Does the modern world need royals? does America?
This post was written by a student. It has not been fact checked or edited.
The question of whether we need or don't need royals is a complex one that can be viewed from different angles. On the one hand, the existence of a royal family can provide a sense of tradition, continuity, and stability to a country. They can act as figureheads, representing the nation on official occasions and providing a sense of national identity and pride. Additionally, they can also serve as ambassadors, promoting the country's interests abroad and fostering diplomatic relations.
On the other hand, some argue that the existence of a royal family is outdated, unnecessary, and even harmful. One of the main criticisms is that the royal family is a symbol of inequality and privilege, perpetuating class divisions and reinforcing the idea of a hierarchical society. Furthermore, the cost of maintaining a royal family can be exorbitant, especially when considering the economic challenges faced by many countries. The lavish lifestyles of some royals are also seen by some as a waste of public funds and a symbol of extravagance and excess.
In conclusion, the question of whether we need or don't need royals is a complex one that involves weighing the advantages and disadvantages of having a royal family. Ultimately, it depends on individual perspectives and values, and there is no clear-cut answer.
Comments (14)
I think the Morden world needs royals so if a country has not got a government,president or prime minister or a political party then a king or queen could bring democracy and rule the state or country and make sure the country is going well and I also think America should have a monarchy shouldn’t have a monarchy because it has a great president and I feel like it has a great police departments and high security and it has 50 states that has a political people police etc. so it sounds like their wouldn’t be any harm but on thing is that I think America needs to change like one law in America is you are allowed a gun but not allowed to use it and one if you have something you would want to use it and two why get something and not use it?
I disagree with your belief that the modern world needs royals. While monarchies have been a form of governance throughout history, the idea of having an unelected individual or family to rule a country is not in line with democratic principles.
there is no evidence to suggest that a king or queen can bring democracy to a country without a government or political party. In fact, it is more likely that such a system would lead to autocratic rule and the suppression of individual freedoms.
As for your suggestion that America should have a monarchy, I question the reasoning behind this. The United States has a long history of democratic governance and a strong political system that allows for the people to elect their leaders. The role of a president in America is to serve as a representative of the people and uphold the Constitution, not to act as a monarch .
I object to your saying that if a king is appointed to America, it will become a tyrannical rule. Monarchy has forms, but it is certain that it governs according to a certain constitution, and that monarchy cannot be that bad.
I don't agree with this idea. I think that everyone should have an equal chance to be a leader, and that being born into a certain family shouldn't automatically give you power. This is a bit like passing on your favorite toy only to your siblings, instead of sharing it with everyone.
But it's always good to talk about all sides of an issue so we can learn more about different points of view!
I agree with what I said at the end, as the answer varies from person to person, but for me, the system, whether it is monarchical or republican, each of the two systems comes with great responsibilities, and as a commoner, what I want is a fair rule and someone who seeks to develop the country, it does not matter if he is a king or president, so what What matters is the people's happiness with the rule and the laws.
I believe that at this time the monarchy should end and the king should be chosen through consultation or elections, because it is possible that some of the people are more efficient and better at ruling than the sons of kings in the embassy and representing their country .
This also helps the rule of justice as itgives everyoune achance to prove himself and that he is capable of ruling ,and the people can elent who to assume their responsibity without privilege or injustice
I agree because... In recognition of the complexity surrounding the question of whether we need or don't need royals, it is essential to acknowledge the multifaceted nature of this debate. I firmly believe that this topic demands a comprehensive evaluation, considering diverse perspectives to weigh the advantages and disadvantages associated with the presence of a royal family.
From my view, I agree that the existence of a royal family can provide a sense of tradition, continuity, and stability to a country. They serve as figureheads, representing the nation on official occasions and instilling a sense of national identity and pride. Additionally, their role as ambassadors can be instrumental in promoting the country's interests abroad and fostering diplomatic relations.
However, I also recognize the valid concerns raised by critics who argue that the royal family's existence may perpetuate inequality, class divisions, and a hierarchical society. The financial costs involved in maintaining a royal family, particularly during economically challenging times, are not to be overlooked. It is crucial to ensure the responsible allocation of public funds and address any perceptions of extravagance or excess.
As we contemplate the necessity of royals, it is imperative to acknowledge the complexity of the issue and engage in open dialogue to understand the diverse viewpoints. Through thoughtful consideration, we can navigate this intricate matter and shape a society that aligns with our collective values and aspirations."
In conclusion, the question of whether we need or don't need royals challenges us to delve deep into the intricacies of tradition, identity, governance, and societal equality. While recognizing the value that a royal family can bring in terms of stability, representation, and diplomacy, it is equally important to address concerns of inequality and the responsible use of public resources.
By embracing a nuanced perspective and engaging in constructive dialogue, we can navigate this complex topic with the goal of shaping a society that upholds our shared values of fairness, inclusivity, and progress. Together, we can forge a future where traditions and national pride coexist harmoniously with the principles of equality, transparency, and accountable governance with these stated reasons and more, I firmly agree with your standpoint.
Thank you for sharing your perspective and presenting a well-rounded view on the topic of whether we need or don't need royals. Your thoughtful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages associated with a royal family provides a balanced analysis.
Indeed, the question of the necessity of royals is a complex one, and it requires us to weigh various factors, including tradition, stability, representation, equality, and responsible use of resources. By engaging in open dialogue and considering diverse viewpoints, we can navigate this intricate issue and work towards shaping a society that reflects our shared values.
I appreciate your agreement with my standpoint and your commitment to embracing a nuanced perspective. It is through discussions like these that we can gain a deeper understanding of the topic and foster a society that upholds principles of fairness, inclusivity, and progress.
The history of the United Kingdom is full of turns, customs and traditions, and despite the changes that occur in our contemporary world, some customs related to the royal family are preserved.
In our modern era, we watch historical events, and we find excitement and suspense in them to the extent that we are eager to go back to witness some of the events.
But spending a lot of money on the royal family in light of the spread of hunger and poverty in the countries of the world is criticized.
And the coronation of kings, although it is an ancient tradition, comes in a developed context. When you watch the UK celebrations for the appointment of the king, you find that there are modern and ancient rituals, and through these ceremonies the past and present are combined.
From my point of view, the United States of America does not need a royal family because its political system is democratic and republican, and it is the most powerful country in the world politically, economically, and technologically, culturally, and socially advanced. It will refer to the policy of ownership, which one of the media described as the politics of the Middle Ages. I do not support that, but let us focus on our most important topic, and one of the opinions debaters present here will say that the kings represent the country and develop relations Among all countries, however, my personal opinion is that America does not need anyone to represent it or increase its economy. The presidents and ministers developed all of this on the path of the forty-fifth president. The royal families, because in my view, may not achieve the policy of election and expression of opinion, because the system of government in it is hereditary, and because you may know now that social networking sites, any slight error on the royal families becomes there Noise in terms of objections, rumors, strikes, and the media, which does not have mercy on anyone now, and that there are rights to express opinion through communication sites, and it may lead to a state of boredom in the country
amazing!!
💥 The royal family can sometimes be an important symbol to represent the country...
💥But what is in it for the state to have a president and ministers...they do the same work as the royal family..than to be a national symbol...representing countries in international and global gatherings and others..
💥 And that whoever rules the state is a president or a royal family, not in the hands of the state, but according to customs and traditions for thousands of years..
'Bye'.😄
I agree with you as royalty is a touchy topic, as there is no right or wrong answer. Some may say that royalty is an indicator of tradition and morals, while others say that royalty is modern day autocracy, and has no place in our modern world of democracy. I agree with both, as while royalty is a relic, it can also be something bad, and may make people make bad decisions.
I think the world still needs royalty
A royal family typically includes the spouse of the reigning monarch, surviving spouses of a deceased monarch, the children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, and paternal cousins of the reigning monarch, as well as their spouses.
Some monarchies have ended for a variety of reasons — military coups, democratic elections, or murder. Some royal family members remain prominent after their monarchies are abolished, while others are forced into exile.
Why do we need royalty?
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.
The monarch is the highest-ranking individual in a monarchy and holds ultimate authority over the kingdom. Below the monarch are the various nobles, including dukes, earls, viscounts, barons, and knights. Dukes are the highest-ranking nobles, followed by earls, viscounts, and barons.
If the monarchy was abolished, then the Queen's consent or King's consent would also disappear. There would be no royal family to influence the country's legislation. The people of Britain would have a more fair and even democracy.
Engagements include hosting heads of state, taking diplomatic trips, throwing parties at palaces, opening new sessions of Parliament, presenting citizens with awards, and a whole bunch more.
Do you think the money spent on the royal family warrants the role they play in society?
An official Royal Warrant Display Document is sent to the Grantee which provides evidence of the authority to use the Royal Arms. The grant of a Royal Warrant gives a Warrant Holder nothing more than a right to display the Royal Arms and they are not entitled to claim or imply any exclusivity of supply.
Working Members of the Royal Family continue to support The King in his many State and national duties, as they did for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth for many years. They also carry out important work in the areas of public and charitable service in their own right.
What funds do the royal family get from property owned by virtue of their position as royals? While profits from the Crown Estate are paid to the government, the royals also own other property by virtue of their position as royals from which they receive the profits personally.
According to research, The Royal stamp of approval can boost a small business' sales by up to 5 per cent according to Brand Finance who published a 2015 report into the accolade. In it they also estimated that the warrants, obtained by supplying goods or services to the British Royal family, provide £4.2 billion to the British economy.
Generally, every royal supports charities, appears at events, and occasionally travels the globe to strengthen diplomatic relationships. But some royals also have day jobs, and others have long military careers.
The British monarchy is unquestionably one of the most renowned and popular royal families in the world. From Queen Elizabeth II to her beautiful grandchildren, every member of the family has captured the attention of the world in their own unique ways.
The royal prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements.
From my point of view the royal family serves as an important symbol of tradition and national identity for many people, and this may be seen as a valuable role in society,they also engage in various charitable acts and public engagements, which may also justify the money spent on them.However, it is fair to argue that the amount of money allocated to the royal family could be put towards other important social programs such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure development.
The question of whether the money spent on the royal family justifies their role in society is subjective and can vary depending on individual perspectives.
Supporters of the monarchy argue that the royal family provides stability, continuity, and a sense of national identity. They believe that the ceremonial and symbolic duties of the monarchy have value in terms of promoting tourism, cultural heritage, and diplomatic relations. They also argue that the expenses related to the royal family are relatively small compared to the overall government budget and can be offset by the economic benefits they bring.
On the other hand, critics argue that the cost of maintaining the royal family is excessive and could be better allocated to other areas, such as social welfare or public services. They question the necessity of a hereditary institution in a modern democratic society and advocate for a more equal and cost-effective system.
Ultimately, whether the money spent on the royal family warrants their role in society is a matter of personal perspective and societal values. Different people will have different opinions on the matter.
One argument in favor of royalty is that the monarch and the royal family act as a unifying symbol for a nation, representing its history, culture, and traditions. They can provide a sense of pride and identity, especially in countries with deep-rooted monarchical traditions. Additionally, the monarch can serve as a figurehead that transcends political divisions and represents the entire nation.
Another point often raised is that royalty can bring attention and support to charitable causes and public service. Members of the royal family often engage in philanthropic activities, raising awareness and funds for various social issues. Their presence and involvement can help shine a spotlight on important causes and inspire others to contribute to society.
On the other hand, critics argue that the financial costs associated with maintaining a royal family can be significant. Expenses such as security, residences, travel, and ceremonial events are often borne by taxpayers. Some question whether these resources could be better allocated to address pressing social, economic, and environmental challenges that affect the well-being of the population as a whole.
Moreover, the hereditary nature of monarchy raises concerns about the fairness and legitimacy of power. In democratic societies, the idea that positions of leadership should be earned based on individual capabilities and the consent of the people is valued. The birthright principle, where leadership is determined by lineage, can be seen as contradictory to these ideals.
It's also worth considering that in many modern constitutional monarchies, the role of the monarch is largely ceremonial, with governance and decision-making resting in the hands of elected representatives. This raises questions about the practical relevance of a monarchical system in addressing the complexities of contemporary governance and policy-making.
Ultimately, the question of whether the world still needs royalty depends on individual perspectives, cultural contexts, and societal values. It is a topic that sparks ongoing debates and discussions, with differing opinions on the merits and drawbacks of maintaining a royal family.
I think that not every country needs royals. We do not vote for them, but it is important to show your point of view, and debate. Presidents are elected fair and square, so everyone can show their opinion, which is really important for diversity and culture.
To critics of the monarchy it is an anachronism, to its supporters that if a king could transcend partisan politics to represent the nation, King Charles would seek to play the role of national figure and hand the institution over to his heir at least by the very power he bequeathed.
Robert Hazel, an expert on the British constitution, tells The Wall Street Journal that the monarchy as an institution can only last with the support of the people, and the transfer of power that is taking place is often the time of the highest risk for the monarchy, as individuals must suddenly accept their new ruler.
King Charles does not immediately see the danger, while a YouGov poll showed that only about a fifth of Britons want an elected head of state, a proportion that has remained stable for a decade.
Queen Elizabeth passed away and got an approval rating of nearly 75 percent, while King Charles is nowhere close to that, but he is expected to see his popularity improve just as political leaders often get in opinion polls when they take office, aides say.
The royal family is a challenge for King Charles III, but he will have to further modernize the royal family to better reflect Britain's more diverse population while preserving the mystery that has so long justified its existence.
By doing so, he will almost certainly seek to reduce the number of royals who benefit from the public treasury and is a serious test of his talents as CEO of the royal corporation.
I agree with the luxurious clothes and expensive accessories that the royal family wears, but why do they do that because they are exposed on social media platforms and everyone will see them and their families, and they have to wear luxurious clothes befitting their status so that no one criticizes them
And there are some people who compare the clothes of kings from different countries, but this is not the reason why I deserve to wear expensive clothes. They can build institutions and schools for their price, and I do not support them in this matter. . They wear something beautiful and elegant, and it doesn't have to be expensive in order to grow up in the eyes of the citizens.
But if there is no royal family. They will wear anything because no one sees them and they are not revealed on social media platforms, which is only good for one king to rule
I believe( with all due respect) that the modern world today does not need any monarchy system whatsoever, let alone America.I say this because they don't necessarily have much power at all , they have honor, this is different from power.It is unfair to the rest of the world that these people get to be so deeply recognized and honored for being born into an insanely wealthy and "important" family. Just think about it,think of something,anything that the royal family deserve to be worshiped over at this day and time?