There are worse things that can happen. (Should the monarchy be abolished?)

Member Name: Bryn Pearson

Product:	Should the monarchy be abolished?
Date:	11/06/02 (321 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: they don't do much in terms of trying to run the country, you can elect as big an idiot as you can breed

Disadvantages: so it's not an equal opportunities position

I'm not sentimental particularly, I am pro equal rights an opportunities were feasible. I don't think getting rid of the Queen would make the UK a better place, and here's why.

They cost the Tax payer money. Yes. But in terms of what they do for tourism, we probably get a fair chunk of it back. I think a good look at taxing them might be in order though.

They aren't democratic: No, they aren't. How democtraic was Bush's election I ask? its notable that America hasn't had large numbers of gay, female, black, or native presidents, so I don't believe that democracy gets rid of priveledge especially. Money always buys rank.

A democtratically elected president would have more right to exersize power over the country: Does this not bother you? The Queen can, but really speaking she never does. Witness the French situation of the last five years - a right wing president, a socialist government and gridlock. The Americans get themselves into much the same mess all the time. Our figurehead keeps her nose out of politics and gives the government plenty of scope to balls things up in the manner of their chosing.

You are at the mercy of who gets born into the royal family - you could end up with an idiot. Again true, at which point we can as a nation shrug and say "well, they're so interbred, it had to happen sooner or later." If you vote one in (naming no names but think small shrub here)the nation has to live with the shame of having put a total prat into the highest office. We are not responsible for them. Furthermore, while the Queen can technically declare war on other nations, is she going to? I doubt it. Bush on the other hand, has his finger near the big red button and a quite evident fondness for shows of force.

The Royal family doesn't set a good moral example: True enough, they've had their problems. But Bush's daughters have been drinking underage, Clinton.....? Vo
ting them in doesn't guarentee they will behave, just look at our own politicians.

A few other points in their defence. They do give us some continuity - you get a monarch for a lot longer than you get a president, they are trained to the job from an early age. They give us a focal point for national identity - maybe not a good one, but they are around for long enough that can at least try to build on it. They give us a lot of pomp and pagentry. Lots of people enjoy that, so why not? When there's a crisis, they make an excellent rallying point.

Undoubtedly the monarchy will have to evolve to suit the changing needs of the country - they will have to change their relationship with religion sooner or later, they will have to give up the sexist habits of prefereing Kings, they will have to pay more tax. They've adapted before and in far more dramatic ways, so I don't forsee any real problems.

They might not be perfect, nothing is, but I honestly can't see that the alternatives are in any way better, and they do give us a lot of entertainment it has to be said.

Summary: