarchy is still relevant to the British nation because it represents the entire nation around the planet. As mentioned by Danker (2012) maybe the queen’s mostly irrelevance to the political process is more of a positive than a negative. As the Head of State, the queen represents the UK, and not the often unpopular politics of the UK. Or maybe the United Kingdom would not be the same as now without a monarchy. According to SodaHead (2011) some people say that England would not be the country, it is now without the monarchy. Jacker (2008) insists that if there was to be a referendum, the vote would be overwhelmingly in favour of it. Glover (2011) claimed that a measure proportion of people from all political and social directions think that Britain will be worse off without a monarchy. Here, it is mentioned that only 26% of the country think that the eliminion of the monarchy will bring the UK to a better situation.
Strangely even when in November 1992, the destruction of Windsor Castle required £50-million from the Conservative government the compensation to this would be the opening of the Buckingham palace to the public. In January 1997 there was a subjective television debate about the Royals in which over 2.5 million telephone callers voiced the support of the royal family.
Meanwhile, Easton (2012) tried to find out why “a country that has become so cynical about other institutions (Parliament, the City, the press, the police)” is so collectively loyal to the monarchy. It was mentioned that there had been a debate between two thinkers - one republican and the other monarchist - Thomas Paine and Walter Bagehot. Paine argued that national pride is the only factor that makes Englishmen prejudiced for monarchy. Bagehot claimed that it was important for the Britons to treat monarchy as something intrinsically special. It had the form of a theatrical show of society where the Queen played the main character. It can be deduced that the two different thinkers expressed the same view in different words. What seems to be true is that the British feel better with the monarchy and the reasons are social certainty and pride.
Easton (2012) also notes that two sociologists tried to find out the meaning of Coronation and thus deduced that the Coronation was hugely important to the entire nation because it made people believe that they had a direct contact with the priceless and the sacred. The feeling of being justified to join the ceremony was a great act of national communion and there is no need for happiness to be logically supported. People accept the eccentricity of monarchy because they think it is an important part of the national character. “British monarchy is valued because it is the British monarchy” mentioned Easton (2012), who claims that the British society is too old and complicated to be able to explain the reasons for loving the monarchy.
Primary research
In my project I have done some primary research. Even though I have found a wide range of sources in the secondary research, in order to make a reasonable conclusion I still needed to check whether the information from the secondary research was reliable which I could find from specialists in the field of Politics and History. I have had personal interviews with two professors of Politics. In this research I have noticed that even though the specialists have different views about the monarchy, they still managed to strongly support their views.
Dr Brian Holt
Do you think the Queen has any impact on the country economically and politically? Why?
Economically the royal family is part of the tourist business of Britain. And we believe that tourists spend millions of pounds in Britain every ear. Attending evince associated with the monarch (royal jubilee 2012 and royal wedding of prince William). Politically the Queen is a strong element of stability in our politics, she has very little power but whilst she is there no one else can have too much power. She has little power but she has great influence. And she always works for the good of all the people. Her own reputation is very high; she has worked for the country very hard for 60 years. She also exercises a good influence on PMs. She has met all her 14 PMs, once a week for a private meeting and she speaks honestly about the work of the government. No one knows her own political opinions.
She is also influential in her position as the head of commonwealth - a group of 50 independent states, with strong connections to the UK. She encourages the good work of the commonwealth in the development and trade and education.
There are many people who do not love monarchy and an even bigger group who does. Why do you think this is?
Most people are satisfied with the Queen as the head of state but there is a significant minority who would like a republic if the next monarch becomes unpopular that minority may grow. The main objection of the “republicans” is that the monarchy is too rich and is out of touch for ordinary people. Its existence strengthens class divisions in society.
Do you think that Prince Charles will become a good king? Why yes or why not?
I expect he wants to become a good king. But he will need good luck to become as popular as his mother. His problem is a desire to give his own opinion on sensitive subjects. His mother never speaks on sensitive subjects.
Do you think the monarchy is going to be popular in the next 50 years? Why/why not?
It will need good luck to have the same popularity in the next 50 years. The “republicans” include many young people. And their numbers may grow in future years.
Do you think the Royal Family gives happiness to the country? If yes, why? If not, why do you think the nation loves the family?
Yes, it does. Because they often produce interesting news, a glamorous lifestyle as they are celebrities from the day they are born. So long there are royal weddings and new babies they will give happiness to many people.
Do you think the Monarchy is relevant nowadays? Why? And if not, what would be preferable
The monarchy is and will be relevant if it is modest in its lifestyle and behaviour. And it is sensitive to the wishes of the people without being “party political”.
Teacher Alexander Stekelis
Do you think the Queen has any impact on the country economically and politically? Why?
-The Queen is a political figure head and makes no important political decisions, just ceremonial procedure. Economically the monarch costs the tax payer, especially travel and security. Tourism would remain without a monarch, e.g. France.
There are many people who do not love monarchy and an even bigger group who does. Why do you think this is?
- Many strongly admire the monarchy out of a sense of respect and deference and linking the monarchy with patriotism. Those who do not, like top barrister Michael Mansfield QC, oppose an unelected head of state in a modern democracy. His view is we in the UK should 'grow up.'
Do you think that Prince Charles will become a good king? Why yes or why not?
- As the next UK monarch, Prince Charles is very well prepared, more than 60 years training and seemingly a compassionate man.
Do you think the monarchy is going to be popular in the next 50 years? Why/why not?
-Only a referendum can truly measure popularity and it will not happen. However, republicans are a very small minority and sneered at by the monarchy loving newspapers. I believe it will still be popular in 50 years.
Do you think the Royal Family gives happiness to the country? If yes, why? If not, why do you think the nation loves the family?
-According to research happiness depends on personal relationships. Very few know the Royal Family; therefore it is not a primary reason for causing happiness.
Do you think the Monarchy is relevant nowadays? Why? And if not, what would be preferable
-The monarchy is highly irrelevant to serious matters like poverty, health, jobs. France has a close to perfect political system, a directly elected President and head of state every 5 years with a mandate from the people. A perfect solution, vive la republique.
Discussion
It has been already mentioned that nowadays the British monarch does not hold authority and political significance as in the past. As a result, the question about the dignity and necessity of a monarchy has emerged and become one of the most popular questions regarding the political system of the United Kingdom. Previouly, I have provided a number of positive and negative sides of monarchy remaining in British political system. However in order to establish the monarchy’s relevance, it is essential to assess the roles of a British monarchy in modern days and critically evaluate all the advantages and disadvantages of having a monarchy in the UK.
The benefits and costs of having a monarchy can be classified as political, economic and social. Having said that the main power of a British monarchy has been given to the executive does not mean that monarch has no obligations and functions in politics. Queen Elizabeth II still has important political and social duties imposed on her by the law. Constitutionally, her powers include carrying out international treaties and signing important government documents and Parliament statutes, dissolving Parliament, replacing and appointing the Prime Minister (in emergency situations), civil servants, judges, and military officers. She is essentially a Head of State and Chief Commander of the Armed Forces of the UK. In addition, having an independent and sovereign political body as monarch, means that the UK has a neutral and alternative political decision maker, as a result, this provides continuing and stable system of governing. In other words, the monarch can control the pace and relevance of political decisions, and as a result can hold the Prime Minister to account. Therefore, the Queen certainly benefits the British political system by fulfilling those duties and it is not correct to say that the monarch does not help British politics at all. Every monarch comes to the throne by inheritance, but it is old fashioned today, and some people argue that such system must be abolished to avoid democratic deception in the country. British democracy seems to be undermined even further when the debate comes to the social class division. The Royal Family is evidently privileged and has far more credentials than most of other British citizens. As a result, there is a particular class division in British society, initially, when the monarchy acted as a supreme political decision maker, it was apparent that the Royal Family was privileged because it was essentially the government, however, today, the government consists of Prime Minister and the executive, not monarchy. Queen's political functions could be successfully carried out by an elected by people politician, this would be democratic and fairer for British society. Moreover, monarchy improves the system of aristocracy and elitism in the UK, which is contradictory to the voice of general public and democracy as whole. However, it is known that the Royal family, particularly Queen Elizabeth II has a great respect and interest from other governors and countries across the globe. She is Head of the Commonwealth countries with strong political and economic relationships with the UK. Even though she does not hold executive power, she still has an influence on the government. She also brings the nation together and creates unity of the nation, which would not be done so greatly from any other elected body. As a result she forms a “face” of the UK worldwide in political, economic and social fields.
With regard to economics of the UK, the effectiveness of a monarchy is an arguable issue. Some people say that the Royal family encourages many tourists to visit Britain, which benefits the economy of the UK, whereas others claim that this could be done even without a monarch. Obviously, royal traditions, history and its residences create tourist turnouts every year, for instance Royal wedding of William and Kate generated approximately £1 billion for the economy of the United Kingdom, which outweighs the initial costs of £20 million. However, it has been reported that none of the residences of Royal family come in the list of the top 20 most visited British attractions. Moreover, if Royal residences did not belong to the Royal family, they would be fully open for the tourists, where foreign people would spend much more money. Therefore, some may argue that the economy of the UK would be boosted without monarchy. For instance, France does not struggle to attract tourists to Paris and the USA successfully encourages many tourists all over the world to visit Washington DC and White House. Therefore, there is not such a great need for monarchy to gain high tourist turnouts. By considering these points regarding tourism, it is hard to say whether the monarchy really helps the economy to grow or it would be better without monarchy. Another issue to do with economy is the costs of monarchy. According to the report of the civil list, the annual cost of the Queen in 2011 was approximately £7.9 million. By looking at different facts, it can be said that the Queen cannot earn so much money in one year, so all her expenses are from the national tax. Royal Family abused the taxpayers’ expenses, thus has shown disrespect to British population. Consequently, many people start to think about the necessity of having a monarch, as it costs too much and it is not the UK government. Every year, taxpayers pay approximately £75 million the Royal Family, which is a huge amount of money that could be spent on different sectors within the country such as education, environment, and technology. Another criticism is that the Queen has many admirers in Establishment, who are willing to pay some of the fees for her, such as fees for transport and flights.
Socially, there is no doubt that monarchy benefits Britain more than harms. First of all, the existence of a monarchy reminds modern people about British traditions, customs and history. Thus, the representative function of a monarch has been always one of the most important apolitical roles in the UK. Queen Elizabeth II represents the nation at home and abroad, and this increases the status and reputation of the UK. The Royal Family is a great example of true British lifestyle, customs, traditions and beliefs, therefore nowadays every British generation will be more familiar with the history of the UK. The famous English writer Walter Bagehot who is an author of one of the sources of English Constitution described a monarchy as the “dignified part of the constitution”. The word “dignified” meant being ‘above politics’, being uninvolved into political fights and arguments in the Government and being universally generous to everybody. The UK must be proud of still having a monarchy in these modern days, as it is a significant feature in British politics as the Head of State and it is essentially the main representative of the UK both nationally and internationally. The Queen certainly brings happiness to the most of the population and contributes socially to the British life by taking a part in the most significant celebrations of the country. For example, on the 4th of June 2012, Britain celebrates Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, marking 60 years since her reign, on that day there will be special ceremonies and celebration programs in London. Moreover, recent research shows that Queen Elizabeth II is one of the best supporters of charities in the world and her help to many organisations was measured as £1.4 billion. Most of the supported charities deal with civic and social issues, she supports financially 510 charity organisations in Britain and Royal family supports roughly 3000 charities across the world. By donating such a huge amount of money to charities, she tries to encourage British people to wish and do only good things for society. However, some people claim that even though her help for charities is great she is a real member of British society, because since she was born, her life was royal and very different from ordinary person's life. As a result, it seems for her to truly understand social problems and difficulties, as she has a different life experience.
I have learnt from this research that the monarchy plays an important role in the life of the nation both economically, politically and socially. Happiness and stability of the population are the most important ones, because members of the Royal family, the Queen and her children, have been celebrities from the day they were born. The British nation feels proud of itself the existence of the royals because it symbolizes the British thanks to nation. Economically it can be argued that the monarchy is not the reason for tourists coming to England all over the world. It is supported with facts that plenty of tourists visit France and USA as well as England, and it is well known that there is no monarchy in either USA or France; however they still attract millions of tourists every year. Regarding the political influence of the monarchy on the UK I learnt that although the Queen has her life experience only in a circle consisting of elite only, she still has had 14 Prime Ministers in Government and knows a lot about how to rule the country even if she does not show that. I also learnt that the monarchy is an important for the UK as the representative of British nation. Apart from the positives of the monarchy I learnt the negatives as well. The British monarchy takes too many from the British taxpayers, what seems unfair to the British whose love seems to be endless to the monarchy. Also the issue of democracy is contradicted in the existence of the monarchy, which is also contradictory to the British nature which seems to be quite captious to democracy in the country.
Conclusion
In order to finish with a clear conclusion, I would like to point out the main features and facts about the monarchy in the UK and try to balance some of the arguments for and against it. First of all, the monarch has been a form of the government in Britain for many years and even the fact that today the Queen holds only prerogative powers does not really prove the need to reject it. The Queen has a lot of work to do every day, as she is the ‘face’ of the UK in the globe, so I think that an appointed person in this post will not be able to handle that workload appropriately. She acts as a neutral figure in British politics, thus provides good link between different political parties. Whereas the disadvantages regarding her annual cost and expenses seem to me inadequate, because even though it costs money, British people should consider other various advantages, such as improved tourism, representation of the UK and that monarchy will always remind British people of their history, traditions, mentality and aristocracy. By having assessed all these points in details, I would strongly agree with all the arguments for remaining a monarchy in Britain, as for me the positives are more significant than the negatives.