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.
Undemocratic system
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 a 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.
Economically ineffective
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.
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.
Out of touch
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.
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 money on such ceremonies like expensive lunches, because most people do not want them at all. 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).
Also 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.
The myth about neutrality and morality
Republicans argue that the neutrality of the royals is a myth. 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. 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 leads to democratic deception of the country.
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 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.
Expensive
Childs (2006) noted 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.
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 attracted a lot of foreign tourists to come and see such a great ceremony. As a result, high tourist turnout positively affected 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.
As was observed by Debatewise (2013) the taxpayers pay about £75 million the Queen and the Royal family every year. Forbes (2008) stated 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.
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. 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. In the times of inflation the same happened under the Queen Elizabeth II- 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 costs 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. Although Sandringham and Balmoral were the only two royal residences and certain items were not held as private property of the Crown and on behalf of the nation, most of the nation never saw them.