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?
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.
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.
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.
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.