do we still need a monarchy?

January 2, 2007 6:18am CST
does britain still need a monarchy? what do they bring to the country? tourism? yes,but surely the massive amount of money the taxpayer gives to the monarchy makes up for the tourism,even if it didnt,france gets loads of tourism,and they abolished their monarchy ages ago!and america never even had a royal family!! the monarchy has now got a bad label, a 'old fogey' label on them, if we got rid of them would we get a reputation as a modern up-and-coming country? they dont seem likeable,and they dont seem bothered about improving their public face.
4 people like this
33 responses
2 Jan 07
i believe britain still needs monarchy.yes its costly but as u said it brings tourists into the country who not only visit places to do with monarchy-they eat drink stay in hotels so all industry can exist and give employment to people.i live in uk at the moment but come from other country and have many non uk friends-first think that comes to their mind when u ask them bout britain is queen and royal family. u r modern country,modern and with tradition so be proud of it
@Languish (137)
2 Jan 07
Modern, yet with tradition - summed up excellently.
2 Jan 07
I always think it's ridiculous to argue that the monarchy brings in tourism. How many tourists actually get to SEE the Queen? We would still have the palaces for them to visit, and in fact they would be improved as tourist attractions if there was nobody actually living in them dictating what rooms could be open to the public. We could still have the Changing of the Guard, that's the nearest to seeing the Queen that tourists ever get anyway. It's basically ridiculous that a modern democratic country should have some random old woman as its Head of State just because of who her dad was. If something terrible happened to Prince Charles and Prince William tomorrow we would end up with the prospect of King Harry, a thick ginger kid who thinks it's fun to go to fancy dress parties as a Nazi. Who your parents are is a terrible basis for appointing anyone to any kind of job, let alone one as high-paid as this one. Please, let's have a President with no more power than the monarch currently has, but who nonetheless has actually done something to EARN the honour.
• Ireland
2 Jan 07
I can't say that I would have any interest in visiting Britain because of the royal family there. They don't add anything to the place except column inches in the tabloids. They don't have a particularly good image overall and I don't find them particularly likeable myself. At least with a presidency, the people can vote for their head of state and have some choice in the matter.
@forfein (2508)
2 Jan 07
WHAT!!!!! There is no wonder there is a North / South divide with comments like this!!! I lived in the Midlands for years until I joined the Army. Then I saw what the rest of the world was up to, and I was able to look at my country from the outside-in When I was in the Bahamas, the Queen paid a visit on the Royal Yacht Britania. The amount of dignitaries that were invited aboardd was amazing!! Americans, Mexicans, everyone from the Caribbean. The reason????? TRADE!!!! She brought in MILLIONS for the UK, then the Socialist Government decided to scrap the Brittania!! Idiots!!!! Princess Margaret was the first to give the Monarchy a bad name, and it should have been squashed there and then!! Prince Charles decided that if he Aunt could do it, so could he!!! IDIOT !!!! He had one of the most beautiful women in the world and he chooses a "Witch" !! What makes you think that the Monarchy isnt Modern?? The Adulterous nature of the Monarchy is well in tune with the rest of Britain!! A President like America!! You are kidding I hope!!! This is like making Tony Blair a new Bush!!! God forbid! Blair has to answer to Parliament, and the House of Lords, and justify his actions to the Queen, she does not reprimand him because of Protocol!! Dont you know that "True English" is the Queens English, or are you just a thicko!
@milagre (1272)
• Portugal
2 Jan 07
Presidents also spend a lot of money plus the elections for it and some of them, like in my country almost dont have a word on the government, its just an union figure. So, i dont know what's the best, maybe none...
1 person likes this
@miryam (6507)
• Italy
2 Jan 07
I'm italian, not monarchy....many years ago but now not I like to prove, if are better or not.....the odea me like... But if do must vote a name for a KING.....I'll dont know respond.......I OiK I'm the Italian Queen..yes :)
1 person likes this
@sahergul (774)
• Pakistan
2 Jan 07
well yah may be they just want to stick to thier so called norm of monarch...
1 person likes this
@chekoz (284)
• Indonesia
2 Jan 07
yes we do, if only there's a prosperety and a justice
1 person likes this
@nangel78 (1458)
• United States
2 Jan 07
I do not live in Britain myself so I am not sure what is the best system over there. For those who live in Britain, how do you like living in a monarchy? Has it benefited you guys?
2 Jan 07
It doesn't particularly benefit us at all, we are told they make money from attracting tourism but the amount of taxpayers money they are given to live out their lavish lifestyles and fancy parades can't possibly be topped by tourist income.
@forfein (2508)
3 Jan 07
The only one who received tax payers money now is the Queen.
@Languish (137)
2 Jan 07
The monarchy doesnt actually incur that great a cost - but obviously you haven't actually gone to check this out. If i were you i'd be more worried about the insane amount of money being wasted on and in the NHS or in Government Generally. If anything we'd be better off with an ABSOLUTE monarchy. Aside from the issues with Diana a decade and a half ago they actually maintain a positive and well respected image.
2 Jan 07
Agreed. :-)
@xnipher (544)
• Philippines
22 Feb 07
yes.... its Monarchy? it is like a heritage in a country... a country preserves one of the oldest kind of government... at least if a one country is a Monarch there is a less corruption going on because people respects a Queen or King or other royalties.. that's why the royalties are contented in their positions...
• India
3 Jan 07
no i dont think so its needed
@snowflake5 (1579)
• United States
3 Jan 07
I don't think the monarchy is there because of tourism. They are there because of tradition. As for cost, I don't think they cost any more than presidents (eg in the french presidential race, Segoline Royal, the centre-left candidate, is campaigning on reducing the costs incurred in running the presidential palaces, which have increased seven-fold (!) during Chirac's time). I think you get a cost regardless of whether you have a monarchy or presidency. I like The Queen, but must admit to loathing Prince Charles. I think if he succeeds to the throne, the monarchy is in real danger of becoming toppled. However, I think the reason the old lady is hanging on is that she means to pass the crown to her grandson, William (why else would someone aged 80 continue to work?). I like William, I think he has the common touch.
• India
3 Jan 07
maybe you'r right in the sense that the monarchy does not actively participate in the affairs of the state. you can very well abolish the monarchy and preserve the royal palaces and estates for tourist attraction, like we'e done in India. in many Indian states, former royals continue to live in parts of their palaces and rent out the rest of the estate to tourists. this provides a dual advantage of adding revenue to private royal estates as well as to the Govt. however, just as the GBP is the strongest in finance, a monarchy lends a kind of old world charm and a certian distinction to its country. all in all, i think its a good idea to continue with the 'old fogey' if you can afford it!
@blueman (16513)
• India
3 Jan 07
monarchy as such is an outdated term and i do not think anyone would love it but preserving your historal values is also important.
@suny1946 (275)
• China
3 Jan 07
Yes,we need.
• Benin
3 Jan 07
I really think that britain does not need a monarchy again.That is very useless for the country and if great britain is really a democracy the people should get rid of that monarchy,for nobody is superior to anyone in life, we are all born equal and have the same rights and duties.I really think that nobody can pretend to higher cosiderations just because he is born in a particular familly and this for his whole life.I think that british have to change this before we can call their country a democracy.
@nickventere (1423)
• Zambia
3 Jan 07
Actually, I was just wondering: what purpose do they serve? Does the monarchy get to decide if ur prime minister should be another head-of-state's poodle as well?
• United States
3 Jan 07
I have to say, that as a child I greatly admired Princess Diana, and I was sad that she passed away. She was royalty that really tried to make a difference and "break the mold" that the other members of the Royal Family follow. I have hope for Prince William, but I am not too sure about Prince Harry, hopefully we will have more of Diana and none of Charles in the rest of them. The reason the British Royal Family is so important, is not only tourism, which I agree, is a major factor, but also for history. They keep the history of the Kingdom alive, just by being there. Now if they never gave up Scotland, it is obvious that they would never give up being rulers in general. To answer your question, the "world" does not need monarchy, but England itself, unfortunately, as i said before, is history, all history.
@AskAlly (3627)
• Canada
3 Jan 07
After all the hoopla with diana and fergie and camilla etc etc I'm not sure the royal family is even very intersting anymore. I would have followed what diana was doing on a humanitarian basis but for the rest of them....nah just boring. By the way I know alot of dogs named King, Queenie, Duke and Duchess.
@elixir (1456)
• Guam
3 Jan 07
I don’t really do controversy, all my reviews on ciao have really been things I enjoy or have liked and can recommend so this is my first review on a somewhat controversial subject and the first time I can really be accused of having a rant