Royalty in the modern world

This post was written by a student. It has not been fact checked or edited.


The topic I chose for my standpoint is royals, and do they have a place in the modern world . I think this is a relevant topic because of King Charles’s recent coronation and I would like to share my views on the topic and let my opinion be known. This topic is important to me because of Ireland’s history with England, and the dislike many Irish citizens feel for the English due to the plantations and the troubles . In spite of this I remain unbiased in my opinion, and would like to solely focus on the royals and not their ancestors. Personally I don’t think there is a need for royals in the modern world, I think having a Royal Family can affect the people of the country more negatively than it does positively, for example those who don’t have a Royal Family don’t have to pay for a £100 million coronation ceremony out of their taxes when their near a recession , the whole coronation was paid for by the public and yet they still have to wait in the lashing rain to even get a glimpse of their King.We can also rest assured our rulers are fully qualified and have worked very hard to get to their post, whereas in Britain your king or queen is simply born and you expect it, what training do these Royals do and what qualifies them to rule a country. It is well known once the current monarch dies the next in line takes the throne , this cannot work , for example Edward VI was crowned at 9 years old ,other monarchs have been crowned at as young as 3, these are of course all negatives to the Royal family , but others take so much pride knowing they have a monarch and they say it brings a sense of community , some people might even say it is an escape from the state of their government , but using this logic, a monarch really only has symbolic significance . I personally don’t think it’s worth it for pride or community. Having one person at the top of the country's political, military and religious institutions can not be good , not only for the country but for the monarch themselves. To conclude , monarchs are unnecessary in a modern world as the government helps the country’s progress and makes the main decisions , so a country should be able to run smoothly without a Royal, so besides symbolic power , the monarchy really has no place in the modern world.

Comments (4)

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!

  • Imagine a game of chess where the king has all the power and controls every move on the board. Now imagine a game where each piece is allowed to move and make decisions based on their own strengths and abilities, working together towards a common goal. Which game do you think would be more successful?

    Similarly, having one person at the top of a country's political, military, and religious institutions may seem like a game of chess with an all-powerful king, but in reality, it can lead to a stagnant and ineffective government. In contrast, a government that allows for individual decision-making and collaboration can create a more dynamic and progressive society.

    While the monarchy may hold symbolic power, it ultimately limits the potential growth and progress of a country by keeping all decision-making power in the hands of one individual or family. In a modern world that values democracy and equality, the idea of a single ruler dictating the fate of an entire nation seems outdated and unnecessary.

    In short, just as a game of chess benefits from the unique contributions of each piece, a country can benefit from a diverse and collaborative government where power is shared among many individuals rather than concentrated in the hands of a monarch.

    1. I agree with some of your points but in my opinion a game of chess where the king has all the powers is better than that of the game where every piece is allowed to make decions of their own, because the king will have superiority to command and control the goverment and the people would know the rules and regulations so they will not try to do something against there government because if they do something like that they would have also known their punishments .

    2. I agree because... what you are saying is true. Royalty stagnates democracy in a state. We are in a modern world and democracy is needed for dynamic develoopment

  • Just as a game of chess benefits from the unique contributions of each piece, a country can benefit from a diverse and cooperative government where power is shared among many individuals rather than being concentrated in the hands of the king and because the king will have preeminence in command and control of the government and the people will know the rules and regulations so as not to They are trying to do something against the government there because if they did something like that they would also know their penalties.

  • To me, I feel like the royalty has no use. They use state money and dictate on everyone's lives. They just do minor diplomatic things and we expect them to be in this modern era where there is democracy. Royalty is just a fancy way , in my opinion to respect autocracy.

  • Monarchs have a power to unify:
    Most contemporary monarchs are not so much “born to rule” as “born to belong”, their once autonomous powers curtailed by national constitutions, their decrees now guided by prime ministers and parliaments. Yet as the hard power of constitutional monarchs has diminished though not as much as we assume, their soft power –the power to persuade, to unite, to inspire, without the threat of punishment has increased.
    In this sense, the notion of “figurehead” rulers is misguided. We are better to think of a shift from coercive to persuasive powers.
    I support that fact that royalty in the modern world is not really relevant and most people don't practice it.