Are royals relevant?
In May 2023, the front-page news in the UK will be all about the British royal family and the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla.
However, this news has reignited old discussions about the role of royalty in the world.
While many people are excited for the coronation and are planning celebrations, others think that the monarchy should have ended with the death of Queen Elizabeth II.
So, is there a role for the monarchy in the modern world?
It’s time for you to decide. Try to use some of the following keywords in your answers: history, power, fairness, tradition, racism, popularity, equality, colonialism, wealth.
Let us know what you think in the comments below
- Do you think there is a role for royalty in the modern world? Why or why not?
- Are you interested in news about royalty?
- Challenge: who might disagree with you?
Comments (191)
Is there a role for monarchy in the modern world? I do not think that it is important to have kings in our modern era, because we do not need any king over any tribe, state, country, or even a city. Why do we not need kings? If people become kings, they become proud of themselves and do not look at those who are less than them in money and lineage, but only look at the kings and the rich, this is a bad thing. They work to colonize villages, cities, and neighboring countries, and they treat their people harshly and make them pay taxes, and so on..... Equality does not give anyone his right if money comes to poor workers. It is possible for kings to take money and expel the poor and not give him his money, and equality appears in They eat the finest food and never show compassion for the poor. This is a bad thing. Therefore, I do not think that we need kings. I think that we and we are equal people. We are all the same. This is how racism, colonialism, or even difference of equality between people does not spread. Therefore, I do not think that the matter of kings is somewhat comfortable
Is this true of all monarchies? For example, you say 'they never show any compassion for the poor'. Many royal family members in the UK support or run charities. For example, the Prince's Trust. Can you challenge yourself to find other examples?
I agree with you because even in my country, kings like Kabaka Ronald Mutebi the second also helps people most especially the needy children and the poor.
During the lock down[COVID-19 period] the royal families supplied food to the needy.
I agree because... that is the nicest and are king or goverment wold not do that.
The system of government in my country is a democratic system based on the people choosing the ruler through elections, so I have not seen the monarchy up close, but it is witnessed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Britain. Although I am against the monarchy, I would like to make a point regarding the issue of not feeling the poor and meeting their needs, which I did not feel according to what I read and heard about the monarchy in some countries. This issue is related to the ruler and his method of managing his state and has nothing to do with the way he assumed power. In some countries the system is democratic and people suffer from hunger, on the contrary there is a monarchy and people live in luxury.
I'm not sure about this because yes the ruler either to be governor or king could form the way to deal with his people and he will have his own policy to run his own state .but the difference not just in the king and governor themselves but also between the people around him. Will they help him to look after his people or make him live in away from them.
So concerning kings.
Will the royal princes and ministers who live in palaces in an auxiliary life urge their king to think about poor people.will they enable him to wonder if his people are fed up or hungry.if they are well or sick.
I don't think so. They will do their best to keep the king away from markets .farms and factories. In order to keep things as they are.
On the contrary.the elected governor who is surrounded with ordinary people from different ranks of society may feel of his people and work hard to feed hungry people and treat sick people.
I agree because some monarchies are good while some are bad so its not on a general basis to discern whether a monarchy may/will be bad or not it depends on the mindset of the rulers and the way he manages his country, and resources , economically and socially some kings are good and actually run the country well justifying that not every monarchy is bad this type oinking have character and are compassionate sort of like the type we see in "Disney" movies and some times in our present day. So this type of monarchy should continue to exist and are relevant to their country and the world at large.
Thank you . I would like to dwell on the continuity of the monarchy, because it is associated with fundamental changes. It is not reasonable for a king to rule the way he did a hundred years ago. The situation has changed and conditions are no longer the same as before.
Minds change and develop, people's awareness increases, and people always like to choose. Imposed things make people bored.
I am not against any system of government, I am against the method and method, as all systems have their advantages and disadvantages
I agree with you that in almost all countries the king has nothing to do with ruling and issuing laws (this is correct), but rather the king applies the law as he is part of the executive authority that implements laws and applies them to people and issuing decisions is within the Legislative Council as it is called in our country and is called In France, the National Assembly is in addition to the parliament. As for the king, one of his duties is to be the representative of the people in external meetings, so he must explore the conditions of his people well in order to convey their message to the world more fully, and so that he can estimate their conditions and protest with them against inappropriate laws. Also, one of his duties is to attract projects that develop the country, raise the economic level, eliminate unemployment in the country, and draw the attention of the government to build more public facilities for the people than hospitals and schools.
I do not mean for everyone ** but I mean that most of the kings are like this But I liked what you said when you said that members of the royal family support the poor. I hope they continue on the path of goodness I am psychologically against the order of the monarchy I also believe that there is no role for ownership in this world. They make people look completely discriminatory. An example of this is if any customer enters any place, for example, a clothing store (Capital Mall), and suddenly, for example, the owner of the store enters and he is a prince, and no one likes him. From customers because they are less than him, if he is of a class or lineage, then it is possible to expel all customers from the store This thing is very bad This is discrimination
You should not impose the personality of the arrogant on all your princes and princes, as there are many humble and beloved princes in society, and there are always haters, but the matter depends on his actions. I would like to give an example of the deceased Princess Diana. Many also like the Jordanian monarchy when it provided large supplies to support the Palestinians during the war, and there are many examples of humble kings and princes.
No, I do not think that this is the basic solution. Sometimes the president is unjust and steals from the salaries of all the workers. If the workers go to talk to him, he refuses to increase their salaries and also refuses to reduce the long hours that the workers work. But if this is not the basic solution, then the workers can go to the government. Or the boss of the boss to work and talk to him about this matter and that the boss oppresses them and so on. By this thing, the rights of the workers can be prepared. This thing is better than a strike, because by striking we lose everything and we cannot meet the needs of the house, etc., and poverty spreads quickly.
I also agree with you, but there are also unjust kings who impose taxes on poor workers who cannot meet the needs of their children and families. This is not fair at all, because kings are the richest category in the state and society. Why do they impose taxes? Do they lack money? What do they gain from it? I hope you answer me and thank you
Yes and no,most monarch do not show companion to the poor because most of them are Historical and spiritual figure to the society ,they do negotiate principle of democracy and obedience to monarch is absolute. They misuse all this power and use them negatively.
While some of them have contributed positively to our society. Thou my Country practice the presidential system of government. But having a good monarch lies in the hand of the people,some monarch are elected due to some qualities,while some are hereditary and if the people decided to choose fairly it will be of great benefits.
A good monarch will bring ,
* Unity and orderliness
* They quickly adapt to emergency situation.
* Protection and defend the people.
Example of monarch who contributed in our country and state development are Alaafin of Oyo(lamidi oyiwola) , queen Amina of Zaria.
There is a statement which says"they are good eggs,so are the bad eggs".
Same applies to the monarch,they are good and bad.
about what you said that we don't need any king over any tribe, well to me i think we need kings why?because every human is different coz you cant tell me the i behave will be like for another person so some of the kings are different like our king Ronald Mutebii the second loves and helps people so much and he loves to abide the culture rules and regulations which is so good
I agree with you.. strongly
This is the case of countries that have kings.
This is why I do not recommend the presence of kings in countries.
But if they are equal to everyone, as I said!
There must be kings.
I agree with this, as the monarchy are unnecessary, since we already have the government, all they do is waste tax payers money on things the people don't need. They do however help the poor, with the Princes trust, Royal British Legion etc. They spend our money on the coronation, upkeep of their homes and salaries of royal employers. They have all the money but don't use it to help the people, or focus on what the country needs, and uses their money on themselves but not their own country.
I speak of kings who do not help people whether they are in need or not and only hit taxes yeah, and also understand nothing in sympathy or help, that they think only of their beauty in their houses and palaces. And beautiful things, and they don't think or look around people who can't find a bite to eat, they only care about themselves
They are very conceited and arrogant, they tax people, they don't think if they need money or not, they only care about themselves
I understand your point, but I don't agree with you. I think there are a lot of types of governments and monarchs around the world. Most of them are more or less caritative and trying to help people. There are also some exceptions of people of shelfish people who don't have any intention of helping people or improve the country.
I agree because this a very good way of putting across what the monarchy
actually is and how it affects people.
I think that there is not a role for royalty in this world because, royalty can make people to start discrimination.
For example: if you're in a high class restaurant and suddenly a prince enters the owner of the restaurant could tell every other customer to leave which is highly rude. So instead of royalty everyone should be t
I agree because... The existence of royals can lead discrimination and favoritism among citizens of the country. For example if a young prince goes to school with other children, there might be a possibility that he will be favored over other children. Another disadvantage of having a royal family is how much the country spends on them per year. If there is no royal family in a country, the budget can go to other things like infastructutal development and youth empowerment.
I agree because... royalty can make people to start discrimination. For example if a person from a royal family attends normal people's school then a big difference will be shown to the rest of the children for example from the teachers if a teacher can shout at everyone then she won't at the child from the royal family because she will be threatened that she will be sued and she doesn't want to lose her job .
I support you because even in a school if a prince/princess comes and starts learning from there, he/she will be treated so special and differently from others. He/she will also take others like his/her slaves and this will make other children to start feeling bad and even leave the school.So royalty should not be considered a lot.
In addition to you I also think that royalty has no role because it causes dictatorship and some people are regarded more important than others for example in my country there is no equality, when a king is entering some where for some business people lie down and he walks on them.There is no equality when it comes to e.
I agree with you because that's exactly
what is happening in America now when someone from The royal family comes to a general place The owner of this place will tell everyone to leave that's just because they are from a high level and rich,so royalty really can make people discrimination against normal people and people will hate the royal family
I agree with you because if there are royalties certain principles that won't be in favour of the less priviledged would need to be imposed.There won't be equality because those who come from royal homes would be more favoured than those from poor homes.
In my opinion, the monarchy has less formal roles. The monarchy focus for the national identity, unity and pride; give a sense of stability in a country. There should be a role of royalty in the modern world. I agree with you when you said that they discriminate between them and the subject. But remember if there is a negative effect on some thing there should be a positive effect, royals are good for the economy, the monarchy is not only a symbol, it helps the businesses for the British land, not only within British but also beyond.
Hi,
I completely and sincerely agree with you.
This is one of the disadvantages which makes people refuse royalty system in their countries.
For example, there's no sense to let king Charles 3 to travel without a passport and to drive without a license since he was young .
That leads to have discrimination . I think royal families should be under the law .
The Royalty has always been among us since the dawn of civilization, all tribes had kings/ leaders , the leading empires of the Ancient age had kings, Rome/Persia. And the great empires had kings , Spain/ France / UK . To this day only Britain and Spain conserve their royalty despite great reject by some of the population of both countries, nonetheless I reckon that royalties are essential in countries that have had a long ruling dynasty as it's nothing more than another cultural icon . In addition not all kings are as some people call it , "useless" for example, the king of Spain is the leader of the army . In Britain, Queen Elizabeth was a massive cultural icon which everyone loved, just like princess Diana . In the UAE for example you can go like once a month to the king's family and tell them about your problems . Also in those Arabian countries like the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain were the only countries to not confine people in their homes when COVID was a thing , you know why? Because despite those countries being "dictatorships" the monarch listens to the people and lets them decide . Unfortunately this isn't the same in less developed countries , take the Kim dynasty in Korea for example, or the king of Thailand . However I believe that a king should be elected by the people on the other hand , I reject the idea of rejecting a king just because we live on "modern times" . In most of the occasions, it is better to embrace the traditional system and reject modernity .
I agree with you, mornachy is part of many cultures and should be preserved. For example in Nigeria we have Obas, Emirs and Chiefs who are the leaders of the land. With the democratic system in Nigeria they are under the elected officials. Although they are not selected by the people, they preserve the cultural heritage of the their respective areas.
I disagree but I know how you feel, tradition can be hard to let go of but sometimes it is better to let go of this. The monarchy is a symbol of colonialism and the crown jewels mainly came from other countries. There is also controversy with one of the late Queen's friends who was proved to be racist. Though they start charities, they can carry on these charities without their status. I also think it is inappropriate and insensitive for the King to use taxpayers money for a new carriage when there is a cost of living crisis; the royal family is outdated and serve no political purpose. They are there for traditional purposes only. King Charles in himself also holds controversy on how he cheated on Diana with Camilla then married Camilla after Diana's death.
WOW!!!!!
with all this information I really love your comment. Thank you for making this post I really learned a lot and I got a better understanding of this topic.
I liked the way you expressed yourself and make everything so understandable.
THANK YOU.
Agree to disagree. It is true, the monarchy are held in higher respect than the working class, and a restaurant owner would be obliged to follow orders from someone higher up. However, the monarchy are still people, and I believe that someone should be able to be stern towards them, so I wouldn't call it "discrimination". From my knowledge, the royal family in my kingdom has never outright stated that they think themselves better than the working class. They do have an easier life, and perhaps some particular (modern) monarchs could become big-headed, yet I still would not call it discrimination.
I understand what you're saying, and it is different in other countries and or regions, and I want to make it clear I am only speaking for my county. It would be much appreciated if someone could tell me what their monarchy is like where they live!
I agree with you, however I disagree with the scenario you have given. I think that monarchy generally like to incorporate the ideas of the public into the things they do, like more charitable work, or contributing to aspects of other countries that need some additional help. Due to this, I think that should a prince, or someone with royal status, enter a restaurant, then they wouldn't make everybody leave, and would instead try to make a good impression on their citizens!
I understand your view of the situation and I partially agree with you but there is a major flaw to your argument. I would believe that a restaurant would keep all customers because it would more than likely drive up sales as people would view the restaurant as a great place to eat due to a member of the royal family has displayed a liking to their cuisine. This would boost business so then the owner of the establishment would therefore be able to open up new locations to spread love of their cuisine. I do believe that the view of having a monarch is very outdated due to the fact they are only for ceremonial uses and then there is no use for them due to them not having any political power therefore meaning there was no point for them anymore.
Hi cherished melon,
I totally agree with your point in some cases royalty causes discrimination, I recently learned that commoners aren't allowed to initiate contact with the Queen or King unless the Queen or King initiates contact first, also some royals are made to forfeit their positions just because they decided to marry commoners. Why is that so? I find that unfair because this makes the commoners seem inferior and it makes the royals seem superior. According to what astounding meerkat said "monarchs are unnecessary since there are already governments'' and I am in full support of what he said because there's no need for kings and queens when there is already a government I feel its quite irrelevant.
I agree because, In my own opinion the restaurant owner did something very wrong, by doing such he has made his chances of losing customers a lot higher all in the name of respecting royals, The person who may have been sent out will go and tell other people that in that restaurant there is lack of hospitality, And I believe to win the heart of customers one has to be hospital to them, Now by doing this he will lose many customers making the business to die out. So monarchies may make people start discrimination and also make people stand chances to lose their sources of living. And also Monarchies are supported by local tax policies.
Taxpayers are forced to furnish the costs that a monarch incurs over the course of governing in virtually every instance of this government structure. It is no different than paying a President or Prime Minister a salary, but other costs are government-funded as well. In the US, taxpayers would pay for the upkeep of the White House, but not the upkeep of a President’s personal home. In a monarchy, both would be expected.
No I don't think there is a role for royalty in the modern world because our system is better we vote for who we think should rule our country. The kings with absolute power make decisions on their own but the president has people to help him make the right decisions. We also get to pick our own leaders instead of being stuck with one.
I feel that the royals not necessary in the world, They are basically ceremonial. They practically don't earn the position but rather are given which is quite unfair to other citizens. This can belittle the citizens and make them feel less of themselves, therefore promoting discrimination. They partially participate in government and issues concerning the people but rather take the glory for everything. Yes ,they have minor roles to play in the society, but people who may be more capable are not given the chance to execute some plans/projects done by the royal families because they are not Royalty. This is quite unfair and rational to the citizens ruled by monarchies.
Can you give examples of any ceremonial roles of kings and queens?
Ceremonial roles differ from country to country or monarchy to monarchy.
They have ceremonial laws such as, opening remark for important meetings and conferences.
They also bestow honors for people and give power to deserving people.
They attend important burials of highly noted people while representing the state.
They appoint guards and officers.
Some of them extend power through treaties and sharing of ceremonial titles.
Through my research i have noticed that most ceremonial roles are carried out by monarchies with "constitutions".
Rather different monarchies have different roles they play whether ceremonial or not.
These roles are quite essential in the stability of the monarchy and heroical system of government.
To answer your question, one example is she opens each session of the Parliament in person
Certainly, kings and queens often have ceremonial roles such as the coronation ceremony, state visits to othe countries to represent their own country, oppening parliament, the investiture of honors and awards, and welcoming forign dignitaries.
From my research, Although The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation. As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history.
Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom.
In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.
Although The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation.
As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.
In all these roles The Sovereign is supported by members of their immediate family.
So your intent is that the opportunity is not given to all those who have responsibility and are able to rule to take their right. that's awesome. Because the method of elections, from my point of view, is better than the monarchy, because the people have complete freedom in choosing their president, and thus all people will have the opportunity to participate in the elections. What is your opinion?
I disagree because...
A good king always thinks about the interest of his people and for him it is a priority And for me, the noble king is like the pillars of the house, if you raise the whole house, you have to think about this, and among these risks is the occurrence of chaos in the state and the inability to control the mother of matters in it, so the king is good for protecting his people from all kinds of injustice and oppression This was a point of view for me, thank you very much
I don't think royality will play a big role in the modern world. The hereditary monarchy has defects as well as advantages. The country may be subject to a monarchy ruled by justice, security and love during the reign of one of the kings, but when the heir receives the throne and rule, this heir is a bad, unfair person who does not enjoy wisdom and is characterized by extravagance and extravagance of the state’s money. There are fair elections that achieve the principle of democracy, justice and equality, in order to elect a leader or ruler who has popularityand avoids racism,and apply fairness.
I think that the role of royals should be solely traditional. For example, during Her Majesty the Late Queen Elizabeth II's platinum jubilee, we attended a series of frankly pointless workshops. Yes, she technically has the power to remove the Government - but is she really going to do that? Yes, she's the most important person in the country and rules over different countries - but is she really ranked above the PM? I think we should keep them and remove them of all power. Also, perhaps we should put some kind of obligation to donate x% ( maybe about 5-10%) of their money. But I am against completely abolishing them - they can be well-liked popular figures who know how to advise and understand the PM and his decisions. However, I think that earls who get their seats in the House of Lords don't deserve the honour - that's an important place which some of them disregard. In fact in 2-021-2022 the average attendance was 365 out of 777 - ridiculously low!
Can you explain to students from around the world what our House of Lords is and why it's bad that people don't attend?
In the UK there are two chambers in Parliament - the House of Commons, which is full of 650 elected members who represented "constituencies" ( areas in the UK ). There's also the House of Lords, which is full of non-elected members, ranging from bishops to earls. Labour ( a party in the UK) cut down on the amount of hereditary titles, but there still remain ninety-two. The House of Lords decides whether a bill is acceptable or not - if they decide it isn't then the matter stops there (except in a few occasions). If they decide it is, it goes to the House of Commons who vote on it. Because it's so important it's really worrying that so little people attend, and Labour have proposed that the House of Lords be replaced by an elected chamber of experts. After all, a bishop who's in the House of Lords has to know stuff about religion, not just politics and economics. However, an expert is already very knowledgeable in that field and would be able to give the job their whole attention.
I agree with Labour, and think that completely destroying the House of Lords, which some people have suggested, is not a good idea because having just one chamber makes it - and more importantly the people in it - more important.
Thanks @Centred_Moose - just want to say this is well summarised, and well done for including some statistics on your first post; it's always good to support your points with objective data. Do you know if attendance at the House of Lords has been trending in a certain way over the years?
I think you believe that the role of royals should be limited to tradition and ceremonial duties. While it's true that they no longer have much political power, their position still carries a lot of symbolic importance. As for the obligation to donate a portion of their wealth, that is definitely a possibility that could be explored.
Regarding the earls in the House of Lords, I understand your frustration with their low attendance. It is a privilege to hold a seat in the House of Lords, and those who are granted the honor should take it seriously. However, it's important to note that attendance isn't the only measure of a member's contribution. Many Lords may be working behind the scenes or contributing in other ways.
I think it's up to the British people and their elected representatives to decide the role and function of the royal family and the House of Lords. However, it's important to consider the historical and cultural significance of these institutions and the role they play in shaping the identity of the United Kingdom.
There is a need for the monarchy's role in the modern world because when a monarchy is on the throne, there will be a lot of fairness in the sense that the king or queen will treat his or her people equally and fairly. A monarchy also provides a sense of stability and continuity by overseeing the affairs, activities, and everything about that country. This gives them great popularity and power; tradition is also highly respected and treated with dignity.
Can you give evidence to support your opinion here? Can we say that ALL monarchies act the same way?
No, I do not think so, because there are kings who are kind to the poor and sympathize with them and give them money so that they can spend on themselves and pay charitable societies to show compassion for the poor, the poor and the orphans. And there are arrogant kings who think only of themselves and do not sympathize with the poor and it is possible in some cases to make citizens pay taxes for them and distinguish between the rich and the poor and do not make people equal. This is bad
I agree because... I feel that everyone is different therefore they have a different\particular way in which they view the world. Sometimes, they is always a mentality or belief which an individual strictly abide to. This also applies to the royalties/royal families.
I will say that not all monarchs act the same way for example the late queen Elizabeth II.
We recognise Queen Elizabeth II's legacy and the significance of what her country has accomplished throughout its history, from the dissolution of an empire to the present.
Regardless of whether it is constitutional or not, the monarchy system offers a level of stability and continuity that is unmatched by any other type of government, particularly the republican system that we take pride in today. The reign of the queen and its conclusion show that, in contrast to nations where the head of state alternates between various political ideologies multiple times a decade, monarchies strengthen their nation's stability by upholding a stable head of state. Even though Queen Elizabeth II didn't rule over every country on the planet, her ability to maintain a steady and powerful presence on the international stage for 70 years inspires respect rather than lamenting over the accomplishments of her reign and the system of government it represents. We must recognise that the constitutional monarchy has developed in leaps and bounds since most nations forcibly left it, though some nations didn't publicly mourn the passing of Queen Elizabeth II.
Personally, I feel the royal family are irrelevant in the ruling of a country , no offence to the royal families. I find it unfair that only a particular family gets to rule a nation without giving the commoners a chance to rule .Isn't it unfair that its only people that are born into a particular lineage that are to rule , what happens to the others who weren't born into royalty, why don't they get a chance to rule? The members of the royal family are privileged to be royal family members, but why can't the commoners have the privilege to rule? I feel that it shouldn't just be a privilege to rule but something that should be worked for. I feel the people with the best leadership skills should be given the power not just people who are born into royalty.
I feel that the only role of royalty in the modern society is ceremonial. I have no problem with the royal family, because I see them as a National symbol for their respective countries as far as their role is not absolute. In Britain, for example, the royal family has been a tradition that has been around for centuries, and they are very popular, but they don't have political power. I feel that this is better because in the olden days when some of the wealth of the Royal Family came from colonialism, there was not exactly equality between the colonizers and their colonies. Sometimes the members of the colonies were seen as beneath their colonizers. I do not have any problems whatsoever with having a royal family if their position does not affect the opinion of the people in their own affairs.
i think the role of royalty in the modern world is not neccesary. i personally find it unjust that a family gets to rule a country and do not give others the chance to rule. According to my research having '' a system of hereditary power at the top of the country's political, military and religious institutions perpetuates class divisions and inequality ''
For instance if an individual or group of individual want to execute projects they might not be able to do so because they are not part of the royals as storytelling_dog rightfully mentioned.
I also feel the are not necessary in the modern world as the promote discrimination for example : if we are in a very highly sophisticated cinema and suddenly a member of the royal family approaches there the operator of the cinema will eventually tell all of the people who are at the cinema to leave which to me is extremely rude there by making the people feel less important about themselves.
I support your view because when these royals are even moving round the community an announcement is made for the other members of that community to avoid that direction and if a person is got on that road or path at the time the royal family is passing such a person will be subjected to a punishment which is unjust
I agree with you...... But do you think that if there is a place dedicated to the members of the royal family, such as their own restaurant, this will be a nice thing for members of society? I also have another question. Do you think it is necessary to hold elections to choose a king or head of state for why and why No ?
...because I read in one of the books that in Belgium few people vote to choose their president, so the state forced members of society to vote, so that there would be a large number of people who vote, and imposed fines for those who do not vote.
I agree with you that royalty in the modern world is a bit outdated and that the royal family can be held to a higher standard than other citizens when it comes to businesses and other events but this situation does not only happen for royals but a situation like this could be the same for famous actors or singers.
I don't think there is a role for monarchy in the world. Let's go back to history to find the right answer. This monarchy achieves racism. When Prince Harry and his wife decided to back away from the British royal family, it was because they felt racist and the king was chosen according to tradition. The king remains a ruler until his death and the crown prince comes after him. This is unimaginable. We must make people equal and make them free to choose their king. I see that the monarchy, whether modern or old, is not important because it fulfills many bad terms such as colonialism and racism, and it must be eradicated in order to achieve justice.
Can you explain how the British monarchy have been accused of racism?
Your question, my teacher, is very cool.
I've heard this story before and I know why.
When asked by Sawsan Hase Nicozi Fulani. Where do you come from? and where are you from? I know you are from Africa. Nicozi replied, "I am from Britain, I was born in Britain." But Sawsan Hussey, assistant to the late Queen Elizabeth and nanny of Prince William, denied this and did not believe her because she was black. The question asked by Sawsan Hussey is considered a sensitive question for British society and prone to racism.
after a short time.......
This conversation reached social media from Nicozi herself..
The story has only been known from one side, that of Nicozi Fulani.
So he accused the British monarchy of racism.
Recently after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, We watched a video of the Royals, head of states and prime ministers around the world who came to condole King Charles III. King Charles refused to shake hands with the black men who came to pay their respects to his mother but accepted the handshake of other white hands. Further more, all African presidents were asked to board the same bus for the funeral after being denied of hand shake while the US president was allowed to go with his entire presidential convoy. This clearly shows a sign of racism from the current King
Also one of the reasons why Prince Harry left the royalty with his wife is because of racism.
Hi amazing_horse, thanks for your response. Whilst there may be reasons offered for some of your examples and context is important (the US president for example is often given special treatment around the world and travels in different ways), this doesn't stop people feeling a certain way when confronted with actions like these. What feeling might people have seeing these things described?
I think the main question here should actually be..."Do royal play any important role???"
Although The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation. They simply just serve as a national symbol to/of the nation. Like they partially play any essential roles in government or political issues. They are paid huge sums of money for the little they do concerning government. This may be seen as unfair to individuals who do most of the work due to the facts that their efforts are being neglected.
Hi @Agreeable_Language - this is a fantastic point. The first thing we should do in a discussion should be to ensure we are asking the right questions, so well done for noticing and reframing. To follow your line of enquiry - do you think the symbolic role royal families across the world play is symbolic?
Using the UK as an example, there is a great deal of support for the royal family due to their history and ties with our national identity. Is it the same in Nigeria?
In Nigeria, the Royals are not as recognized as that of the UK, because there are about 371 ethnic groups in Nigeria and each of them has its own traditional rulers, but wherever they come from, they are highly respected there. For example, when greeting the Oba of Benin, it is tradition to kneel to do so, as a sign of respect. Rulers like the Ooni of Ife and the Gbong Gwom of Jos are highly regraded as cultural figures. These rulers represent the sustenance of traditional Nigerian values and culture from long ago.
Thanks @Enigmatic_Salak - it's always nice to learn more about other cultures! What would you say are traditional Nigerian values, and how do these families embody them?
To me how the Nigerian royal families embody our values is by the way that they still adhere to the custom and traditions of each of their tribes, you see some of our rulers are either christians or muslims they do not necessarily believe in all the traditional beliefs but for the happiness of their people and also the sustenance of our culture they still do their duties .In every tribe of Nigeria they have different norms and values these to me are what we acknowledge as Nigerian values according to enigmatic_salak, like the way we greet our elders and royalty and many other things ; the royals job is to make sure all these stay alive in our country in other not to forget our true roots. The role of royals is important in many ways of course with its disadvantages but we just need to look at the brighter side of things to see the prosperity it brings us.
In my opinion, I would simply say that the royal families/royalties do not actually play as much role as we might think they do due to the fact that they actually do not contribute much to government. They might just simply serve as the face of a country....who really knows?
I understand that there is a great deal of support for the royal families from the UK due to their histories and ties with your national identity but you also realize that the money which is being used to support the royalties could be used to provide social amenities. Based on my present surrounds, I would say that its not really necessary due to the fact that presidential rule is being practiced in Nigeria. Although they are still being firmly supported in various ways...I hope you understand now.
From my point of view, each era has its own characteristics. The ancient times were characterized by the presence of princesses and even in the Middle Ages there were kings even in this era as well, but I think that the era of kings has ended because in the past there were different rituals for kings and they were more appropriate than these rituals in this era. Therefore, I do not think that this era is the era of kings. what do you think?!
But actually when we look at some of the few achievements of the British monarchy and in detail I mean queen Elizabeth who revolutionized the commonwealth which is a political association of 56 countries and the formation of this association has actually brought about positive impact to its member and this is actually a good feat to achieve as it will increase the history of the British as a country which created an association in which its members could benefit from each other and this means that royals can actually be relevant to their that is if they use their status for something useful but another thing is that monarchies bring about discrimination in society because they fell because of their status commoners are unfit to be in their presence and that is a dent to the true meaning of royalty as royals are meant to be people who love their people and serve them and their kingdom faithfully. So all what I am trying to say is that royals can be relevant if they choose to be useful to the society. Royals are people who have roles in the society but some of them choose to abstain from them and that is what makes monarchies to be criticized badly and unjustly some may see royals as people who are just corrupt and figure heads but that is not totally true some actually work and bring about positive change in their society.
Hi @Congenial_Pear - it'd be great to hear some specifics of how Queen Elizabeth revolutionised the Commonwealth. Were those changes were initiated by her and the royal family, or did the changes just occur during her reign?
The Queen has paid much attention to the organisation as one king described it as a great phenomenon of the Commonwealth, which is also an element of great stability and a great good. This was represented by visiting all Commonwealth countries at least once, meeting with all heads of government in private sessions and the achievements of the Commonwealth appeared in areas and activities such as science and education.
It has also strengthened economic, political, linguistic and cultural ties between member countries. It also supported the pillars of democracy and human rights.
From my point of view, ownership has no role in the modern era. Kings, if they enter a public place, leave the place, even if it is a public place. It is possible for the king to forget his subjects and not care about them. Some kings are distracted by the life of luxury and palaces, and their greed for power and lands leads to the weakness of the state and its decline in several aspects, including economic ones. So there must be no communication between the king and his subjects
Yes I agree because the status of royalty is higher than the normal people there is no communication between the king and his subjects so the people don't even have a voice on matters concerning them or their well being. Every thing is based on the say of the king this gives way for harsh despotic and autocratic rule. Unlike presidents which are usually elected and chosen kings are not basically the people get what they get whether they like it or not and this means the citizens just "roll with It" These mean there is no room for them to express themselves. This leaves the people under the mercy of their king.
I don't think there is a role for royalty in the modern world because we have the government. And the government have more responsibilities than royalty, there are more advantages of government, for example, the people who are in the government are chosen by the citizens unlike royalty where power is just given without caring about what the citizens want and sometimes the citizens may not be happy with the decision but they have no choice but to accept it. Another reason is that royalties have almost no responsibilities at all, the government do all the work while they do almost nothing.
Can you give examples for your opinions? Can you claim all monarchs to be the same?
An example is the Andorra monarchy because, according to my research, I found that they have no veto power (the power or right vested in one branch of a government to cancel or postpone the decisions or enactments, etc of another branch) over legislation passed by the general council, although they do retain a veto over certain international treaties.
No, I don't think all monarchs are the same because some rule side by side with the government an example is Morroco and some don't have a purpose like the Andorra monarch.
No, never, not all kings are alike, as there are some arrogant kings who only love themselves, so they do not care if the citizens eat or live in peace and security, or that they have a home or not, so they only care about themselves. This is a very, very bad thing and causes injustice, racism and inequality among the population of the country that the king rules It is possible for citizens to go on strike over the injustice they receive from this unjust king There is no doubt that there are good kings who help the poor and needy
The monarchy has a great role in society.
I hope that one day my country will be under the monarchy.
Because the king is better than the president, the president will not last long and he will be changed, and therefore he will not care about the state.
Whereas, the king will work on the development, prosperity and advancement of the state because his rule will continue and he will have a responsibility to build a civilized society.
According to what I see, urbanization, culture, the best politicians, the best intellectuals, and most importantly, the best life in the country is under the monarchy.
How do you know all kings or queens will be dedicated?
I agree because... in the way they will respond the to people's cry and do the needful to them in order to fulfill their heart's desires . And how they will organise their people in order to gain their goals like in paying the taxes and conducting elections and many others.
I am not so sure about the dedication of the kings and queens but what I am sure of is that what ever they do is for the development of their countries and kingdoms. Though some may not be interested in other affairs apart from that of their kingdoms, I am sure they are all working for the greater good and prosperity of their nations. So in my opinion none of the kings and queens are supposed to be quoted for the mistakes they make.
How can you be sure they are all working for the greater good? Are you making assumptions here?
I agree with [exuberant nature] because in my country our leaders are working for the greater good thou some are trying to bring in corruption, the government is striving to reduce this and that is why I think [exuberant nature] is not making assumptions.
Kings have a symbolism for the people, and they must contribute to humanitarian, health and social services, and take care of children, the sick, and the homeless.
Hello, thank you for your response.
You made me see from another perspective.
I changed my view.
I measured it the wrong way and with a limited perspective.
After reading all the points of view and comments of my colleagues, I found that it is not at all that the king is better than the president, nor vice versa.
It is not about the ruler and the king, but rather that both of them are responsible for the country.
There is the fair and the unjust.
"It is about the same person who has been put in charge that he is just and seeks the interest of the state."
For example, sometimes there is an unjust king and a just president, and vice versa.
Probably not all Kings and Queens will be dedicated,some may just be power hungry.
it is true that presidents are short lived but they follow a known constitution to govern a country and treat people equally unlike the monarchy or rather a king or queen, since theirs is hereditary you may find that a person who takes over may decide to be so unfair to the people who are not royal this may lead to a state of colonialism.
I think royality doesn't belong to our era. We live in the 21 century with a tendency to hqve democtratic countries. Royality in fact has a lack of diversity and inclusion but mostly it demontrates a pattern of discriminatory behavior. The lack of diversity send a message that monarchy is not open to people from diverse backgrounds. Some monarchy has historical connections to colonialism.
You’ve made some interesting points in your post. Can you give any examples how some monarchies have connections to colonialism and what impact that has had?
The British monarchy was central to the establishment, expansion, and maintenance of the British empire and the transatlantic slave trade.
Colonialism's impacts include environmental degradation, the spread of disease, economic instability, ethnic rivalries, and human rights violations—issues that can long outlast one group's colonial rule.
Colonial practices also spur the spread of colonist languages, literature and cultural institutions, while endangering or obliterating those of native peoples. The native cultures of the colonised peoples can also have a powerful influence on the imperial country.
Many changes accompanied British rule: Western education, the English language, and Christianity spread during the period; new forms of money, transportation, and communication were developed; and the Nigerian economy became based on the export of cash crops.
You’ve made some very important points in your post about the ways in which colonialism negatively impacted Nigeria and how that was connected to monarchy.
You’ve also noted a few legacies left behind from colonialism such as loss of native culture. Do you have any ideas on how you might like those issues to be dealt with going forward in Nigeria?
How to deal with the financial problem
Amend Fiscal Responsibility
Phase out CBN's FX restrictions.
End subsidy and oil theft.
Widen tax net and increase VAT to 10 percent.
Sell and concession some FG assets.
Jobs.
Major social development problems in Nigeria are poverty, inequality, corruption, education, and terrorism. Nigeria has adopted the SDG goals to create national policies that address social development problems.
Nigeria needs to increase its spending from its current very low levels, to promote economic development. The key to raising public spending lies in urgently raising more revenue. At 7% of GDP in 2021, Nigeria's revenue to GDP ratio is among the five lowest in the world.
But I think the real deal should be"Are monarchies still relevant and useful in the 21st century.
Absolute Yes, There are several advantages in having a monarchy in the 21st century.
Firstly, as Serge Schmemann argues in the New York Times, monarch can rise above politics in the way an elected head of state cannot.
Monarchs represent the whole country in a way democratically elected leaders cannot and do not.
Secondly and closely related to the previous point is that in factitious countries like Thailand, the existence of a monarch is often the only thing holding the country back from the edge of Civil war.
Thirdly, Monarchy also stabilizes countries by encouraging slow, incremental changes instead of extreme swings in the nature of the regimes. The monarchies of the Arab states have established much more stable societies than non-monarchic Arab states, many of which have gone through such seismic shifts over the course of the Arab spring.
And Lastly, Monarchies are repositories of tradition and continuity in ever changing times. They remind a country of what it represents and where it came from, facts that can often ve forgotten in the swiftly changing currents of politics.
Looking at all the listed advantages, Monarchy as lot of uncountable roles to play in our world.
Moreover, not only the UK as a monarch as the "Head of State".
As of 2023, there are 43 Sovereign states in the world with a monarch as Head of State.
There are 13 in Asia, 12 in Europe, 7 in America, 6 in Oceania and 3 in Africa.
So now the question is- How Monarchies survive modernity.
How do you think royalty could be modernised?
One possible way to modernize royalty is to adopt a more representative and symbolic role. Rather than holding political power, monarchs could serve as cultural ambassadors for their countries, promoting national unity and representing the nation on the global stage. They could also be involved in philanthropic and social causes, such as education, healthcare, and environmental conservation.
Another way to modernize royalty could be to make the institution more accessible and diverse. This could involve increasing the diversity of royal families through intermarriage with people from different backgrounds, or through adoption. Additionally, royalty could make an effort to engage with a broader range of people, including those from different social and economic backgrounds, by attending public events, visiting schools and hospitals, and interacting with the public through social media.
Another approach to modernizing royalty could be to increase transparency and accountability. This could involve making the finances of the monarchy more transparent and subject to public scrutiny. For example, in Sweden, the royal family's finances are made public, and the king's expenses are reviewed by the Swedish National Audit Office.
Overall, the modernization of royalty will depend on the specific context and cultural values of each country. It is essential to balance tradition and innovation while also ensuring that the monarchy remains relevant and respected in the modern world.
There are several examples of countries modernizing their monarchies in various ways. One example is the United Kingdom, where the monarchy has evolved over time to become more representative and symbolic. Queen Elizabeth II, for instance, has focused on representing the UK and the Commonwealth, promoting national unity, and supporting charitable causes. The royal family has also made an effort to engage with the public through social media and by attending public events.
In Sweden, the monarchy has been modernized by making it more accessible and egalitarian. For example, the royal family has been involved in social issues, such as environmental conservation and LGBT rights. Crown Princess Victoria has also taken on a more prominent role in recent years, promoting gender equality and entrepreneurship.
In Japan, the monarchy has been modernized through changes to the Imperial Household Law, which has allowed women to ascend to the throne and retain their royal status after marriage. This is a significant departure from the previous tradition of male-only succession.
The modernization of royalty is an ongoing process, and each country will need to find its unique approach based on its history, culture, and values.
I think that in the elections they can choose the president because the elections are from the society and everyone is satisfied with this president or the king because they choose the kind, representative king who helps everyone because they know where their interest lies and for sure. They will not choose the unjust king or president
I believe that there is no role for the monarchy in the modern world and necessity. Because the monarchy is inherited, and this is something unfair, in my opinion. The electoral system is better and guarantees the people their right and freedom. In my country, the presidential system exists by electing a just and wise president who does not have racism and treats everyone equally. But I also think that there is an importance that may be beautiful to me, which is that in the monarchy they are keen to show their heritage, history, and the beauty of their palaces that are decorated with mosaics, such as the King’s Palace in Britain. The royal rule in Jordan is characterized by the simplicity and kindness of the royal family, especially Queen Rania. King Abdullah is distinguished for justice. And everyone loves this family monarchy. I believe that the monarchy must be ended in the coming years and the beginning of a presidential system that guarantees freedom, rights and equality for all peoples.
Can you spot any assumptions or generalisations you've made in your comment?
I believe there should be a line of monarchy but to a considerable extent. We do venerate the Royal Family, so why do some people not respect us. We need equality and it feels like the Royals are "superiorly" treated. For some people who are bullied, they feel discriminated and feel like they were born in the wrong family as opposed to the Perfect, Royal family. Also, it feels like common citizens are downgraded. The British monarchs represent our country and they are rich, powerful with a high status. This looks like we are in a dystopian society where there are the rich " Royal Family" and the poor "commoners".
I completely agree with you every word. Indeed, what is the fault of the poor .
Why are they not born into a royal family.
They will even say why I wasn't born into a rich family at least.
I liked your balance between the respect of the people and their reverence for the king and the respect of the kings and those with positions for the poor and the common people.
I have a point and a point that I wish all kings would do.
I was thinking what would happen if every king and every one of those with positions considered himself one of the common people and dealt with humility and morals and that he interacted with his people and knew them about their conditions, what they lacked and what they complained about closely.
And the people made them higher and more important.
Therefore, all those with positions and ministers will begin to follow the example of the king and implement the principles, love and cooperation will spread, there will be no poverty, and they will gain the love of the people, and most importantly, the cohesion and strength of the state will become.
What do you think, do you agree with me, or do you have another point of view?
I think there is not a role for monarchy in the modern era because it will make others feel bad , like if you were in a five star restaurant and you were in the middle of eating and then a king,queen,prince or princess come and the head chef or the owner of the restaurant comes and tells everybody to leave and that would be rude as you might be in the of eating your food and you would have paid more like if you order 3 dishes for £100.00 but then you only eat 1 or 2 dishes so then the price will not be similar.
How realistic is the scenario you're describing? Is unfair treatment of the rich/famous only restricted to the royals?
I don't agree at all, why would the rest feel bad? If you're dining on a 5 star restaurant or something and a prince or someone else from the royalty came , why would the staff kick you at all? Plus the royalty doesn't go around checking which restaurant to dine in , they reserve it with months in advance. Another thing is that you are trying to make everyone feel the same by someone not being above the rest. After all people should compete to be the best, if everyone was the same, worked the same, didn't achieve anything, would lead to a communist society, something which didn't go well if we look back on the history books. Now, I'm not trying to say that because their the royalty they can do anything they want, that is of course not true however when you have that social status you should respect even more the people that are beneath it . All an all I think that the royalty doesn't have to be in any society/ country unless it was elected . As I said in one of my previous posts, Royalty also serves as a cultural icon and military commands in the cases of Spain and UK .
The role of royals in the modern world varies depending on the country and its political system. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, the role of the royal family is largely symbolic and ceremonial, with their duties including representing the country at national and international events, promoting charitable causes, and supporting diplomatic relations.
However, in other countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan, the role of the royal family is more political and influential, with members of the royal family holding key positions of power in government and society.
There are also some who argue that in the modern world, the concept of a royal family is outdated and unnecessary. They may view the existence of a royal family as a remnant of a bygone era of monarchy and aristocracy and suggest that the resources and attention devoted to the upkeep of a royal family could be better used elsewhere.
In the end, the role of royals in the modern world is a matter of debate and varies depending on the cultural and political context.
A great observation, @Spirited_Gazelle - Royal families often have differing levels of involvement, so it's perhaps wrong of us to generalise when asking "are they relevant".
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on if it's fair for royalty to have direct political power, and why - what do you think?
Thank you so much. In my opinion, The idea of royalty having direct political power is a controversial one, and there are arguments both for and against it. On the one hand, some argue that the monarchy's role is largely ceremonial and symbolic and that allowing them to have direct political power would be undemocratic and potentially dangerous.
On the other hand, supporters of the monarchy argue that having a figurehead who represents the nation and who is above politics can be beneficial for stability and continuity and that the monarch's ability to provide a sense of national unity can be a valuable asset in times of crisis.
I think whether or not to grant political power to royalty is a matter for each society to decide for itself, based on its own cultural, historical, and political context. Some countries have decided to abolish their monarchies entirely, while others maintain a constitutional monarchy with varying degrees of political power.
Personally, I agree as it is there is a ceremonial and that it has a long history. For example in the UK, it shows alot in the past and it has got less and less important over time.
On the other hand, I also think that they don't really do to much for the country as they just accept things from the parliment or prime minister.
As of recent the royal family in the UK have been using the taxpayers money to buy things for the ceremony.
I think that is wrong as we are in a crisis and some can't afford to buy their children. Also, they are already rich enough to pay for it themselves.
My opinion about monarchy having a role in the modern world is that yes. They are still relevant because nowadays in a democratic country when a bill is to be passed it takes nearly forever, but in a monarchy, once the king issues a decree it is executed immediately thereby making governance very easy.
In my country, Nigeria we have elected leaders, and countless bills that could have helped the citizens but they are going through a lot of political and bureaucratic bottlenecks. If it were royalty he/she uses their power and popularity riding on tradition and the bills would have been executed instantly.
I also think that democratic government is overrated, it is supposed to promote fairness and equality but we have seen that is not always the case, especially in third-world countries.
There is need for equality and balance when it comes to leadership and decision making. When you belong to a royal family and you are given a duty, the Bible says a leader is to serve and not to be served which means you as a leader should put the problems of your subjects before your own struggles in order to control betrayal by your subjects.
Are there any monarch is literature or film that show to pros and/or cons of royals?
Yes there is . The Queen [2006]
I think it is the best film about Royality. Large part of it are real- life .
The conflict in this movie about the the royal family being out of touch with their subjects.It talks about royal pains
I think there is a role for royalty in the modern world because of tradition and tradition is something important without tradition we would not have different tribes. And tradition is the customs of beliefs from generation to generation. Tradition also helps in passing guidelines down to the next generation. Tradition is just meant to guide you as pass down to the next generation. Just as in a monarch system it is hereditary so they follow the guidelines that has been passed to them even as they rule though some people may not like that monarch system cause it is hereditary and some people would want to change the people who are ruling also some people did not vote and agree that this is the person that will rule them.
But in the monarch system they are just following the guidelines that has been in their tradition and that's how they are meant to rule.
I think royalty plays a really big role in the modern world in the way that it influences the people; as known that most royal families are quite popular in the different societies they come from so this provides them with a why platform from which they use to promote morals and preserve their culture amongst their people . Royalty is also filled with lots of wealth which is got from many different sources and this wealth is used to help the people is a variety of ways for example to start orphanages , food donations , charity foundations and many more
I think that it is better for the British to seek the abolition of the monarchy in Britain because it is meaningless, just an old, useless tradition, and they have no role other than consumption and living off the people's taxes without any political or economic benefit.
Yes most people may consider it a useless tradition but one needs to look back and see all the great that the royal family has done for it's people for example the charity organisations that they have established have changed people's lives for the good and also think of the great inspirations they have given to the young generation .
From my point of view, I see the royal family as important, with all due respect to different points of view.
Well, many will ask me why?
- The royal family has a role in feeling the problems and obstacles of the state and the crises that people are going through because, like us, they are going through the same conditions that we live in, and if they differ, there are few.
Some humans forget, but we cannot forget that we are the same species, that is, humans
If the family can change itself, I think it is because I am afraid to say with certainty that there will be a change in the state itself.
Thank you all.
It is obvious that the role of monarchy and Royal family is not what they were years ago ,but that doesn’t mean that they are not relevant to modern society. Some Royal countries still serve in the political sphere but also serve the nation with support of charitable causes and appeals . One such cause is prince Williams call to arms campaign .this is an examplary way for Royal families to use their inherited account wealth and status for the betterment of man kind .
since most monarchs no longer govern their country their relevance to the modern world is mainly to preserve history,culture and tradition.
Thanks @Zestful_Artist - some great points, and I'm glad you've found some specifics on what the royal family in the UK are doing. Do the royal family in Nigeria run any charitable foundations? Are there any specific royals you admire for their work?
1…Of course , they are some Royal families in nigeria that run charitable works .Meghan Markle and Prince Harry donated to charities working in nigeria.their foundation made unspecified donations to help the children and unicef .
2.. I really admire kings Charles 3 for his work, as an heir apparent he helped launched the campaign towards initiatives of which he is the patron.is mission is to educate consumer on wood. King Charles is also known as an environment advocate, he is an accomplished
I personally admire the Zaria royals because they treat the people of their community with fairness and equally.
The Zaria emirate has been known for their charitable activities one of which is the SABIL charitable organization. The Emir of Zaria Ambassador Ahmad Nuhu Bamalli is the patron of this organization.
The organization empowers and support the needy to become self sufficient by alleviating their hardships.
The organization presently have clinics which offers health services to the less privileged and vulnerable members of the society.
Thanks @Harmonious_River - it's great to be able to highlight some of the work done by less prominent monarchies. Do you think charity work is the only way royalty is relevant in the modern age?
I do not think that there is a role for royalty in the modern world. The presence of royalty does not allow for the people's voice to be heard which can come across as unfairness to some people. It also does not allow for any other person to come into rule unless they are part of the royal family. Another problem is racism. The marriage of Prince Harry Meghan Markle has caused a lot of problems for the royal family due to the fact that she is mixed race. The way the royal family handled Meghan's race was not the best approach. In my opinion, the tradition of coronating kings and queens is one that shouldn't exist in the modern world
I believe royalty still has a role within the modern world. This is because royalty both represents a country's future, and past. The royalty represents an old age of aristocracy and nobility. Continuing to have one represents a country's traditional values and deep roots within history.
Thanks @Quiet_Mode - as someone from the USA, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts - do you think you need royalty and aristocracy to represent traditional values and history?
Aristocracies dominated political and economic power for most of the medieval and modern periods almost everywhere in Europe, using their wealth and land ownership to form a powerful political force.
Greece, Russia, China, and the United Kingdom have all had aristocratic governments at one point in their history. Many aristocracies did not have noblemen or noblewomen. Instead, they consisted of certain citizens who were of a higher status than common people. One such example is the Roman Republic.
The defining characteristics of history's aristocracy were an esteemed blend of military success, land ownership, political power, elite privilege, rich fortunes, grand houses and estates, as well as the more virtuous characteristics of loyalty, bravery, duty, honour and service.
Aristocrats and nobles are the same thing: people with titles. They might be in the country's line of succession, via a royal ancestor, but aren't members of the royal family. Royals are at the top of the line of succession. They play a role in government.
I think that you don't necessarily need royalty and aristocracy to represent traditional values, but in a country where royalty is something that heavily influenced the nation's growth and development, it would be very important to have them. A country such as France, where they killed their last king and had a whole revolution, would not need a royal family to represent traditional values, as the country was developed into what it is today because of the crucial idea of not having a monarch and that is deeply rooted into their history.
I agree fully with your comment , Royalty is a way of a country to express who they are , and their heritage . The monarchy too in many occasions calls out to the people to feel patriotic for who they are and as I said their heritage too. Monarchies are sure a pretty good way for a country to express themselves.
I totally agree with you, in my opinion royals are a key part in the identity of a country. In my point of view many countries arond the world would lose this thing that makes the country special and different from others (we could compare it with our personality) without their royals. As monarchs still hold key functions like giving a sense of stability and continuity to the country, or supporting the ideal of voluntary service; and they form part of the identity of a country, I strongly think that royals are relevant.
Royals have played a significant role in human history for many years, but with the emergence of democracies and the shifting attitudes of the populace, the question of their continued relevance emerges. Some contend that royalty is a representation of tradition and heritage, while others think it is a needless expense and an outmoded idea. It's crucial to remember that the royal family continues to play a vital role in the political and social landscape of the world, despite the continuous discussion. They engage in charity endeavors that call for their fame and fortune and play crucial roles in diplomatic and cultural affairs. Conclusion: It's up to the individual to decide whether or not royals are important, but their continuous presence in international affairs implies that they do.
I think royals are irrelevant in the modern world. Royalty can highlight a country's vicious and cruel past, such as England's colonialism and destruction of the foreign world under the rule of its kings. I think royals should have less spotlight in a country, and there should be more attention to the people who actually run the country: the prime ministers.
For me, the monarchy in the modern world is not very important, but in some countries they chose the monarchy for them from a long history, such as Jordan and Kuwait, and considered it part of their traditions, so they prefer it, and otherwise I see that the king in the state does the work of the president, For example, the king has presidents and ministers with him, and the president also, so I don't mind that, but he must have the ability to power and equality between people.
Some may disagree with me and say that if his work is like the work of the president, why don't they put a president to rule them?? I will reply that I do not consider that there is a difference between the king and the president in the state, but the members of the state are the ones who decide, and perhaps they have one of the traditions in their state.
I do not care much about the news of kings unless it is great news such as the news of the death of Queen Elizabeth II, because this news has taken care of everyone, because it will change a lot of nature in Britain, and here we are now in a discussion on this subject.
Royalty in Nigeria doesn't have total control of the political, and economic power like in the past. So to me, royalty is not as relevant as it used to be. In my country, we do have kings who are in charge of different communities. But from my experience, some of them have not shown themselves to be trustworthy and this is not a good one as a lot of people are of the opinion that they allow themselves to be used for corrupt practices etc. Do you still think that royalty is relevant in this age and time?
Movies and fairy tales have made being a prince and princess popular like Cinderella, Sleeping beauty, Ariel and Jasmine. As a child I also love putting on my princess costume and tiara. That may be part of the reasons why the British monarchy is popular.
Hello!
In my opinion there is no room for royals in the modern world and why do I think so. Firstly the system of government practiced by royals is called monarchy and in this system the royals have the power to take decisions affecting a country or community without being challenged and unopposed and in our modern world most countries tend to practice a system of government where everyone's rights are upheld and everyone is treated equally but due to the divine power these monarchs are thought to have it means that everyone will not be treated equally as the monarchs may tend to practice favoritism. Secondly monarchs use a system of government where they are in power till they die and cannot be impeached by the citizens of a country or kingdom and as such even if the monarch in charge is incompetent, he or she will be unchallenged.
In my country we practice a democratic system of government which I like because it allows for the rights of citizens to be upheld. I would not like for a monarchial system of government to be introduced because it means power is controlled at the center which I leant from my history class is called a centralized state which does not allow for te views of others apart from the monarchs to be considered.
Are royals relevant in modern society? NO were they relevant in the middle ages? YES and that was because the people of that time had no system of governance except monarchy and that was because their sense of having a partition of power was not awakened and therefore made the monarchs to have absolute power and control over the nation and its affairs but now that we have mentally and psychological developed we now know that democracy is a vital factor for the success and development of any nation if you ask me royals in the modern society are not relevant because already we already have a system of governance and that means they do not take part in the political affairs of the country rather they are just they are just ceremonial and figure heads that are not participating in the social activities that help promote society and they are also paid out of the pockets of the hardworking citizens who do not earn as much as them even though they and the royals do not work but I AM NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT ROYALS ARE UTTERLY USELESS AND I UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THEM TO BE SCRAPPED OUT BECAUSE THEY ARE THE CULTURAL HERITAGE OF THE PEOPLE AND THEY SERVE AS AMBASSADORS FOR BRITAIN. But will it not be of great use if they use their status to help impact the society positively apart from being tourist attractions which is not bad but I honestly feel this is not the only thing they can do to help the society.
Many countries are ruled by monarchies. Nearly 13 countries in Asia, 12 in Europe, 9 in Americas, 6 in Oceania, and 3 in Africa were ruled under monarchy. Monarchy is a form of government ruled by a king or queen of a country. I think that monarchy form of ruling is one of the oldest forms of governing a country or region. United Kingdom has one of the best forms of monarchy in which Queen Elizabeth II played a vital role in development of that country in many ways especially she brought stability in the country and modernized the monarchy. The Queen supported over 600 charities through her patronage over the course of her reign. She also created many organizations related to climate change and educational trust which made the country well known. The biggest advantage of a monarchy is stable government. The disadvantage may be there will be a class divided society that is rich and poor. I would like to speak about democracy. It is a form of government in which people vote for their leaders. It is mainly made by for the people, by the people, of the people. Countries can be divided into three types that is capitalism, socialism, mixed economy. capitalist form of economy is mainly based on profit motive in which government has minimum role and private sector has predominant role. Countries like USA, Australia and Japan were capitalist economy. Socialist forms of economy are owned by the government for promotion of public welfare. Russia, China, Poland and Cuba were best example of socialist economy. "Mixed economy" is an economy in which both government and private sector place an excellent in development of that country, England is one of a socialist economy buy ruled by monarchy. Country like India, France and Brazil also a mixed economy country. The best feature of a mixed economy is economic planning, solutions to economic problems, coexistence of public and private sector, freedom and control. The merits of a mixed economy will be rapid economic growth, economic equality and balanced economic growth. demerits will be competitive attitude and fear of nationalization.
In the modern era, it is the republic, despite the existence of violations of the basic principles of republican rule, or that the presidents transfer power among themselves with a hereditary dye, and the heads of republican governments are called the president, or any other title according to their Forty-five countries in the world were under monarchical rule, including sixteen of the Commonwealth of British Peoples coalition, under the constitutional rule of Queen Elizabeth II.
Well personally, I think the monarchy are outdated and most countries have moved on rightfully yet the UK haven't.
I think that the monarchy are very outdated and don't hold much real importance anymore as the only important thing they do is knight important people the rest, is left to the government. I also think they are outdated as all they do is have money and make other people important ,which is not that important is it. They as well brag A LOT just scroll on their social media and see all the things they brag about. In conclusion the monarchy are very well and utterly outdated!
Hi @Imaginative_Significance - it's good to see such an emphatic conclusion. But there's an alternative view - some people would say the royal family aren't bragging about their accomplishments; they're rightfully highlighting that they are undertaking charity and welfare work to make things better for others, rather than just themselves. What do you think?
Frankly, I do not think that they have a big role. I think they are just people who sit on the throne and put the crown because they do not organize armies and do not care about the poor. Well, the second question is that I used to follow the news of the kings, which pertained to them, but now not as before. Kings only want prestige, reputation, wealth, throne and crown
Well, I think that they have a role in colonialism to obtain wealth and fame, and the prince is trying to sacrifice everything to crown him, but where is justice now, where is fairness? There is not only racism and humiliation. Now, I ask the monarchy to wake up to what is happening and not to fall into the trap of money and wealth and to wake up from Addiction to power and rule
unique_power can you explain what you mean lack of justice and fairness with the royal family?
I want to explain to you, I think that when he said that there is no enmity and fairness with the royal family, I support him very much in my words, because some kings (not most of them) are unjust. Between the poor and the rich people, they do not respect the poor and do not appreciate them, but sometimes make them pay taxes even though they are poor, and they never sympathize with them.
The Global Influence of the British Monarchy
Despite its largely ceremonial role, the British monarchy has a significant global influence, especially in former British colonies like Canada and Australia. The monarchy is also seen as a symbol of British soft power, representing the nation's cultural and historical heritage.
Evidence: The British monarchy has a presence in over 15 countries around the world, including Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Additionally, the Queen is recognized as the head of the Commonwealth, a group of 54 nations with a combined population of over 2 billion people. This gives the monarchy a significant global influence, especially in the context of international relations and diplomacy.20112011
I do not think that royals are quite useful in our present day they are mainly there to represent their kingdom, Besides there are disadvantages of having royalty or being ruled under monarchy. For example there is discrimination and the royals aren't fully subjected un der the rule of law as a royal can not be arrested meaning they can commit a crime anywhere in the world and get away with it. They are also being paid a lot of money, wear the latest designer clothes and jewelry for the little they do. Some royals take power and authority and misuse it. They treat their people unfairly under harsh conditions and get away with it because they cant be removed this is rational and why I feel royals are not needed in this present time and era.
the royals are relevant they are like the presidents of the nation, so they are very important in the system of monarchy. They collect the people's taxes and use it to make the nation better and more productive so i am in support of them in my opinion.
candid_keyboard can you give an example of what taxpayer money goes to?
✨I will mention the example of Tunisia 🇹🇳
For example, Tunisia ranked 17th internationally in the ranking of the countries that employ the highest taxes, and it is one of the highest global rates due to the citizen's fatigue with the large number of taxes.
The Tunisian citizen should see that his money goes to improve the general situation of the country from infrastructure, services and paved roads, but his money is used to service external debt, repay loans and establish companies, so the confidence of the Tunisian citizen in his country declined and he became uncertain that his money will go to the destination for which the tax was imposed.
——————————————————
The correct destination for which the tax was imposed and tax money is spent on it.
• Care for the elderly
• Child care
• Social services
• The judicial authority
• Reception of refugees
• Culture
I will say where it goes according to my thinking and belief...... Psychologically, I believe that the large amount of money that they take from taxes is an increase to what they have, because they are the richest category in the state. They want to have a lot of money with them that they can be proud of with other kings and do not even think about people (unjust kings). Only, they spend it on buying the most expensive types (meat, clothes, palaces, and food) although not everything expensive is useful, and I think they also spend it on drinking alcohol and hashish, and they travel a lot. They can buy a private plane for them (this is not justice that enjoys the money that it takes from taxes and citizens die of starvation)
Hello!
This topic is a broad one in my opinion but to understand it I think we need to understand two systems of government namely: DEMOCRACY AND MONARCHY. Firstly, monarchy is a system of government in which a sovereign head of state called a monarch has supreme authority usually acquired by hereditary right while a democracy according to Abraham Lincoln ''is a government of the people by the people and for the people".
Based on the definitions stated above we can see that compared to monarchy in which the rulers are not appointed and power is inherited and supreme, a democracy allows for the people of the people of a nation to bestow their limited power upon a leader of their choice. In my country before the time of colonialism most ethnic groups adopted a monarchy system of rule which brought chaos and sometimes even the downfall of the kingdom due to succession disputes which brings me to my point, due to the fact that monarchs are really influential in the lives of people I think their power should be greatly limited rather than being rulers of believed to have supreme powers they should just be symbols of a country's traditions and revenue spent on their upkeep should be reduced and used for other causes, so I don't think a monarchy suits the modern day world but their power and income should be reduced.
I think this is a topic that is up for debate and that could be affected by various political and cultural differences.
I think that the monarchy has become somewhat outdated, but it certainly has a role to play, as it is the most kind of government that calls for stability, but revolutions can occur in countries because of the monarchy in the country and the coup against the rulers, so these methods of government may prevent people from expressing their personal opinion and do not give them freedom Full of expression, but I think that the course of history, as the way of governance and politics developed, will develop with the country more and more
Based on the area surrounding me ,I would say that the royals/royalties aren't individuals whom are really seen to be important or play important roles in a country due to the fact that democratic rule exists. Therefore one can really say that they are becoming really outdated. They are simply just ceremonials who do not perform tedious tasks but are still being paid huge sums of money. And with this being done, it does not really help in a country's financial state.
yep, the royals are important i agree but i think that it is kind of outdated no offense because it was since the 11th century. we are in the modern world there should be a change of government because as people change the way they should be governed should change to.
Generally Mandatory spending consists primarily of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Several welfare programs are smaller items, including food stamps, child tax credits, child nutrition programs, housing assistance, the earned income tax credit, and temporary assistance for needy families.
In Nigeria taxes are used for Providing sustainable finance and funding for governance, public and social services and economic development. Stimulating priority social and economic activities and sectors while discouraging less preferred ones. Promoting civic responsibility, patriotism by citizens and social responsibility by corporate citizens.
Honestly, I think there should not be a role for royalty in the modern. I feel that the presence of royalty in the modern world will not give people the medium to express their opinions which to me is unjust. I feel royalty is outmoded and all the do is to focus on their wealth, make people feel less important as the do not allow them( people who are not royals) to execute some certain plans and projects and the also focalize on their fame, honor, diadem and dominion which to me is not of any relevance to the development of the society.
Personally I can see both sides of this. I can see why people think that we need a monarchy, but I can also see why people think we do not. I personally think people agree with keeping the monarchy because they can have a figure to look up to, to be invested in and to just be able to have someone to follow and stand behind. I also understand that in the past people have always looked up to the monarchy for guidance, but in this day and age, there are many good people that you can look up too, and the royal family don't do that much to be considered a person to look up to for doing remarkable things.
I can also see why people dislike the monarchy. The people who actually run the country are the government, and the royal family are just there as public figures, going around and meeting people. I'm not saying the government do that much here, but they do more than the monarchy.
I don't personally have an opinion on this but I feel that they have a place as a public figure.
From my point of view, I do not think that there is a big difference between the president and the king or queen, as each of them performs a specific function, which is managing the affairs of the state. The opposite of the king, who is the one who sets the laws and is above everything, and no one can engage in an argument with him for fear of being imprisoned. Also, I am really interested in telling the kings to see if my words are true or not. I would really like to live in a country that is ruled by a king and his queen. I feel that it is possible I find people there living well because of their love for the king or queen.. The person who will disagree with me in my words are those who live under the rule of kings such as Saudi Arabia or Britain, etc., because they are the ones who know the most about how the rule of the king and queen is
The Succession of King Charles III
After the long reign of Queen Elizabeth II, King Charles III will become the next monarch of Britain. However, his reign may face challenges due to his age and the ongoing debate over the monarchy's role. Additionally, questions have been raised over the succession of Prince William, who may be seen as a more modern and relatable figure to younger generations.
Evidence: King Charles III was born in 1948, making him one of the oldest monarchs to ascend the throne. While he has been praised for his dedication to public service and environmental causes, some critics have questioned his ability to connect with younger generations. Prince William, on the other hand, has been seen as a more modern and relatable figure, with a strong focus on mental health and social justice issues.
I think that the royalty in the modern era are both relevant and irrelevant.
WHY?
Because, the royalty are do not only serve as the national identity of that country, they also boost the pride and unity of the people. They are also relevant because they serve as a source of revenue to the country through tourism and the monarch is also an historical and spiritual figure as the custodian of the customs and tradition of the people.
On the other hand they are irrelevant because in a monarch system of government, competent citizens who are not part of the royalty may be left out of government and that will be dehumanizing and belittling to the people and also you know a monarch could be a despot as good intentions, ability and good conduct are not hereditary take for example a bad leader comes into power and instead of developing the country he or she will bring more underdevelopment, chaos and anarchy to the country, take an example of Pharaoh and the Israelites in the Bible. In this system the people don't have a say whatever the king says is final.
The opinion is that kings have no influence on their countries. We do not need any king as long as the political system prevails more than the monarchy. Some countries have their people complain about the king’s rule. If we look at countries that have political rule, their problems are less and also big problems. Also, kings are interested in collecting taxes, which can happen at any moment. For the king to increase the tax budget, and it is also good that in our time the king and queen began to take care of their poor people, but with that there are problems caused by the monarchy, but with that I love the news of kings and I was interested in the news of Queen Elizabeth in the last years......
Yes, I think so. Today, there are 44 countries and a half billion people in the world under the control of monarchy. There is the Commonwealth Territory Alliance, which includes 15 countries and territories, but each country has independent sovereignty and King Charles III has a supervisory role over it. And there are European constitutional monarchies that enjoy constitutional rule in the presence of the king. There are European kingdoms that have great powers, where the king has the role of objecting to any law stipulated by the parliament, and there are Islamic kingdoms where the king enjoys absolute powers.
The role of the monarchy in the modern world is a matter of debate and varies depending on the country and its political system. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom and some Commonwealth kingdoms, the monarchy plays a symbolic role as a head of state, representing the nation and its values.
In terms of supporting equality, the monarchy's role can be seen as somewhat limited. Historically, monarchies have been associated with hierarchical social structures, with power and wealth concentrated in the hands of a few individuals or families. While many modern monarchies have developed to become more classless, with limited powers and symbolic roles, some critics argue that monarchy keeps up a class system and reinforces inequalities.
Welcome...
I believe that there is no role for monarchy and order (hereditary or republican) in modern times....
I believe that the monarchy is an unfair rule because the king is installed without the will of the people or without their consent....
I guess I'm not nearly as interested in the subject of kings as I'm not related to these things, but I would love to hear about kings from ancient times to see how they established these homelands and states, but I'm really looking forward to this competition to learn more because it taught me things I didn't know. Thank you......
But my question to everyone who watches it
In your opinion, who is the best king you have ever heard of and admired and aroused your curiosity? Or who is the worst king who has impressed you with his tyranny and corrupt behaviour?
Maybe you can teach me and look it up...
Thanks
I do not agree with you on this
I do not think that the idea of monarchy has anything to do with the era or the time in which it exists
But I want to answer your question with love
The best king for me
He is King Abdullah the First
The first king of Jordan, for me, I love very much to search for the kings of Jordan, because in my opinion it is a very organized kingdom ruled by a king who has laws that exist without prejudice to them
I remember that the first time I saw the Kingdom of Jordan on the websites three years ago, I did not know that it was ruled by a king. When I found out, I started searching for its first king and learned how diligent and committed he was to build this ancient kingdom.
I strongly disagree with you..
It is true that they were chosen without the consent of the people, but you cannot deny their historical significance!
The royal family is a symbol of national identity and continuity, and represents a link to the country's history and traditions. The mere presence of personalities in public events can do miracles in raising morale and strengthening the spirit of society!
"You must not forget their merit just because they were chosen without the consent of the people"
Haven't we moved past the idea of inherited power and privilege being accepted as an acceptable governing system?
I think we must ..
I think that it is not important to have a ruling family in our lives because there will be racism instead of fairness, because the ruling family will have many advantages that the people can't get, for example when someone of the ruling family enters to expensive clothing store, he can expel everyone in the store And no one will be able to object, because if he did, he would be punished ,so there will be no Fair in the country. If I live in a country like this, I would prefer to leave and go to another country , There is no distinction between that and that
I have long wanted to give my opinion on the monarchy
I really like the system of royal rule, and in my opinion there is no difference if we are in an ancient or modern time, so that the rule is royal
Monarchy has a role in countries, as in Jordan, as it is subject to royal rule, but everything goes smoothly
In my opinion, the monarchy rule is better than the democratic one, because the monarchy rule the people are forced to work according to its system. As for the democratic one, not all the people choose. It is expected that there will be some people who do not want the rule of those who take the democratic rule. Here, there is no politicization among the people and becomes rejecting parties. President and his supporters
Hi @Good_Football - That's an interesting example, as I believe Jordan is a parliamentary monarchy; so the King is head of state, but is supported by a democratic government under a two party system. Some might say it's the best of both worlds! However, it does leave a dependency - what happens when the government disagrees with the king? I'd be interested to know, maybe you could find out?
Yes, when the government disagrees with the king, the country will have many problems, such as strikes, coups, etc
In addition, the state's economy will deteriorate, and the country will become a mess, the progress of this state will be delayed, and there will be many conflicts in all aspects that will be difficult for both parties to block or stop.
Yes, the population will also be forced to migrate to find a place with less chaos or less problems, because both of them have great power. If it becomes a simple conflict between them, it will grow and grow and they will not stop these problems.
We cannot say that all people support the monarchy, but my point of view is that it is the most organized rule if it is on principle and not that all of the kings and princes live a life of luxury and palaces
I think ownership is something that can exist in our world or our current time and has nothing to do with time
Can you imagine with me that we are subject to the rule of a monarchy, a ruler who wishes his people to be in the best condition and provides them with everything according to their need
This is something really cool
I agree because... if we read and watch royal news we learn about many things like culture and how we are supported to behave in our respected cultures
In my opinion; the royal family is still relevant for several reasons. One of the main reasons is that they are seen as a symbol of national unity and continuity. They also play a ceremonial role in many events, such as state ceremonies and public engagements. Additionally, members of the royal family also often undertake charitable work and represent the country in various international events. They are also seen as cultural and historical figures, with their palaces and other properties being tourist attractions. However, it's worth noting that the specific roles and responsibilities of the royal family vary depending on the country. In the case of the British royal family, for example, they have a constitutional role, with the monarch serving as the head of state, but they do not have any governing power.
Monarchs represent the whole country in a way democratically elected leaders cannot and do not. The choice for the highest political position in a monarchy cannot be influenced by and in a sense beholden to money, the media, or a political party.
I do not think there is a role for royalty in the modern world because in the past monarchy ruled countries and citizens got little to no say in what happens in their government. Over time monarchies have become less common but still remain in a lot of countries. The British monarchy for example does have some power in government but still does not have the complete power because of parliament. The Japanese emperor is an example of a monarchy completely losing power and becoming entirely ceremonial. Over time I don't know if there will be a need for monarchies but some countries may thrive with or do better without monarchy. It all depends on the system of monarchy and changing from the past to the future.
royality is relevant in the world because after witnessing the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, the life of royalty has captured the attention of the whole world once again. And no matter how modern our world has become, almost everyone still stops and shows interest to have a glimpse of the royal world. Royalty is still very much relevant and inspiring. Their lives are still worth watching. Traditions, old-world elegance, conservative ways, proper manners — qualities perceived to be lived by the royals — are all slowly disintegrating in our modern world and, hopefully, as we peek into their lives they can once again set the bar for our modern world to emulate.
Wealth is a crucial factor as Royalty typically dominates massive wealth and resources, which can impact the economy, politics, and society in various ways.
Power is another important aspect, as Royalty historically control political power and authority over their subjects. This power dynamic has adapted over time, but it still exists in some countries with constitutional monarchies.
You're right, @Decisive_Bell - with that in mind, what do you think of the original question; is royalty relevant?
Throughout history, the role of the royal family was a major role, which governs the country and directs armies to expand its possessions and borders, even at the expense of colonizing other countries. Following the news of the kings because their holdings of jewelry and palaces are considered historical and remind us of ancient history. For example, the coronation ceremony of King Charles and Princess Camilla comes back to mind how the kings assumed their positions and how they were crowned to take over the affairs of the country, but in a formal way now because the era of the control of the royal family and its tyranny of rule ended in the modern era and democracy has become The comprehensive system of government, for example, in Britain, there is an honorary king and queen, but the kingdom lives a democratic life through parliament and a cabinet elected by the people
No, I don't think that there is no role for royalty in the modern world because since they are high class from the rest of the world they can make their own judgement on things they say or do, people may be against on what they do or how they think things work but the they can't do anything since they are a higher class then them so their opinions can't do anything or make a change.
Hi @Resourceful_Skill - do you think this could be a generalisation? Taking the UK royal family as an example, their royal family is known for charity work - supporting everything from climate change prevention to clearing landmines in Africa. From speaking to others on this forum many other monarchies do similar work; are you sure they're incapable of changing things for the better?
Are the royals relevant? As a kid in modern times, I say no. the modern age is filled with all sorts of new life changing technology and when i think of the word “royal” i think of the middle ages. The Middle Ages are said to last between 1400 and 1500 ce according to google , which is a very long time, so it must be outdated. I believe that in 20 years kids won't even know about the most iconic queen, Queen Elizabeth. What I'm trying to say is that the royals will die out and become unimportant and it's not like they're as famous as Mr. Beast or other content creators. Probably sooner or later King Charles III will do something petty to make his family tradition or his family legacy relevant again.
Whether or not there is a role for royalty in the modern world is a subject of debate. Some argue that royalty is an outdated system that is no longer relevant in the modern time. Others believe that royalty can play an important role in promoting tradition, culture, and national identity, and that the stability and continuity provided by a monarch can be beneficial for a country.
The royal government historically preceded some political systems such as nation-states and even regional states and federations. It is not necessary for nationalism and the constitution to exist under monarchical rule. I personally find it unfair for the family to control a country and not give others an opportunity to rule, and that if they enter a public place they leave the place, even if the place is public, and it is possible for the king to forget his subjects and not care about them
Do you think there is a role for property in the modern world or not?!In ancient times it had a role and it is also important, but in our time I do not think it has any role, it is wrong and unfair for the state to be ruled by one family who inherit the rule, but rather they should be given an opportunity, even a simple opportunity, for other people to rule, as for what is related to the kings They do not support the poor and give alms to them, as not everyone is like this. Oh, this is something to doWith the conscience of man, if the king or president is just and conscientious, then he will help the people and try to meet their needs. A democratic system, and people living in luxury while undermonarchy and vice versa.
I have often heard about the monarchy and (hereditary) system, but I do not agree with this system. There are many reasons, the most important of which is: that the king may be just and has good morals with the people, but the first problem: we are not sure that the prince is like the king, he may not be fair, and he may not be good in his dealings with people, and the second problem: that he may not be The king has a son. This may lead to a struggle over who will be the king from one of his relatives, and this is not good. As for ruling by the people choosing who will rule him, this is better because people will know this person closely. People are looking for a just person and for him to have equality. It is true to mention that people want: justice: not oppressing any of the people. Equality: so that there is no discrimination between the higher and lower ranks; and they are not looking for racism: because this would be injustice to some people or to be greedy, in short, it wants colonization because this thing has very negative results in the end. Kingship is not inheritance of wealth or power, but rather inheritance Good manners, wisdom and experience😊
In my opinion It’s fatuous to claim royalty has no relevance in the ‘modern’ world, especially since fewer and fewer people seem to want to live in that modern world. British royalty as a pop-culture phenomenon could have ended with the death of Princess Diana. But no, the industry was too lucrative to abandon. I am very much interested in the news about royalty especially royalty of the "Renaissance " The early modern period which led to a newly adapted type of monarchy in Europe, with monarchs initiating voyages of discovery to other continents, developing new forms of mercantile trade, and, most of all, building mass armies and large government bureaucracies that represented innovative forms of political administration. I think the royals would most definitely disagree because that is the form of power and rule for them their sense of strength . I f royalty wasn't inculcated into modern society what would become of the world or country?
There is absolutely a role for royalty in the modern world !
While some may argue that monarchies are outdated and unnecessary,
But in the modern world,
the role of royalty has evolved significantly from what it used to be traditionally.
It is no longer just about ruling over a country or being a symbolic figurehead with little practical power.
Today, many monarchies are constitutional and their rulers serve as symbols of national identity and unity rather than wielding any actual governing authority .
like they can be powerful ambassadors for their countries, fostering positive relationships with other nations and promoting economic growth through international trade.
Additionally, many modern monarchs have taken on important humanitarian causes and work to better the lives of their citizens through philanthropy and charitable efforts.
So yes, there is definitely a significant role for monarchy in our modern world!
I think there is no role for royalty in modern world because peoples' minds changed as we live in the technology age ,and all people asked for democracy as their human rights. Our world became a small village,all get to know other countries cultures and governments system,so I expect that all loyalty families finish.
Are you interested in news about royalty ?
Absolutely ! The world of royalty is as intriguing as it gets, full of regal pomp and circumstance, fascinating histories, and glamorous lifestyles. From the British royal family to the European monarchies, there's always something exciting happening in the world of royalty.
i love dissecting the intricate protocols and customs that surround royalty, marveling at their lavish lifestyles and glamorous events, as well as applauding their noble philanthropic efforts. Moreover, following their public personas from afar often provides a unique glimpse into global affairs, illuminating issues such as social justice, identity politics and more through a royal lens. No matter how busy my day may be, I always make sure to keep up-to-date with news about royalty because it never fails to inspire me and satisfy my insatiable curiosity!
So yeah - if you have any news about royalty that I don't already know about, please share 🙃!
What news stories have interested you most recently, trusting_speech? Your passion for the news is great!
Thank you 💘
There have been so many exciting royalty news stories lately that I just can't pick one! The announcement of Princess Beatrice's pregnancy has me over the moon with joy for her and her husband. Meghan Markle's recent interview with Oprah gave us a rare inside look into the struggles she faced as a member of the royal family, which was both shocking and captivating. And let's not forget about the highly anticipated return of Prince Harry to England for Princess Diana's statue unveiling, where his interactions with his brother William had us all glued to our screens. Overall, there has been no shortage of dramatic and heartwarming news in the world of royals recently and I am thoroughly enjoying every minute of it 🔥!
The roles of monarchy are not particularly relevant in the real world. Some may argue that the royals are role models for some people. They do not, however, do much to be followed or esteemed. They simply serve in a ceremonial position of money, fame, and influence, and they are carrying on their traditions. In addition, throughout history, the royal family has been a source of cruelty and controversy.
I disagree with you
But not all of what you say, some of it is true, and I agree with you, but we cannot star all royal families in these qualities (cruelty and controversy), according to my teachers, since the royal families were established, they are characterized by order and many influences, and their kingdom has a strong army capable of repelling any of the attacks
Let's think about it from several angles
I see that most say that it is discrimination and achievement, but this is because they are not in a country that is ruled by a king, so if they were in that country, they would present themselves with respect, appreciation and glorification for them.
Hi @Smart_Keyboard - I think you've made some interesting points, but when you say royal families have been sources of cruelty - can you elaborate? Sadly there is often cruelty, even in the modern age; are you sure it's always the monarchy directly who is responsible, and not their governments, or advisors?
I believe that there is a place for royalty in the modern world because the modern world is the embodiment of democracy and liberal values . And most monarchs agree to this and also abide by this.
The Economist Intelligence Unit in 2021 ranked Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and the UK in its top 20 of its Democracy Index with Spain and Belgium close behind.
All of the countries mentioned are Monarchies with their own respective monarchs.
Also most monarchs have their countries best interest at heart. And because of this some monarchs have resulted in stripping some of the grandchildren off royal titles to slim down the family because they think the larger the family, the more likely one would go off the rail.
Even though some countries maintain their royal family, they are also fortunate to combine democracy with high living standards.
If you take a close look at these countries, you will see that they have some of the highest living standards in the world. They have social security nets that many people in other places dream of.
I think that the place of royals in the modern world is likely to continue while political systems change over time. Some of their functions today is to promote diplomacy, trade and cultural exchange. Their charitable work is really clear. It is also clear that many countries continue to value their royal traditions and see their past by these royals.
Who might disagree with me?
I think most royality in this world are just symbolic so they have little practical use in modern governance. The ones who may disagree with me are the people who live in countries in which royality control everything such as Saudi Arabia where they lose their right of election and sometimes to express their opinions in the current royality.
Interesting points!
yes the royals are important because they protect the citizens and they bring income for the nation like tourism
To be clear Philip Treacy once said, "Royalty is completely different than celebrity..."
Royalty is people of royal blood or status. Here are advantages and disadvantages, "A constitutional monarch, with a ceremonial figurehead role, may provide continuity and stability, provide a unifying non-partisan representative of the state, and reinforce democratic legitimacy with other sources of authority, including traditional and in some cases religious authority."(International IDEA Constitution-Building Primer, Elliot Bulmer 2017 Second Edition).
I am neutral when it comes to taking sides in the interest of royalties.
I stand to be corrected, though people deeply rooted in either democracy, autocracy, socialism, communism, oligarchy.
Hello!
Wel,l I feel that this a very broad topic. There are those who say that monarchy is a good system of rule as having a figure head could be good as they will have someone to look up to in times of trouble and as a representative of a nation but there are also those who say that giving someone absolute power is a bad thing as it could lead to tyranny and dictatorship. Personally, I feel it is a toss of the coin for me as they both have their advantages such as monarchy brings stability and peace while democracy upholds the rights of the people.
Lately, the role of monarchs has been largely ceremonial and now they act as symbols of their respective nations rather than the prestigious and highly powerfully monarchs we had grown accustomed to over the years. I think that there will always be a dispute among the roles monarchs should play in the in the modern times, but it should be down to cultural and diplomatic choices of a group of people to decide.
royalty don't have a lot of power anymore but most of the royalty are extremely in different countries have more power then others
I agree with you, there are no more, but in Jordan, I think that the regime is wonderful there, and they enjoy strength and humility.
I think the presence of many kings, the world will not be the same
Let there be a chief and kings.
Yes, but don't you think that some kings are strong, but they do not show any of their strength except in times of adversity, for example, the king was strong, but everyone knows that he is weak, and no one knows the truth of his strength, intelligence, and his ingenuity in solving problems, and a king came from another country to occupy the city that is ruled by this strong king who In the eyes of others, he is weak, but when this king came to colonize, the king stood up to him and confronted him with all his strength and courage, and the king who is called the weak won. Don't you think that there are kings like this?
About the relevancy of royalty they are not that relevant as they used to be . I know that before they were really held in high regard but I think that maybe the people felt like that system of government was not fair because sometimes the royals misused their power and made the people feel lower than them instead of them trying to make the people feel equal to the government maybe that was why many countries started pursuing the democratic government because they could elect the people or persons who they thought were suitable for the positions of authority over them and nowadays some of the countries that still have a system of monarchy still carry a democratic government elected by the people.
The Succession of King Charles III and the Future of the British Monarchy
As the current monarch of Britain, King Charles III's succession is a topic of much debate and speculation. The next in line for the throne is his eldest son, Prince William, followed by William's children. However, some argue for a change in the succession laws to allow for the monarch to be chosen on merit rather than birthright. Others argue that the monarchy should be abolished altogether, with the country becoming a republic. Despite this, the British monarchy remains a popular institution, with a recent poll showing that 67% of Britons support the continuation of the monarchy.
From my point of view, educate yourself on this subject
The role of monarchy in the modern world is a subject of ongoing debate. Historically, monarchs have held considerable power, but in many modern constitutional monarchies, such as the United Kingdom, the monarch's role is largely symbolic. Some argue that the monarchy serves as a symbol of tradition and continuity, providing a link to a country's history and cultural identity.
However, others argue that the monarchy perpetuates outdated notions of hierarchy and inequality, particularly in light of concerns over wealth and colonialism. There are also concerns about the monarchy's impact on issues of fairness and equality, particularly in regards to racism.
While the monarchy remains popular in some countries, particularly those with strong historical ties to their monarchies, there are growing calls for reform or even abolition of the institution in others. Ultimately, the role of the monarchy in the modern world is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires consideration of a range of factors, including history, power, fairness, tradition, racism, popularity, equality, colonialism, and wealth.
I think royals are relevant because they promote culture and create pride in people of a particular tribe for example in Buganda here in Uganda,the royal family is respected and everyone in Buganda feels proud being associated with it, the Buganda Royal Family presides over charity runs like the Kabaka's Birthday Run which is held every year to help the needy in Buganda and other places in Uganda who have diseases like HIV/AIDS,Cancer,Polio e.t.c,so I submit my comment saying royals are relevant.
IS THERE A PLACE FOR ROYALS IN THE MODERN WORLD?
My response to this question is no. This is because royalty makes people of a society seem unequal. Meanwhile everyone one deserves to be seen and to be heard in his/her environment. Nobody chooses his/her family and as a result it is no one's fault that he/she finds himself/herself in a non-royal family.
Prejudice and segregation which are characteristics of the royal have no place in the present world for the fact that society is becoming more sophisticated. People are now more than ever clamouring for equal opportunity. The world being a global village now has made things easier for people interms business dealings and professional practices. Consequently, financial independence is guaranteed now. This is why prince Harry and his wife could afford to step aside. Of course this wouldn't have been possible in those good old days.
Also, the example of Morocco proves that the royas have no place any longer in the world of today having agreed to reduce his powers and give some of them to the government after a protest. Therefore, people are becoming more conscious of who they are and do not want to be seen or treated any less.
Members of any family which reigns by hereditary right are often referred to as royalty or royals. There are disadvantages of royals the following are the disadvantages:perpetuates class divisions and inequality there are also advantages of a monarch which are as follows:
A monarchy is regarded as one of the most stable forms of government.
Monarchies reduce the levels of political divide in a country.
Most monarchies rule from a centrist approach.
It is possible to reduce or eliminate corruption within the boundaries of a monarchy.
I do not think that the kings should have absolute powers because some kings misuse their powers for example Kabaka Mwanga in Uganda ,who killed people that stood still for their faith which left Uganda with a bad image . If the king had not been given absolute power ,then may be the Ugandan martyrs would not have died in such a miserable painful death . So I conclude by saying kings should not have absolute power .
To be honest, I would say that I'm not really enthusiastic when it comes to news about royalty due to the fact that royalties are slowly fading out of existence and are getting outdated. I feel that they no longer playing as much role that we might think they do. They are just there sometimes to fill in the "GAP".
Although some individuals might disagree, I'm just saying out my opinion in that aspect... Thank You
I think royal families are relevant because they have supported charity activities, appear at events and occasionally travel to different countries to strengthen diplomatic relationships.
If the royal families were not there, many charity activities would have lacked support , for example; those who lack food have been helped by charity arrangements initiated by the royal family in Buganda and have built schools for people to study and be important people in society.
I think the role of royalty in the modern world is not relevant. To be candid ,if a family is allowed to rule under the structure of a monarchy it makes it very tough for the people to make changes in the happenings of the society\ community. Except the royals agree, there is no way a common person can make changes. There are higher possibilities of dictatorship in the structure of a monarchy, great harm can transpire when it is present. Some rulers may not even choose to take over their allocated responsibilities which will not develop they society in any way. According to my research ''Independent justice is difficult to find in a monarchy because the ruling class has the final judicial say in matters unless a separate structure has been built into the government''. For instance if the monarch does not admire/like you , you might end up in prison or find yourself in unpleasant situations, even if you are not guilty of any wrong.
I think royals are relevant because for example the wife to king of buganda the (Nabagereka) organises girls and boys to learn house chores in an organisation which is supported by the royal family and this does not only engage people in Buganda but also those living in the Diaspora, as long as they are Baganda. Recently the wife to the king of Buganda organised meeting young girls and boys living in London and taught them domestic chores. With this is stand to say that Royals are relevant in society.
This is interesting! What kinds of chores were being taught?
I think not because the monarchy is hereditary.
As for the republican rule, elections are in favor of the people of the state.
Also, with royal rule, there is coherence with strong customs and traditions! But I believe that republican rule is rather easy, there is no cohesion of customs and traditions, and it is done by the people directly
However, there is a king and queen in the state of Jordan who do not adhere to customs and traditions and are humble. If there were a monarchy in the world like them, and in my country, everything would be fine.
Are you interested in telling the kings?
Well I'll be honest I don't care much about kings because there are no kings in my town.. ■
But I think being kings and adhering to customs and traditions is difficult for me.
Because the kings of Britain cling tightly to customs and traditions.
I think that having a president and a republic who do not adhere to customs is something better, but not everything
From my point of view, getting a really much better boss.
What do you think is better about having a president?
Many believe that having a president is more preferable because it is based on elections rather than hereditary succession. A president can be viewed of as better because whoever is in the role is resulted off of the opinions of the citizens. This is thought to represent more equality than purely inherited succession.
In my beliefs, it is better than having a king in this reality or era, because the arrogant kings think of themselves as the richest group in society and that they are among the best lineages. The people choose themselves. President..
Because the president conducts elections on the basis of the people's opinions, and in any law there are the people's opinions, so I believe in that.
I feel there is a role for royalty in the modern world , because the uphold the traditions, religions of a particular country and the also act potential for a countries identity, peace, unity and pride. According to my research''Throughout world history, monarchies usually have the strongest armies and defensive protocols. This is required because the power of the throne rests in the lands and people being governed. Without lands and productive individuals, there is no government to form''. So i feel the monarchs has a very important role to play in the modern world.
The modern monarchy is a form of the political system characterized by the presence of a king, but this king has no involvement in the implementation of political decisions, in which the monarch reigns and does not rule. I believe that the system in the modern world will change history, spread fairness and justice among the people, change the negative traditions of the people, eliminate popular racism, and spread equality.
Either I live in a country that does not follow the monarchy, but the other system, and therefore I will give examples of other countries that followed the monarchy, for example: Saudi Arabia
1- The system of government in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is monarchical, and the rule rests with the sons of the founder, Abd al-Aziz bin Abd al-Rahman al-Faisal Al Saud and his sons, and the most fit of them is given allegiance to rule according to the Book of God and His Messenger (may God bless him and grant him peace).
2- The King chooses the Crown Prince, who is exempted by royal order
3- The Crown Prince shall be fully devoted to the mandate of the Crown and the tasks assigned to him by the King, and he shall assume the powers of the King after his death
4- Citizens pledge allegiance to the King on the basis of the Book of God Almighty and His Messenger
5- Governance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is based on God, Shura and equality in accordance with Islamic Sharia
In my opinion, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia followed the monarchy and applied it normally to all people
Here in my country we do not follow the monarchy, but rather the democratic system that leaves us free to express our opinions and works to meet our needs.
As for the countries in which the monarchy exists, such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Britain and other countries, they follow a dictatorial regime that works to restrict freedom of thought and not exchange opinions with the people and force them to abide by their laws that may not be suitable for the people.
For me, I do not see this type of system appropriate.
I also believe that there is a role for the monarchy in the modern era, because it works to control matters in countries and make them orderly and courtly, in addition to how to deal with the poor and needy kindly and well and help them meet their needs and work to facilitate their lives.
I am against the monarchy for many reasons, but nevertheless there are good and valuable aspects of it, as well as other bad aspects
Can we say that both monarchical and democratic rule are unfair? No, of course, because each has advantages and disadvantages, and this, of course, is found in many of those who rule the country in general.
Let's see if it is possible for the king to always be branching out to give alms or talk to the people. No, because the idea that you are a king ruling an entire country is a big, huge idea that needs lots and lots of courage, strength and intuition.
But I am sure that if the king is interested in his people, he makes those who are specialized in doing these secondary things
The whole thing is that the king spends his time in the army, managing state affairs, or working with the ruling families in other kingdoms
I think that the king in his first life as a king will be exposed to psychological things such as ● how he will manage the affairs of the kingdom
How can he please his people with anything they need
● Can he run an entire country, an entire army
In this matter, you were interested to know our opinions about the monarchy and whether we want it in our country or not, but when I thought about it, a question came to my mind, which is is it possible that there are princes who reject the life of kings and want to live an ordinary life, and I think that if there is Princes who think this way, I believe that when they become kings in the future, they will be very humble and understanding of people's conditions. What's wrong with you, do you agree with me??
I'm so interested in the news of kings to show their developments and changes in their countries. I think that the successful king is the one who makes his audience happy and love him and his royality by providing people with a lot of chances in work, jobs and make the country free and independent.
Economic Impact: The British monarchy has a significant economic impact on the country, with the royal family generating billions of pounds in tourism revenue and supporting thousands of jobs. The royal family also has a positive impact on the country's image and reputation, with the monarchy being one of the most recognizable symbols of Britain around the world.
In conclusion, the British monarchy under King Charles III plays a significant role in the country's political, cultural, and economic life. The monarchy has a rich history and tradition, and the royal family continues to play an important role
significant interest and revenue.
Overall, the monarchy has played a central role in British history and culture for centuries, and continues to be an important symbol of national unity and tradition.
There is a very crucial role of the monarchy in the modern world whether it be their representation in International Laws or engaging world politics. Royal families still exist across various countries and have a very crucial role in the law, politics, policies, and economy of that country. They control most of the profits by their hands in these countries, have the power to regulate the citizens of that nation, have absolute control over the military, punish people for every move they make, and forcefully make them soldiers to take the lives of other innocent people. There are plenty of examples .... but there are some royal families who have a very crucial role in many lives of the people like donations to charity, helping people with their daily problems, and also helping the country they live in by strengthening diplomatic relations or strengthening relationships with other countries. People might disagree with me because some of them, have been brainwashed into praising their leaders while some have traditional and cultural bonds to the royal family. Not all royals are cruel but help in raising the families of countless people.
What do you think is the most important job of the British royal family?
I think the most important job of the British Royal Family is :
1) Helping the people through donations to charity and talking to the people through letters. For example, 100,000 letters are received and answered by the Royal Family each year.
2) Supporting the armed forces. Members of the Royal Family have official relationships with many units of the Forces, paying regular visits to soldiers, sailors, and airmen serving at home and abroad.
I dont think there's a role for monarchy in this era. As we all know monarchy us a form of government with a monarch at the head. Why don't we need them? Monarchs tend to have more power and believe they are superior than others. I think monarchs don't do any work as to promoting the nation. We have otger executive and legislative member in the parliament house. For instance ; king Charles III being on the throne doesn't really do anything to promote the nation in any way. We have people like the prime minister (Rishi sunak) and other cabinets in the parliament who actually help promote the nation. Kings are pampered with their riches... History as we have seen in past times in England. The monarchy rule brought a lot of downside to people e.g inequality- only letting the peasants work and pay taxes to the barons(clergy and nobility). Whiles the poor will be out ghere suffering and sweating to provide end meets the kings are never bothered about these things. Whiles they are earing the finest food and having the best lives the poor are out there suffering. I am not interested any news concerning royalty since they basically don't do much to help promote the nation. And i also think the monarchy rule in England should have ended with the death of Queen Elizabeth II. Therfore i believe it is not useful for the coronation of king Charles III to take place.
Whilst you have focused on the negative traits of royals in brining inequality, do you not think there is a place for the new generation of royals such as Prince William and Harry who undertake significant philanthropic work? Given their prestige and extensive network, they are well placed to contribute to charitable activities. For example, Prince Harry launched the Invictus games - an international multi-sport event first held in 2014, for wounded, injured and sick servicemen and women.
I live in a country where the system of government is democratic, the people elect the president, but the people suffer from poverty and hunger, while the people of countries ruled by a monarchy live a better life. Perhaps the system of government is not important in that. What is important is a just ruler
Due to political advancement, the duties of the royal have been taken over by the political leaders rendering them almost useless in some parts of the world. They only have ceremonial duties. So in my opinion royalty should still be practices but as a traditional aspect.
Why do you believe countries should continue to allow monarchies to undertake their ceremonial and traditional duties? Do you think royalty affects the way the country is perceived in the world and possibly provides an economic benefit? Or does the cost of sustaining a royal family outweigh the benefits?
A royal family can provide a sense of continuity and stability in a country's history and culture. Monarchies have a long tradition in many countries, and their presence can be seen as a symbol of national identity and heritage. Their ceremonial duties can also serve to unify the country, as they provide a shared experience for citizens and can help foster a sense of national pride.
Furthermore, the presence of a royal family can also provide economic benefits. For example, tourism is often attracted to countries with monarchies, as tourists are interested in experiencing the cultural and historical aspects associated with a royal family. This can result in increased revenue for the country, as well as job creation in the tourism industry.
Lastly, it's important to note that the cost of sustaining a royal family can vary depending on the country. In most cases, the cost is relatively small compared to the benefits that a monarchy can provide in terms of cultural and economic value. Additionally, some royal families are known for their philanthropic work and contribute to charitable causes, which can also benefit the country as a whole.
In summary, i see the value in preserving a country's history and identity through its monarchy.
I think that there is no need for the monarchy to remain anymore because that is racism and also harmful to the state in the event that an incompetent person is in office, and also if he is a republican, he will be given a greater opportunity to make the state more prosperous, as a person from the public will have gone through what the people have gone through and knows their needs and works To provide and develop the state
Some interesting thinking! Do you think all elected members of the public will equally be able to empathise with all members of society?
No, I do not think that everyone has a kind heart that loves and sympathizes with all people
Some of them are kind, sympathetic to people, and help charities and institutions that help the poor, the needy, and orphans.
And among them are those who covet their money and are stingy to give alms out of it, either if it is for associations or people, even they are arrogant and disdainful. We as human beings do not want kings or presidents like them, nor do we want them in our world.
They do not sympathize and do not love the poor. They only work on racial discrimination between the poor and the rich. This is not good at all. I hope that society does not elect the wrong person, and I hope that they elect the person who loves and sympathizes with them. Thank you.
From my point of view, the monarchy system is bad because it makes the king not human-like, and there is complete loyalty from the people to his master without opposition or any opinion from the people, and there is discrimination for the king, his son, or one of his relatives. Equality, but there are some countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, although their system of government is monarchical, but there is fairness and justice from the king to the people, and great love of the people for their master and ruler, like the love of the Jordanian people for King Abdullah, and prosperity and understanding among some peoples, such as Saudi Arabia
As i type this comment, i have watched my country tear through a number of problems year after year and somehow each president has been able to take care of it or put it back down to a stable point. The world is evolving, we have to as well. The monarchy creates a multitude of problems such as discrimination, Classism, and even riots regarding the people wanting change and getting tired of the same old class system that brought about many problems for example, the French revolution and many civil wars within England. Knowing that one person can your fate just by the way you so much as breathe around them is ludicrous. I personally believe that the monarchy became outdated years ago and it's time to bring a new way of ruling into the world .
I have watched many films about the old era where there are monarchs, kings and queens. Unfortunately, the people suffered from racism, inequality and ignorance. Because of the developments in many areas, this phenomenon has decreased and many countries get their independence. So I think it's time to end it in this century. People are equal and all of them should be treated in fairness. This will help humanity to evolve and to grow in better condition s.
I agree.This needs to stop.Racism is very mean.No one should face this,Especially the royal family.It will help people.
There should also be no bullys.Do you agree flowing poem?
Do you think there is a role for royalty in the modern world?
I think there is no role of royalty in the modern world. Since most monarchs do not govern the country their relevance to the modern world is only for preserving the culture and tradition. I think democratic country is better than monarchy because
In democratic country we can vote the person whom we want to rule. But in monarchy there is no way for voting because it will only happen through dynasty. People are considered equal in democratic country but in monarchy people are not considered as equal and this leads to discrimination. I think there should only be democratic countries all over the globe.
As we know, every state has its own rule, and monarchy is a form of government always in the ancient and modern era. Therefore, the royal family is important in order to provide the people with what they need and overcome crises, obstacles, and the deterioration of the state’s condition, and if they differ in the importance of doing so, there are few, because we are all human, even if we differ in Our position in society.
In my opinion, royalty is a very old way of ruling a place. The royals receive money from both public and private sources, though they no longer perform notable public duties as they once did. The monarchy has existed since the 7th century and has no political power in countries such as the United Kingdom and Japan, but in countries such as Jordan and Morocco, the monarchy shares power with other leaders.
Monarchies, I believe, have no place in the modern world because they spend a lot of money just to keep their statuses, sometimes up to 340,000,000 Euros per year. Finally, the monarch simply sucks up a country's resources and does not care much about the people.
My question now is, in some countries, why does the monarch lack political power if the monarch is useful?
I think that there is no place for ownership in the modern world because people today are demanding their rights, and when the monarchy is adopted, they will demand their right to political participation through nomination, election and equality.
The role of royalty in the modern world varies from country to country and depends on the type of political system in place. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom and other constitutional monarchies, the role of royalty is largely ceremonial, serving as symbols of national unity and tradition, with limited political power. Royalty may also play a role in promoting diplomacy and cultural exchange between nations, as they often serve as ambassadors for their countries. Additionally, some members of royalty are involved in charitable work and philanthropy, using their platform and influence to support various causes and organizations. However, there are also arguments against the continuation of royalty in the modern world, as some view the institution as outdated and a symbol of inequality and privilege. There are also concerns about the cost of maintaining a royal family and whether the taxpayer should be responsible for funding their lifestyle. Ultimately, the role of royalty in the modern world is a complex and multifaceted issue, with varying perspectives and opinions.
About the monarchy the United kingdom plays a big role in Europe as a powerful kingdom , being a king in the modern days it 's different from long time ago .We do not need Kings because they want to live luxury and comfort instead of helping the need and donating food
*Different views of people may not be adjusted because of racism in the society to change development
*The Queen maintained peace in different countries by visiting countries in Africa and was loved by people but Princess Diana will always be remembered for being a devoted mother, a life long advocate for children she also created with helping modernize the monarchy.
In Uganda the Kabaka is a power traditional leader and he is deeply intertwined in the country 's politics and history.
I thing that role of a king or queen should be in the modern world.
Can you develop your opinion here? Why do you think that @flowing_mood ?
There is not a role for monarchy in the modern world because now instead of like kings, Queens, Princess, and princes, like in the medieval times, now there are presidents and new froms of government. These presidents are people that are respected more often. This is why I am saying that there is no role for monarchy in the modern world.
I don't think that the royal family in england are MAKING their roles relevant, they are doing stuff that is not helpful or relevant to englands current state. Due to the war between russia and ukraine we are in a cost of living crisis and inflation is a huge issue in everyday super markets. The royal family are spending tax payers money on a brand new golden carriage which is most likely only going to be used for a couple minutes for the coronation. And considering the controversy around charles, its not really giving him a good reputation.
I think the coronation of Charles is going to be good for the country in tradition sense . But I do think that the money wasted due to having to make new money with his face on it will make them cut down more trees meaning it won't be good for the environment and will take a long time for everyone in England to get this new currency.
Also not many people are celebrating charles like they did with queen elizabeth. for her platinum jubilee, there were many street parties, promotion, news titles. but following on from the controversy around charles, not many people are making it out to be such a big deal, i think the most that is happening is that it is being televised all over england.
I believe that the royal family is relevant but only for a ceremonial purpose. The reason for this is that in Britain the royal family has been here for 1,000 years and now one of the only way they affect Britain is through keeping our tradition of royals and their lineage but now they do things that make no sense such as: using the citizens money to pay for King Charles' carriage when the family is extremely wealthy. Choosing to use the money that the citizens need for something so impractical is quite pointless as there is a perfect carriage they have been using for years but instead they are using money that we need to feed out families, keep our families in a house and to overall stay alive. Another thing is not carrying on what Queen Elizabeth II had done before she had passed away instead he's focusing on things like organic food or climate change and that's fine for him to have his own focus for him being the King but it's better for right now to focus on something that he would be able to change positively in a substantial way as trying to fix something like climate change is not going to be fixed in 5 or so years.
Hi jolly_pigeon, interesting - what is something you'd prefer the King to focus on? Isn't it critical to have high-profile attention on climate change?
Although there is certainly a role for royalty (eg: inspiring people, leading their respective territory/country) I personally feel like government could easily do this with similar effect. One of the only differences between government and royalty is status, and we can even see in many countries (such as the US) that the government system works well and helps the country as much as royals do. Furthermore, monarchy is quite an outdated system, and is getting more unnecessary as time progresses. On the other hand, royalty is extremely ceremonious and is quite nice to actually have in a country, and the monarchy can inspire much easier because of their influence. Because of these conflicting reasons, I am unsure which side to take. So, what do you think?
I think there is not really a role for the royal family, it is mainly just tradition. Although they have helped support charities and done other good deeds, there is not really a need for them. Also, I do not think it is right that the royal family should be treated better than everyone else, just because of their role or position. It is not fair, especially since they are born into the family. They are treated more highly then others. I think there is not really a need for the Royal Family, but it is carried on because of tradition and the fact that they do not want to get rid of it now (after we have had it for an extremely long time). In my opinion, the whole idea of it is outdated because I don't really think much would change if we did not have them.
First I believe the idea of a monarch is not needed as they do not provide our nation with anything but overpriced milk. And no guidance is provided. The fact the he (Charles) spent our tax payers money a carriage that really isn't needed and its not like the Royal family don't have enough money to purchase the carriage them self.
On the other hand the Royal family provide one thing and that is tourism which bring in millions of pounds a year into the UK's economy.
I believe that the royal family is a good thing to have in our nation, some examples of this is that it keeps the rich heritage and history. This works in our favor because it promotes tourism to come and visit the UK. However I do also agree that it is a bit outdated because this all started before we had a government and the opportunity to vote for a leader on the other hand though the royal family don t really have a say or place in decisions any more.
I personally think that royalty is not all that relevant in the modern day society. Although I understand having a monarchy can bring about some benefits such as unity and symbolism in their respective countries, their roles in society nowadays are mostly for ceremonial purposes and they rarely partake in ruling. Their roles as monarchs are also given to them since birth, as opposed to earning it through hard work and dedication; there is no telling if the monarch is ready and capable of assuming this role.
Are still royals relevant?
Yes because some the King of Abu Dhabi ( Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan ) can decide laws and politicians but the King and Queen of United Kingdom ( King Charles ||| & Queen Camilla ) is done purely done for tradition they can't decide laws or politicians.
Many people have a different view of royalty, and that it strongly influences how relevant the monarchy is to them. For example, in Saudi Arabia, the monarch has complete control over the countries political and economic decisions and they laws. Due to this, the people of that country may be in utter awe of the royal family, or they may feel enmity towards the it. However, in England, royalty has a different role than it used to and tends to have more positive connotations.
I think that the monarchy could and could not continue, and I have a reason why. That is; the last time England did not have a monarch was back in the English Civil War, and many consequences happened with the Government ruling. The Monarchy was then restored a couple years later. However, we are not in the 17th century anymore.
In my opinion, no. The royals are not really relevant. From what i know (i may be wrong) the king has barely any relevance, he is basically just a representative. His roles are mainly representing the UK and charity events. Anyone could do those jobs.
Even though they should,be the royals are no longer relevant.This is because the only job they have is to represent the UK.However,they don't seem to do this very often.In my own opinion the royals should either get slightly more power over the country or not exist.I like the idea of the royal family and the traditions that they bring.If they had more power such as getting the power of law and controlling media in a positive way.
They do huge work for charity but only charity because they don't have to meet new people or go outside the UK anymore.The UK should be under more control from the royals.
Hi calm_juniper, are there any potential issues you see with giving the Royals more power?
Maybe if you give them more power they might go bad and turn into dictators. But if the power level stays the same they cant turn bad because they cant do any harm. And also this is done purely done for tradition.
there are complications in giving the royals more power such as the possibility they let more power get to their heads.I am glad because the Manga Carta stops the royals getting too much power as it was signed by King john in the 1600's.This is an amazing fact as people might get scared of the royals and they are supposed to be a symbol of peace and the idea of the UK.
Is there any need for monarchy? In my opinion, i think it is important as our monarchy are not able to handle everything themselves, such as producing new laws & politics. Our King is
much needed in my opinion because it's another person who is able to add ideas to make our modern day life accessible and joyful. If we only had the royals and the government were not a thing/ irrelevant, everything would be left to our royals and a lot of pressure would be situated on our monarchy and things would be made/published later and our world wouldn't be as up to date as it is today.
no. Because I focus my attention on political news
and economic development
Because it relates to our lives a lot. In short, economic nationalism has goals of which eradicating poverty in all its forms
It also has conditions for this, we benefit a lot from it in our lives, our knowledge, and its increase in culture
Also, my country does not enjoy the rule of a king
It enjoys democratic governance.So I don't give my attention on the lives of kings unless I see it on TV or communication sites and I enjoy their traditions. Lately, I ejoyed the celebration of the marriage of the daughter of King Abdullah, Iman in Jordan . It was great and full of emotion. I like Queen Rania reactioms during the celebration.
I believe that there is no role for the monarchy because the needs of the poor are not met, especially if it is greedy and cannot be replaced, and that wealth and power may affect it, so that it becomes a greedy man, and thus for the sake of private interest it seizes many rights and that there is racism in the country and thus people are deprived of the right Equality and justice
I believe that the country of cultural and economic development is Britain, which has the best and strongest royal civilization that preserved its royal civilization no matter how other countries tried to occupy it and subvert its monarchy, but it remained steadfast, and we all know the biggest event in the British monarchy when King John accepted the (Magna Carta) document from the third century Ten, whose text I liked about preserving the rights of the clergy and the nobility, and I love Britain because the people are very kind, and there is no racial discrimination between them, with all due respect to the country of world peace Britain
In many countries, royalty plays a symbolic and ceremonial role that represents the countries history and traditions. Some view royals as a unifying force that brings together people and fostering national pride. In other countries such as the United Kingdom, the royal family has a significant economic impact through tourism and other industries.
However, others argue that royalty is an outdated concept that has no place in modern society. And that hereditary monarchy is undemocratic and that the recourses devoted to supporting a royal family could better be used for social programs and other public goods.
Due to the royal family's popularity and power, their descendants are expected to obey strict rules and an entirely different lifestyle. Prince Harry in the news stated, 'The lack of support and understanding has led to Meghan and I's departure for a new life abroad. To be honest, I feel TRAPPED in the royal family.' These are extremely powerful words he stated to Oprah. The word trapped suggests that he needs to adhere to the higher, stricter rules of the monarchy, but he simply never had a choice of being born into the royal family. He deserves to live a normal life if he wants to. He found love with his wife Meghan and fought for this love, even if the Royal Family initially rejected her because she was an actor and a divorced woman. In the end though, Harry was given consent to marry her. However, he was then cut off completely by the Royal family, rejected from his calls to Prince Charles and was not given any of the money. All of this just because he wanted a normal life with his true love? I do believe the Royal Family should keep the tradition of representing our country, but having so much commotion from them could start an uproar...
“I don’t think we really need a Royal family anymore. It’s a pretty outdated institution. We should be aiming to create an equal society which the royal family does not represent. I do think they do a lot of good- they have a public purpose doing some good community work, but in general we should be working towards getting rid of it and replacing it with an elected head of state. Voting as a system is not perfect but does a better job.
In terms of whether they are integral to being British, I feel like they represent 1950s English nostalgia, with and the queen waving from a carriage, waving flags and bunting- not the UK today. A lot of people like the royal family because they seem so much more competent than our politicians. It’s a failure of our democratic institutions that we look to the monarchy as a source of good.
I do care about Harry and Meghan’s decision to take a step back from the Royal family- it reveals a lot about our media. I think Harry and Megan trying to remove themselves is a good thing, especially not wanting to use taxpayers’ money to do their roles. There is also a wider agenda in the media; Meghan has suffered from sensationalist vilification and demonisation because I think as a couple they represent modern principles of working towards equality and not entirely elite interests.
Given the climate crisis, the way we currently live isn’t holding together so there could be a push for a more progressive change. However, if racism and misogyny continue to rise I find it hard to believe that the monarchy will be scaled back. But I think this will set a precedent that royal members can have more of a private life and not be as dependent on public money.
I think the monarchy’s really out of date and out of touch with the real world to be honest. It’s quite a nice tradition but I do just think the whole system is based on ceremony not substance. It’s a bit strange that the Queen has to read a speech laying out the government’s plans in Parliament, when she might not even believe in them.
I also don’t like that we pay for their upkeep and don’t really reap any benefits- sure they bring in some tourism but France doesn’t have a royal family and Paris is [one of]* the most visited city in the world. I think we should have a scandavian monarchy where they are financially independent and their houses be made into museums where we all have access to it.
I think it’s useful to have a neutral head of state, but is a 91-year old woman who’s always lived in a royal bubble really qualified to be making decisions about 6 million people? It’s not particularly democratic.
They are very much a part of our culture and they are the most famous royal family in the world, so I think taking the royal family away completely would be a mistake, but I think the system we have is a bit much and should be scaled down.
I don’t care that much about Harry and Megan mostly as it’s none of my business. He’s pretty far down the line for the throne so I do see his point; he might as well take a step back. The press effectively killed his mother and I think Meghan has had a lot of bad press since she married him- though she probably knew that it would happen. I think them choosing a different path is a good step forward and could change the monarchy a lot by becoming financially independent and have more of a private life. They don’t need to be in the public eye.
It’s difficult to say what the future of the monarchy is. The way things are going with climate change and the potential for civil unrest, I see politics changing a lot in the next thirty years. Climate change will encourage mass migration so socially things will change too, which could have an impact on the monarchy.
I think the monarchy is a little bit out of step with the real world, but maybe that’s also the great thing about it? It’s a way for the nation to escape the sometimes grim realities of life and have a different sort of life to look up to? I know some people don’t like the royal family as it seems quite unequal, but let’s be honest, if we got rid of the monarchy tomorrow it wouldn’t magically make this country a more equal place.
I think as British people, we just don’t have much that makes us feel British and the Royal family is one of the few things that gives us a national identity. I wonder what we’d replace it with if we didn’t have them any more?
I think Harry and Meghan choosing to leave is fine- the Royal family shouldn’t be a prison where there’s no way out and I understand why given what happened with him mum [Princess Diana] he’d be cautious. But they definitely shouldn’t be getting any more public money and I’m pleased they said they’d give back all the public money that went into their house which they’ll continue to live in. It’s not fair for people’s taxes to pay for them when they’re not working for us anymore.
It’s hard to know if the monarchy will still be around for the long run. Maybe as other things in the world become less certain, people will become more focused on their own countries and cultures and cling onto tradition. But equally things could become so mad and unstable that traditions like the royal family become irrelevant and people care about them less.
Bias, racism, and selfishness are all evil and are common with royalty. I think this could be a result of the
power vested in kings and queens. It gets into their heads and they forget what it means to be humane
most times, doing only that which would favour them. Looking at all this from a modern point of view
and comparing the two, I don’t think royalty is a necessity. The queen or king might make some rules
but the members of the parliament in most countries tend to make the rules and execute most of the
country’s affairs. We hardly see the royals as opposed to seeing the members of the house every day
seeing to the running of the country’s affairs. This goes to show that the royals are just a “minor
majority”.
Thanks for your comment, Genius Solution! Can you find any recent examples of the Royal family facing accusations of racism? Also, do you think the Royal family could be doing more to speak out against the racism in their history?
I strongly think that royalty should stay and not be considered as a thing of the past. I mean if people
travel to the United Kingdom on tourism just because of the royal family which thereby generates a
gross income to the country, then England should not think of scrapping the royalty. What royalty has
done to not just the United Kingdom but also to the whole world is not something that should be waved
aside and be put up as a subsequent monument. Queen Elizabeth travelled to so many African countries
and did a lot of good in those countries which I think no one else could have done the way she did,
leaving her beloved country for months. Royalty is still a good idea in the modern world and King Charles
III’s coronation to his rightful throne should be done undisputed.
Thanks for your interesting and well researched comment, Enlightened Attitude! Why do you think the Royal Family generate so much tourism for the UK?
Is royalty possible without racism, inequality, popularity, or colonialism? If yes, then royalty has to stay in
this modern world as they have a key role to play. Secondly, is it possible to run a government with
royalty playing a part? If this is yes also then we can’t say no to royalty now. Royalty has come a long
way and has played a major role not just in the United Kingdom but in the whole world. Having a king
and a queen is like having a grandfather and a grandmother who are always there to guide us and advise
us based on tradition or culture that has been passed down from generation to generation. Let’s give
royalty a chance in this age so we can have a mixture of both the old and the new in our present
modernity to help chastise us with some wisdom of age.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Shy Gazelle! You have detailed a strong argument for keeping a royal family, can you find any examples of Royalty contributing to society in modern times? You also rightly point towards the issues of racism and colonialism within the Royal Family - do you think they could be doing more to move away from this history?
Royalty has a tradition of the coronation of a current king or queen and I think that it has no place in
the modern world. This is because kings and queens have been for a very long time ago, going back
to the 7th century. This has a way of affecting us by dragging us back into the past when this is the 21st
century. Agreed that they have popularity and could be contributing in a way that is not particularly
obvious or beneficial, otherwise negligible, but I think that they are not much of a necessity in a modern
world where technology and virtual reality are the specs. The bottom line here is that monarchy a.k.a
royalty has no place in the modern world.
Thanks for your interesting comment, Unbiased Contribution! Do you think the Royal family has evolved to adapt to modern times? Also, do you think they could they be doing more to adapt and benefit society in the 21st century?
I think royalty should not be in our modern world because they practice racism and have too much power. Monarchy should not be practised in the modern world and I don't think royalty should be in the modern world either. We don't need any royalty in the city or country because people become royals, they become proud and look less at people. The taxes gotten from the citizens which are used as part of their upkeep are too much and they don't really care about the poor, they only care about the royal blood and rich people. They don't seem to practice equality, they practice racism and colonialism. We are all equal, this is why I think royalty should not be in the modern world.
Have you made any assumptions here?
I think that royalty has an important role in the modern world as they can help promote cultural heritage and bring attention to important causes. I am not particularly interested in news about royalty, but I can see why some people might be. Some people who may disagree with me might think that the concept of royalty is outdated and unnecessary.
Thanks for your comment Frank Trombone! There are definitely interesting arguments on both sides of the issue. Can you find any examples of Royalty bringing attention to important causes? And why do you think it is important for Royalty in particular to bring attention to such issues?
In my country there is a monarchy. I think that the King of Spain has an important role, regarding whether I think that this role should be voted for by the Spanish population or if it should continue to be a hereditary title, I will give my opinion. I think that in Spain the king does his job very well, not like the emeritus king, he is a person who knows how to speak and behave since he has spent his whole life preparing to act as king. On the one hand, I think that you should vote, but with the society that exists today, it is the worst thing, since there are very radical opinions, I am afraid that a radical right-wing political party will govern Spain. The King of my country acts in a neutral way without giving his opinion and based on the laws so that everyone feels identified.
Do you think it's always good to have a ruler who remains neutral?
This question commonly arises in the minds of common people when they think about the term "monarchy" or "royalty". Monarchs are somewhat a less formal head of the nation but many still considered them to be inferior to the president. But I am going to say that monarchies are absolutely relevant even in this modern era. Monarchs represent the whole country in a manner democratically elected leaders cannot do. Monarchies prevent the rise of extreme forms of governments by managing the form of government. Monarchies also hold the power to make last resort extreme decisions where a country faces a major challenge. Finally, monarchies are still a part of ancient tradition which does bring up the question of dictatorship by monarchs but not all monarchs were. Monarchies can also serve up a head of a state in a more democratic and diverse way than elected political leaders. Anyone regardless of their personalities and interests can accidentally become a monarch by birth, the people experience the rule of various types of people. To show a mere reflection of the powers monarchs still hold Queen Elizabeth who passed away recently, had to sign all laws before implementation and also to dissolve or create new governments. This comes with many demerits but for once, let us all look at the power and the importance monarchs still posses.
I do not think that there is any role for kings or queens in the modern era because they have no political power therefore, there is no use for them in the government.
I do not think there is a role for royalty in the modern world . The reason why I don't think there is a role for royalty in the modern world is because we don't need a king or queen in this modern life. The reason I say this is because it can be more harmful to this modern world. I am interested in news about royalty because it teaches me about another history. I think people who might disagree with me are people who really think there should be royalty in the modern world. That is why I think there is no role for royalty in the modern world.
I believe that there is no need for royalty in this world because it is able to cause issues within the world itself. For example, it can cause people to discriminate against each other and choose violence over kindness. Some people may believe that it is unfair for someone to be above them, and I agree. This is because if everyone is equal, nobody is able to say that they are better than anybody which makes everyone feel good. When everyone is the same rank or level, there is less debating to say who is better than the other because they are the exact same rank. And it is even worse that people have to deal with royals forcing them to do everything when none of it would happen if there were no leaders. Overall, I believe that royals should not have any power and that everybody should just live a normal life as an equal country or state.
In my opinion it is not important to have royalty in this modern age. As of right now there should not be any royalty that has complete or any power in the government. Having a monarch normally leads to inequality and less freedoms for citizens. If citizens always have to listen to a monarch and have no say in the government, it could affect them. I believe those of the United Kingdom might disagree because they have lived under a monarch before. I may have it all wrong because of the fact that I live in the United States of America. But from what I heard many news stations have covered what is going on with monarchs. It has come to my attention that it is causing many problems in the modern world.
Most parts of the world already have a democratic or government system. The areas that still have royalty (like the UK) are fine living with one ruler. I feel like it's just a matter of tradition and the history of those places. Even in the UK, some people think the royalty should have ended with Queen Elizabeth II.
our monarchs these days are only taking part in events and signing of laws there is 0 point of having monarchs
absolutely with out the royal family the laws are not confirmed as the house of commons debate on what is and important law then the house of lords adds a little bit to it and then the queen or king confirm it so they do have a part to play in
I'm in the middle of yes and no because in our country, the roil family don't decide much however, kings and queens are a tradition and I would be upset if they stopped the roil family.
1.Do you think there is a role for royalty in the modern world? Why or why not?-I think that though it is not that important to have a royal family in this world and even the presence of them in the government doesn`t matter until they don`t use the tax paid by the people for their own needs and many others are saying that royalty might create monarchy rule but, I think that in this modern world even if the royals had POWER it will not be in a way of ruling creating a monarchy rule because many people are educated which means that they know what is good and what is bad so they will know when to stop the rule of that king if he is not responsible for the throne rather than the way in the olden days where they accepted and were not able to protest against the king or change the person ruling.
2.Are you interested in news about royalty?-Actually,I was not that interested in the news updates about the royals before this hub discussion started but after this I gathered many information about the royals and is really waiting eagerly to know more information especially about the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla.
The role of royalty is still widely discussed but not something that can be answered so easily. In some countries royals are only in place to represent the country, while other monarchs have absolute power. I think that it's nice to keep traditions since many things in the world are modernized now. While news about royalty don't apply to my country, it still is interesting to see and hear about the things that are happening around the world.
im personally not really interested in news about the royalty because i feel like they don't do much. I hear a lot about drama revolving around then, but I've never really heard about anything big they've done for the country.
I think they are important because they don't do much
Why do you think this makes them important?
They're not as relevant as they were before. They also don't have any political power so they're not that important in the modern world.
Do you think they should still exist or be abolished?
I feel like it should be abolished because:
1. They don't have a political opinion because they are royals.
2.They are not useful in the society in the sense that they don't do anything that will add value to the society.
3. The royal family uses some of the money meant for the country for their selves.
4. There is no monopoly.
So I really think they should be abolished because they are of no use or value.
No, I think that the royals does not play any important role in the mordern world. Because in the modern world there is a faster change in the ruling like from being a King's rule now it has mostly changed into voting power.
So the royals does not play any important role in the modern world.
Some of the people will disagree my point because, in the modern world also there are King's or Queen's rule in some country.
THANK YOU.
I used to think that the role of royals in the modern world was irrelevant. I believed that it was unfair for someone to have so much power and wealth just because of their birthright. However, my opinion has changed after learning more about the history and tradition of royalty.
I think that the role of royalty can be important for cultural and traditional reasons. The British royal family, for example, has a long and fascinating history that has helped to shape the country and its identity. Additionally, they can serve as symbols of national unity and continuity, providing a sense of stability in uncertain times.
However, I also believe that there should be limitations on their power and wealth. The idea of someone being born into such privilege and luxury while others struggle with inequality and poverty doesn't sit well with me. There should be measures in place to ensure that they use their wealth and status for the greater good, and to promote equality and fairness.
Furthermore, issues of racism and colonialism must be addressed in the context of royalty. It's important to acknowledge the problematic aspects of their history and take steps towards reconciliation and justice.
In terms of news about royalty, I am interested to an extent. While I find the historical and cultural aspects fascinating, I don't think that their popularity and personal lives should be given too much attention. There are more important issues that deserve our focus and resources.
I agree because in my country Uganda , the king and queen of Buganda kingdom organise charity events to help the needy, orphanes, the street children and they also help fight teenage pregnancies and also early marriages which are very common in Uganda. And so they should be appricated for their good work and should also be given respect because unlike them their are royals in this world who are selfish and horrible.
thank you.
The role of royalty in the modern world is a topic of debate and has evolved significantly over the centuries. While some argue that royalty serves as a symbol of tradition and national identity, others question the relevance of such institutions in contemporary society. In my opinion, there is a limited role for royalty in the modern world.Royalty can serve as a unifying force for a country, providing a sense of continuity and stability through ceremonial and symbolic events. They can also act as ambassadors, promoting the country's interests and culture on the global stage. However, their actual political power has diminished over time, and many view them as figureheads rather than active participants in governance. Therefore, the role of royalty should be carefully defined to reflect their cultural and symbolic importance while recognizing their limitations in terms of political power and decision-making. Ultimately, the role of royalty in the modern world should be evaluated based on its ability to serve the interests and needs of society in a meaningful way.
I do not think that there is a role for royalty in the modern world. I think this because the role of royalty shows that some people are superior to others. This does not show equality and fairness, which can cause many people to be angered or frustrated with royals. I am very interested in news about royalty. I am extremely interested in the opinions that others have on royals and the role of royalty in the world. People who might disagree with my opinion about the role of royals may include people who believe in the tradition or value the history of royalty.
I don't think we need a King/Queen when we have a government. I think they are just ceremental.
I think that monarchy has a role in certain countries. For example, the British royal family is only to represent their country, therefore they do not really make a difference in the modern world. However, monarchs such as Emperor of Japan, Naruhito, have a bigger impact on their country. So, I personally have mixed opinions upon the topic of modern monarchy. I think that some monarchs should step down and allow everyone to be treated fairly, while other countries should keep their monarchy because they keep their country stable and in order. So overall, monarchs have an interesting impact on their country, however not all monarchs should stay in charge of their country.
I do not think the royals are needed, but from the uk i think they are a role model to many as the king is getting coronated tommorow is will influence many not just in the uk, across the whole world but no i dont think they are needed.
I don't think there is a roll for Monarchs in this day in age.I think they cover and hide government workers who work very hard but aren't applaused.I don't think now adays there is a need for them.All I think they do is make speeches and sign documents(im not sure!).In England, King Charles is there, but he has Richie Sunak the Prime Minister and a whole government behind him.I don't think there is a need for two of them .But Buckingham Palace provides a lot of tourism to England so there are pros and cons!Monarchs can be good or bad.They can go great things for their country or disrupt the country(ww1)So I don't know mabye there is a need in some countries,but American doesn't, and there just fine with Joe Biden....Mabye a country should decide if they want one or not ?
I don't think we should still have monarchs today. This is because New rulers in a monarchy come from the line of succession. This process is usually based on family lineage, but some leaders will designate a specific person if they don’t leave any heirs. That means some people can receive leadership training at an early age so that they are ready to ascend to the throne, but that advantage is not always possible. You can train some people to be political leaders and have them fail at the position. Others might not even want to be in charge in the first place.
When there is apathy within the monarchy, then the nation will suffer. This one leader plays an integral role in the entire governing process since they are part of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This disadvantage is so powerful that it has caused entire governments to fall in the past.
Another point is that taxpayers are forced to furnish the costs that a monarch incurs over the course of governing in virtually every instance of this government structure. It is no different than paying a President or Prime Minister a salary, but other costs are government-funded as well. In the US, taxpayers would pay for the upkeep of the White House, but not the upkeep of a President’s personal home. In a monarchy, both would be expected.
There is a long history of racism within the British royal family, from involvement with the transatlantic slave trade to support for Nazism to Meghan Markle's allegations about comments made by a royal about her child’s skin color. When it comes to their own behavior or their family's past, the royals make no effort to address these issues whether it's everyday racism, structural racism, slavery, empire, The topic of racism in the monarchy clearly makes some people uncomfortable and so it is often difficult to have an open and honest conversation about it. Racism is a complex problem within our society and the royal family has a long history of turning a blind eye to it, and in some circumstances enabling it. Undoubtedly, racism has been allowed to flourish within the House of Windsor and none of us should allow this to continue. The royal family must be held accountable for their behavior.
The role of monarchy in the world is a topic that has been debated on for many centuries. Monarchy are often associated with wealth and power, but their role in the modern society is not always clear. Some argue that monarchy are valuable traditions that provide stability and continuity, while others believe that they are unfair and outdated systems that perpetuate inequality. In terms of wealth monarchy can be very expensive to maintain. For example: The British monarchy is estimated to cost payers however some argue that economic benefits of having a monarchy outweigh the cost.
Royalty has traditionally been associated with inherited privilege and power, which can be seen as outdated and incompatible with modern values of equality and democracy. Many countries have moved away from monarchies in recent decades, replacing them with democratic governments.
However, there are still some countries with monarchies, such as the United Kingdom, Spain, and Japan, where the role of royalty is largely ceremonial and symbolic, representing national unity and tradition. In these cases, the monarchy can be seen as a unifying force that promotes cultural heritage and stability, rather than a source of political power.
In terms of whether there is a role for royalty in the modern world, it ultimately depends on the country and its specific circumstances. Some may argue that monarchies are an unnecessary expense and anachronistic, while others may view them as a valuable part of national identity and culture.
Regarding who might disagree with my analysis, there are likely individuals or groups who strongly support the continuation of monarchies and see them as essential to their cultural heritage and national identity. Others may argue that even in countries where the monarchy is largely symbolic, the fact that they are still recognized as a symbol of power and privilege perpetuates systemic inequalities.
Yes I think there is a need for royalty as it is who people look up to at the head of his or hers country but I also think there should be fairness and equality as some royals a treated better than others .
I don't know if we need Royals or not,because in Ireland we don't have one,we have a president.Having a King or Queen in your country has pros and cons.For example King Charles does a lot of charity work around the world and Buckingham Palace is a big tourist destination that provides England with a lot of revenue throughout the year .The Royals are also role models to young kids.But they do have there cons...Millions were spent on the coronation of King Charles while Britain is practically in a Ressesion.According to a new poll,more than half of Britons do not think the government should fund King Charles coronation .To be exact ,51% of adults are against this event,32% think that they should fund it and 18% are unsure.I think Britons should decide for themselves if they want to contribute to this big occasion by paying extra taxes,but I don't think it should be mandatory.Although the Royals aren't a big part of the government and making governemt decisions the coronation of King Charles provided the British of a Bank Holiday !😀
I think in some countries and for some people that royals are important, but in my opinion I oiled not like to have a king or queen because I’m from Ireland and Ireland has fought for independence for many years and I think if we had a king or a queen it would not be good and I think world war 1 and world war 2 show this very much.
Do you think there is a role for royalty in the modern world? No, I personally think there is no reason for us to have royal families in this generation. I think that every person should have the same chances to lead over countries if they work hard enough. I don’t think it’s fair as you have to be born into the royal family to be able to lead over your country. I think that people should work for something as important as ruling a country. Royal families work to colonise cities and neighbouring countries. They treat the working class unfairly and give special treatment to the wealthy groups in society. Everyone should be treated equally no matter what family they come from or how much money they make. To live in an fair and civil society everyone should get the same opportunity’s.
In my opinion, yes, there is a role for the royal family in the modern world. I see them as the cornerstone of the existence of states, being the founders and builders of the pillars of the modern state. I see life in countries ruled by royal families safe and stable. This is reason enough to prefer them over others. Their people are generous and enjoy the qualities of mutual respect, and equality spreads among them. As for me, I am a person who is very interested in telling the kings, because they represent an entire people in their lives, laws and choices.
Do you think that there is a role for the monarchy in the modern world? I do not think, because the royal family is by inheritance and tradition, as it is not by the people’s choice. When someone assumes power, the people may not want this king, so will they tolerate him until his death?
I agree with you that the royal family is popular all over the world, and when it travels to one of the royal countries, it receives a reception and ceremony, but the royal family does not have fairness and equality, and enjoys racism, colonialism, and great wealth.
I think that the best solution is the elections, because it is based on the choice of the people, and the president is not until his death, because he will rule for a period of time.
Are you interested in telling the kings? No, I am not interested, because in the country in which I live the system of government we have elections, but for myself, I love the monarchy system like the Victorian era, and I hope that beautiful era returns
Royals are relevant, depending on the type of monarchy they rule on. If it is an absolute monarch,he or she is not relevant because nobody in this modern world will accept dictatorship.
So...an absolute monarch is not relevant in this modern world.
But if it is a constitutional monarch practiced in the United Kingdom is relevant because the monarch has limited power over to the people. For example when Qween Elizabeth ll of the United Kingdom died everybody in the world not only the United Kingdom knows that she had died. This is because she is a relevant monarch who ruled under a constitutional monarchy.
A state or country whereby it's ruled by a constitutional monarch who possess sovereignty and also derive power from the constitution is a constitutional monarchy.This is what makes a constitutional monarchy relevant.
A monarch with sovereignty has a political and an executive role,he or she continues to play an important role in the nation. As the head of the state,the monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties have been developed for years.
I think that monarchy should stay for ceremonial purposes. The political space should be untouched to allow for new development ideas e.g King and Queen there first born child should be the next King or Queen but the political space gives room for diversity un leadership,management skills and flexible governance through democratic partcipation of the majority of a people.
Can you explain what you mean by "ceremonial purposes"? flowing_lime?
Monarchy doesn't work in today's digital era. Why glorify someone who has got it because he is part of the Royal family? Has he earned it? Has the power come from his work, intelligence, contributions! No.
In today's world, it's the people who contribute and the countries are thriving because of the hard work and contributions of the people of the country!
We need a system to monitor that everything is going on right!
The monarchy, colonization, royals, are reminders of the history that many countries want to forget. The trauma they want to forget. We may argue that the royals are contributing for the cause and whose money is that!
There are several organizations, even individuals who passionately contribute for the cause of humankind! They don't enjoy the same power as that of the monarchs! So why glorify them! I find this coronation very irrelevant for today's times.
Is there a role for a monarch in our modern world? When it comes to a monarchy I don't think that should be right because I feel that people should not be king or queen of anything because many people may think of it as a powerful role and maybe get egostisical. Also if people rely on one person than that can get hurt the one in charge mental state. I personally am not interested in news about royality but I will watch it or read it from time to time to see what is going on.
I don't know how it's like being ruled by monarchy because my country is being ruled by a president so I don't know if there's a role for monarchy in the world. In my opinion I see that royals live in luxury so they think everyone feels that way. I hear news about royals and think that they help the country and donate to the poor but they don't know how it feels to be poor.
The monarchy has always been an important aspect of many cultures and societies around the world. However, in today's modern society, the relevance and role of the monarchy have been widely debated. Some argue that the monarchy serves as a symbol of tradition, history, and national unity, while others believe that it is an outdated institution that is no longer needed and serves no purpose.
Supporters of the monarchy argue that it provides a sense of stability and continuity to a country. The monarchy also serves as a figurehead for a country and represents its government and people on a global stage. Additionally, the monarchy is often seen as a symbol of national identity and pride, which can be important in promoting unity and social cohesion.
On the other hand, critics argue that the monarchy is an outdated institution that is no longer relevant in today's society. They argue that it is a form of privilege and inequality that is not consistent with democratic values. Additionally, the monarchy often requires a significant amount of public funding, which some see as a waste of taxpayer money. This may be the biggest drawback to having a monarchy .
In conclusion, the role of the monarchy in today's society is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. While some view the monarchy as an integral part of national identity and tradition, others see it as an outdated and unnecessary institution. Ultimately, the decision on whether or not the monarchy should have a role in society depends on various factors, including culture, history, and democratic values.
Personally I see it from that perspective, monarchy is something that shows the past, history and strength of a nation all together.
In my opinion the royal family aren't the best example for racism because some people think they are racist because Megan marakle is mixed raced and Megan and harry said they have racism in the household.
It can be argued that there is a role for the monarchy in the modern world, as history bears witness to the existence of many monarchial systems that lasted for several centuries in many countries around the world. Although these systems represent a strong authority and rely on traditions, they can sometimes be fair and equal.
On the other hand, the monarchy system can lead to racism and colonialism, as kings and queens can use their power to achieve their personal goals without regard for popularity and public wealth. However, some monarchial systems are highly popular among people, and kings and queens play an important role in preserving traditions and culture in some countries.
In the end, it can be said that the monarchy system can play an important role in the modern world if applied appropriately and fairly, away from racism and colonialism, and in line with the principles of equality and social justice.