Negatives and the reasons for elimination

Even though there are various 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 it needs to be a more democratic system of choosing the head of state and support this with strong arguments.

Undemocratic system

Smith (2012) declares that the British monarchy is undemocratic, as the monarch has not been elected and has become a ‘head of the state’ just 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 expensivelives just because they were born in a special family, while others 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 in 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

Danker (2012) claims that economically, there is no need for a monarch. Many people say that monarchy is the reason why lots of tourists visit England, but according to Visit England, none of the royal residences is 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 for example, France successfully generates huge numbers of 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 its popularity 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 elite that no one can afford and even if they do not need more than they have, they still take more, while other British people struggle with live and financial problems. Also Kingdom (1999) noted 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 truly understand what poor need.

The myth about neutrality and morality

Republicans argue that neutrality of the royals in British politics is a myth. This is supported by the fact observed by Kingdom (1999) that the Queen is the head of Anglican Church, which essentially means that she is a representative of 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 beimpracticable. 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: Princess Margaret did not count herself as married to Group Captain Peter Townsend because he was divorced and other three Queen’s children were divorced as well. Moreover, the romance of 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 tworoyal 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.

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.

To Jacker’s (2008) poll question “Does Britain need the monarchy?” peoplemainly answered in favour of it. That was mainly based on a theory of a better system. One of the interviewees said that it is better to have a non-political head of state firstly because a monarch can stop the Prime Minister from abusing the power and call an election. This was clearly shown in Thailand in 1981 when the King stepped in, restoring democracy.

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 elimination 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. Previously, 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. The civil list states that the Queen’s cost in 2011 was about £ 7.9 million. Such a huge amount of money seems to be impossible for the Queen to earn in one year, therefore it can be deduced that most of her expenses are financed by the national tax. The Royals abuse the expenses of their taxpayers, therefore they show disrespect to the UK population. Hence many people started having doubts about the necessity of the monarchy: it is too expensive and not even 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. The monarch with his/her representative function has always carried out a hugely important apolitical role in the UK. The status of the UK remains high because the current queen manages to beautifully represent British nation at home and abroad. Today British generation can learn a lot about true British customs, traditions and the lifestyle just by looking at the Royal family, which is a great example of it. Walter Bagehot, a famous writer and the author of one of the sources used to write the English Constitution, described monarchy as “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 is lucky to have the monarchy in the modern days, because it is firstly, the history of Britain and secondly is the main representative of the nation both nationally and internationally. The Queen certainly brings happiness to the most of the population and has an effect upon social life of the British. The Queen takes a part in the most important celebrations in the country. For instance, the UK celebrated the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee on the 4^th of June 2012 and there will be special celebrity programs in London on that day. 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.

Conclusion

The monarchy plays an important role in the life of the nation economically, politically and socially. Firstly, the monarchy seems as very undemocratic system to me. It seems unfair for people to give all their love and attention to somebody who is lucky to be a son/daughter of a previous monarch. People admire and obey the monarchs whom they did not even elect. The issue of undemocratic monarchy is contradictory to the British nature, which is captious to democracy in the country. Secondly, it is clear that the Queen has lived her life in a circle of elite. Even if the Queen wanted to, she would never be able to understand the needs of poor people. Thirdly, the British monarchy takes too much from the British taxpayers, which seems as unfair to the British whose love is arguably endless to the monarchy.

But happiness and stability of the population are the most important advantages of the monarchy of the UK, 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 the existence of the Royal Family because it symbolizes the British nation. People do not want any more changes, because they are happy with the current situation of the country and themselves. Economically it can be argued that the monarchy is not the only reason for tourists to come and visit the UK. This point is supported by the examples of France and the USA.

However, regarding political influence of the monarchy in the UK, the Queen has had 14 Prime Ministers in Government and knows a lot about how to rule the country even if she does not demonstrate that. The Queen has a huge influence on the country’s position worldwide. The monarchy is important for the UK as the representative of British nation.

Finally, I came to a conclusion that the UK needs a monarchy. With all its advantages and disadvantages the British monarchy is still a significant part of the British history. Even though it is undemocratic and the monarch is unable to understand the poor, the monarchy gives happiness to British people and this is more than enough. In my secondary research I have mentioned that more than a half of the British population wants the monarchy, and if people want and if they are happy with the monarchy, then there is no need to change it. I deduced that perhaps the question of monarchy may change in the next 20 years, but I was questioning the monarchy in modern time and have a strong opinion in favour of it, therefore to the question ‘Does the UK still need a monarchy?’ my answer is ‘Yes’.

Bibliography

Books

Childs, D., (2006). Britain since 1945. 6^th ed. USA and Canada: Routledge.

Kavanagh, D., et al., (2006). British Politics. 1^st ed. The United States: Oxford University Press.

Kingdom, J., (1999). Government and Politics in Britain: An Introduction. 2^nd ed. Oxford: Polity

Press.

McLean, I., McMillan, A., (2009). Politics. 3^rd ed. The United States: Oxford University Press.

Journals

Andress, D., (2008). The World in Revolt. BBC History exclusive magazine, June, pp 28-31.

Date: 2016-03-03; view: 397