Reply 1
14
personally, i don't think so. its an important part of british cultural heritage and it would be a shame to get rid of it. plus, they do help to boost tourism quite a bit.
Reply 2
16
Boosting tourism is a weak argument. I'd like to hear better justifications for their relevance in 2024.
Reply 3
14
Original post by SaucissonSecCy
Boosting tourism is a weak argument. I'd like to hear better justifications for their relevance in 2024.
when the queen was still alive, the monarchy was a well-beloved symbol of the UK. pretty much everybody loved or at least respected the queen and everything she had done over the years, and she was a part of britain that's famous on a global scale. no other 21st century royal is as popular as she was. this was probably due to factors such as the british empire, the commonwealth and also that her reign was the longest ever, but it still doesn't deny the significance of her reputation.
honestly, now that the queen has passed away i'm less keen on the royal family as a whole. but i still think they're an important part of our cultural heritage, as i mentioned earlier. the british monarchy has been in existence for centuries (correct me if i'm wrong!) and it doesn't feel right to get rid of the monarchy just because they don't rule the country and don't really have a purpose anymore. they're one of the things that are so uniquely and iconicly british that is just feels wrong to get rid of them.
however, i do think the royal family should be more self-dependent. i think the king made a good decision in reducing the number of 'working royals', but there's still more that can be done. it's great to see their charitable work, but it would be a lot nicer if they were less dependent on money from taxpayers
i appreciate now that boosting tourism is a weak argument - i guess even if the monarchy were to be abolished, the tourist industry in england would still be booming.
Reply 4
I don't think so but we should significantly defund them.
Reply 5
Original post by SaucissonSecCy
Should we?
In my heart of hearts, I think the answer is yes. A monarchy isn't compatible with a modern democracy, nor is it compatible with a society that believes in meritocratic success stories.
However, I think the most pragmatic solution would be to keep them, just MASSIVELY reduce the funding to them. Strip virtually everything from them and keep them largely as a ceremonial position without the trappings of royalty. They don't like it? Cool, sod off.
But I would say that means taking back things like the royal buildings and estates into public ownership as a national trust system. We are repeatedly told the Monarchy brings in tourism, which doesn't seem to be an issue for France which has more tourism than us, and they killed all their royals, so that's just *******s. Tourists mostly come to see the buildings, not the chance sighting of a geriatric monarch.
Give the main monarch a wage, but they are essentially paid diplomats or figureheads. That's it. Don't like it? Abdicate and Sod off.
Reply 6
I don't get the part of British culture bit the monarchy literally oppressed the British people with initially the feudal system but during the movement for suffrage the monarchs agents executed British democrats and presided over mass murder such as the Peterloo massacre let alone what was done in the name of the monarchy past the borders of Britain, the monarchy and union flag is seen akin to the swastica in the countries we colonised some things are not for keeping and the monarchy is one of those things.
Reply 7
19
no, but I do subscribe to King Charles and his downsizing the monarchy
Reply 8
The monarchy have no practical political power. Provided it stays that way I see no reason for us to abolish it, would having a presidential system improve things in any way?
Reply 9
Yes.
I want to Britain to be a meritocratic country where a child can aspire to be head of state.
I don’t want Britain to be the sort of country where the head of state is also the head of a church that only a minority of population subscribe to.
I want to Britain to be a meritocratic country where a child can aspire to be head of state.
I don’t want Britain to be the sort of country where the head of state is also the head of a church that only a minority of population subscribe to.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How popular is republicanism on TSR?
- only Australia never had kingdoms. why?
- Could anyone mark this GCSE Ozymandias-London essay?
- Another English essay
- History or drama
- history source question
- Time to downgrade the UK monarchy?
- A-level History Study Group 2023-2024
- Monarchists vs Republicans
- Are single-sex schools a thing of the past? Should they be abolished or not?
- MACBETH - How is Violence Presented?
- Debate
- Possibly abolishing single persons council tax discount
- English Folio
- Macbeth GCSE essay
- A level AQA history
- Oxford Earth Sciences Interview Prep
- Age of the Crusades (1071-1204) aqa A-level history - is it interesting/okay?
- Edexcel A-level History Paper 1 - 23rd May 2025 [Exam Chat]
- 2020 - 5 wasted years, what could have been?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 months ago
Skceptical about the advance tech, AI & phishing websites.Last reply 2 months ago
Was the chainsaw approach the right approach for Argentina?Last reply 2 months ago
GCSE English Language: Paper 2, Question 5
