Royalty in the modern age, Queen of England or KIng of ..??Are they necessary?

@bryanwmc (1052)
Malaysia
March 2, 2013 12:47pm CST
In the modern world we live in and then thinking about countries that are republics and then there are the countries with aristocrats and royalty, i was just mulling to myself...Are they relevant at all to anything? Since most are just figureheads with no real political power , except maybe countries like Thailand for example , where the monarch has absolute power but still seldom uses it letting the politicians run the country. The Arabian countries are where royalty is absolute power. But in Europe and In particular, England and the Queen, She has no real political power but commands immense love and loyalty by many of her supposed subjects, She is a Ruler of , i am not sure what her powers are and what she can will in her country.. There are of course detractors, claiming that the throne drains or impoverishes the country and some English people actually wants England to be free of the throne.!! Hmmm...but from a non English person's view-point, if England decides to do away with the monarchy, will it be different or will the Royals stay Royal and Regal for hundreds more years. Actually, when you think a little, only a handful of countries in the world still have Kings or Queens, off my head ,i can think of England, Spain , Denmark , Thailand , Japan...Arab countries.. Just wondering if in future will England ever be a republic and not have the Royal institution or will the English people sustain the Royals for few hundred years more. Also , royal families, are they necessary , do you think in this day and age? It is the 21st century, gone are the days of Kings and Queens and Emperors or Empress, Pharaohs etc who rule absolute power like Gods. Now mostly figureheads on currency notes/
3 responses
@robspeakman (1705)
2 Mar 13
Most of what you say in your post is wrong or lazy. I am English and I can tell you that very few BRITISH people want to replace the Monarcy. You are ignorant in terms of stating England repeatedly... As I have said, I am English - ergo I am from England, However we are part of the British Isles and we are recognised as British. The Queen is the Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth - not just England. In reality the Queen has no political power, she is a figurehead. What the Queen represents for the United Kingdom is a physical and human face to the country and the history of the country. Our history goes back thousands of years and the monarcy has played a major part in shaping the country. The queen is also a recognised figure in world politics and trade - Everyone know who she is and where she is from and who she represents. We have a monarchy and we regard our Queen in the same way that the Americans would view their flag and national anthem - Respect and reverence. The cost of the Monarcy in the UK - pennies per person per year. I would say that the UK is unlikely to become a republic for many years. A President would be a meaningless and costly replacement in the UK
@bryanwmc (1052)
• Malaysia
2 Mar 13
Very " few people " - That acknowledges or denotes the fact that they do exist , detractors of the throne, I mean.Reality of it is that perhaps with exception of the genuinely Anglicised souls, or those with high vested interest at stake, the noblese, aristocrats , Lords and Dukes . I think many British are on the fence on this, throne or no throne life goes on. Even the title of "Queen of the commonwealth has little meaning seeing as the marjority of people in commonwealth countries do not share the sentiment you have towards your Queen. It has faded in significance over time. Maybe in colonial days of long ago when the British governed things in the era of King George , and then the very young Elizabeth,when the influence of the Brits was everywhere, from Asia to Africa.That perhaps was the era when the term "Queen" has an aura of power and awe. I also wonder if you realize that she is more popularly known around the world as the " Queen of England". All who have access to History books knows about the UK and the British isles and the place called Britain but ask anyone -out of the UK who is not British , this question , Who is Queen Elizabeth ? 9 out of 10 will very likely answer ," Queen of England" which she is , the Queen of that Kingdom , just as much as she is the Queen of the other Kingdoms in the British Isles -hence the United Kingdom... or Britain . Strangely, since you mentioned it, i just realized that mainly, only British say they are British , but Americans tend to say Sean Connery/Pierce Brosnan/ is Irish English, Ewan Macgregor is Scottish or that" that famous "English" actress Dame Helen Mirren , Judi Dench , not " British" actress. And the term " an "English gentleman" has a much gentile meaning to it than" British gentleman" which actually sounds ackward and out of place.
2 Mar 13
Actually we refer to ourselves by our nationalities - We are proud of our national history, whether that be Welsh, Scottish, Irish or English. We do not refer to ourselves as British.... except for the Olympics and a time of war Recent polls show that 79% of British people support and want to retain the Monarcy. You are making assumption. Commonwealth countries still regard the Queen as their Queen.
@bryanwmc (1052)
• Malaysia
3 Mar 13
i beg to differ, I respect but there is no reverence for Queen Elizabeth , same feeling to President Obama , to me they are still foreigners and i am a citizen of a commonwealth country which is predominantly Muslim that is also the national religion and we have our own King and Prime Minister, and so is the island republic of Singapore, another commonwealth entity. As for myself , i am Catholic, so it may be difficult to acknowledge her Majesty as the head of my church .although when her Majesty came for a state visit here ,she was very warmly received as a foreign Royal Guest just like a foreign Head of state. I think it is more a state of mind in accepting her majesty as the Queen of the commonwealth nations, India i am sure we all need no elaboration as to their perception of Queen E , She is a foreign Royal- Australia , another commonwealth nation with deep emotional ties to Britain has 2 camps, royalist and non royalist . It is a very different world now compared to as early as the 1960s and earlier, where Commonwealth countries and their citizens acknowledgement of Queen E as their symbolic sovereign was still strong and passionate.
@marguicha (88023)
• Chile
2 Mar 13
I don`t live in a country with a king or queen, but I think that maybe they have a role in their countries. For one thing they are special ambassadors and they are well received everywhere. After a visit of royalty to another country, businessmen are more willing to talk about joint enterprises. Besides that, I think that they they are important for tourism. Who has gone to London and not visited Buckingham Palace? It is a must. I don`t know if we can call modern age to World War II. In WWII, the King of England was very important for his subjects. Not many modern Kings and Queens govern but they still are necessary for their countries (it seems).
@bryanwmc (1052)
• Malaysia
2 Mar 13
As ambassadors to their countries none can match the prestige they carry , that i agree totally, especially in trade and commerce. as far governing a country is concerned , it is a role in which they have detached away from more and more as compared to Kings and Queens of old with hands on invovlement in state affairs even commanding armies and fighting wars. I suppose terms like King,Queen , Emperor or Sultan or Majesty in those times carried with it a form of supernatural God-like aura of power and significance that the modern world has diluted and paled into symbols of exclusivity ,affection , reverence and awe but minus the power and authority.
@marguicha (88023)
• Chile
2 Mar 13
That is a good thing: not everyone is born to govern wiselly. Many of us saw "The King`s speech", the movie based in part of the life of King George VI of England. He performed a great role during World War II, but Prime Minister was Sir Winston Churchill. Both were needed.
@bryanwmc (1052)
• Malaysia
3 Mar 13
Imagine that the young Queen Elizabeth had Winston Churchill as her PM , how many PMs already during her reign . She is the one constant, PMs and elected Goverments, whether famous or not still came and went during her rule and she is still in her place , as regal and royal as ever.
@MoonGypsy (4613)
• United States
2 Mar 13
i always wondered why there was a king and queen myself. if they have no political power, then what is the purpose of having one? i doesn't have anything to do with what day an age it is. if a country decides to have a king and queen, then fine. they just should have some political role.
@bryanwmc (1052)
• Malaysia
3 Mar 13
If it is the monarchy of England or UK as purist will insist, i still can understand the powerful symbolic institution of the British monarchy,and the esteem and high regard other nations have for it, also the sense of culture and historical identity of the throne that the British identify with and maybe is a rallying centre for the British pride. It is some other monarchies that i totally do not get, with their kings or emperors totally having no say at all in anything relating to Goverment affairs.and out of touch with their subjects. Kept liked Mascots at the people's whim, not even toothless tigers , are many of these royals, pussycats..poor things , kept away like national treasures to be exhibited occasionally like some kind of very precious fragile jewellery. Like the last emperor of China , whom the Japanese made ruler of Manchukuo. Ruler of an empty building he was confined in..