Suggest a discussion!
We’ve started the discussions about royalty and King Charles III’s coronation – but it’s your job to keep them going.
- Have you got a good question about this topic that you think would make a great discussion?
- Have you seen a smaller discussion on the Hub that you want to spotlight?
- Did you have a good discussion in class that you’d like to share?
Let us know in the comments below.
We will turn the best ideas into Hub posts and give the person who suggested it 5 stars!
Comments (106)
They also play an important roll with charities between them members of the royal family hold approximately 3,000 patronages of charitable organisations
Yes, the members of the British royal family do hold many patronages of charitable organizations, and their involvement can bring significant attention and resources to important causes. These patronages cover a wide range of areas, including health, education, the environment, and social issues.
The royal family's involvement with charitable organizations dates back many years, and it has helped to raise awareness of important social and humanitarian issues, and to mobilize resources to support those in need. The royal family's support for charitable organizations has also inspired many people around the world to get involved in their own communities and to make a positive impact.
However, it's important to note that charitable organizations should not rely solely on the support of high-profile individuals or celebrities. Sustainable funding sources and strong organizational structures are also important for the long-term success and impact of these organizations.
☆Some people think that royal life is easy, but for the British royal family it is not.
Where the British royal family is famous for its set of strong customs and traditions, and all members of the British royal family must abide by these customs, whether young or old.
Among these severe habits that everyone must abide by are //
■ 1- Not getting married without the consent of the family.
■ 2- Their acceptance of gifts,
whatever they are, even if they are something simple, small, and inexpensive.
■ 3- Strict clothing.
The British royal family dressed modestly.
■4- Traveling in black clothes.
In the event of any sudden death, they must attend the burial ceremony in black clothes.
Those British royal family who adhere to these habits consist of only 7 people, and they //
●1- Prince William, the eldest son of King Charles.
● 2- Princess Anne, the second child of Queen Elizabeth.
● 3- Prince Edward, the Queen's youngest son, is ( married ).
● 4- Prince Andor is the second son of the Queen and has two daughters.
●5- Prince Harry who is William's brother
Do you think the Royals need to modernise in the UK? Some argue that Prince Harry has modernised and now gets harshly judged in the Media? If you are born within the hereditary royal family, should you have to abide by its rules? I would be interested in your opinion.
The answer to the question From my point of view, adherence to the rules of the royal family is difficult and requires patience, and any mistake is considered a disaster. Compliance with the rules of eating, dressing, speaking, walking, and so on makes a person feel that he is a god and that everything is calculated. If I was born into a royal family, I would change some of my rules and I would do what I feel like and make me a normal person like everyone else.
Your words are more than wonderful, that adherence to food, dress, and royal rules is difficult. There is no discussion on this subject. I also liked the point that you do not like to be higher than others and the rest of the people if you become queen.
The monarchy may have some defects, the most important of which is what you just mentioned
1- The upbringing of kings and crown princes can make them sit above the members of their people and transcend them.
In this case, there is discrimination in the state, and this indicates that it is fair among the people
I would like to know, from your point of view, "What are the most important customs, traditions and laws that must be changed in the royal families other than the habits of eating, dress and speech?"
I agree with you. We are in some. Rules we cannot abide. What about the royal family members who are forced to abide by these rules in spite of themselves? I think that the laws function to maintain a peaceful life, but I am not sure whether the laws of the royal family have any benefit or not?
I respect your opinion and I agree with the idea that laws properly preserve life, but on the other hand, there are some laws that are considered unfair to members of the royal family, and there are some laws that do not deserve such cruelty.
Nice one interesting_seed, this seed is truly delightful. Being of a royal blood is truly difficult because you have to monitor every single thing you do, nothing you ever do that doesn't go on the news. If an ordinary person like me should go to a park and frolic and play like a child, no one will even question my actions but if the prince should do it, the news will travel round the world even to my television here in Africa. This can be really demoralizing and personally speaking I don't think I would agree to it but I still wonder somethings which us to discuss. The questions in my mind is " Aren't those laws placed for a reason? ", " Won't there be disastrous consequences if the laws aren't followed? "," Could there be deliberations to find a replacement for these laws".
In my opinion, laws are made only for the sake of discrimination, because laws only complicate the situation. The king's son eats in a way that distinguishes him from the poor son. That's what matters. Otherwise, the ranks will be equal. Therefore, the consequences of violating these laws are dire, so how can a son from the royal family play with mud so that people find themselves condemning these actions because they are accustomed to the fixed rules of the king, i.e. a simple mistake is a crime.
We find that many kings have rebelled and rejected most of the laws of the royal family, and others have lived their lives searching for themselves.
If we should look at it from a more careful angle we'll see that the royal family just like every other thing in this world has its advantages and disadvantages. Monarchy comes with its good side and bad side, I know you'll be wondering what is good about monarchy. I had that same opinion until I took a little time to research more on it, I found out that they are three types of monarchy.
1. Absolute monarchy
2. Federal monarchy
3. Constitutional monarchy
4. Mixed monarchy
1. Absolute monarchy is a kind of monarchy whereby the royal family is in total control of the affairs of the country. They create, reject and establish rules and they can be found in Saudi Arabia.
2. Federal monarchy is a monarchy that has the monarchy as the overall head and even has subordinate monarchies as government. After a particular period of time the subordinate monarchies will vote for their next overall head. This type of monarchy allows democracy and aristocracy.
3. Constitutional monarchy is a type of monarchy that doesn't give the royal family any political power but only offers them responsibility of attending ceremonies for their countries and some other affairs. Personally I feel that this type of monarchy should be supported because they help the president by reducing the stress of his or her position and help the president to focus on matters concerning the country instead of paying attention to matters of other countries. The monarchy there take care of particular matters that help to promote effective running of the country and it also gives little accommodation for two systems of government
4. Mixed monarchy involves the absolute monarch distributing powers in specialized ways specific to the country.
From the third type of monarchy I mentioned, I hope you've been able to adopt some importance of the royal family to a country. I believe it all depends on the way each one of them decides to play their game but it should be stated that some countries still need monarchy to preserve their traditions. If they are able to play their game very carefully and strategically then maybe it shouldn't be stopped.
I was very impressed by your words, to be from a royal family, you must be present with the royal rules in terms of dress, food, and the laws and provisions in them. Implementing the royal rules is a difficult matter, and there is no discussion about it, and if you are a queen, you must monitor your actions that you do, as a natural person can go to any Place freely, but a person from the royal family is bound, because if a mistake occurs in his behavior, this may lead to the spread of his news in newspapers and magazines
I believe that if there are no strict consequences for neglecting the royal laws, then this will cause the kingdom to become weak and prolific. One of the results of the kingdom’s commitment to the laws is to call it the state on which the sun never sets due to the vastness of the areas of government in it.
Hello, for me, many people think that the word king or prince means entertainment and comfort, but they do not know that members of the royal family are restricted to a specific type of formal dress and a specific type of food and drink. As for children, they must go to private schools for their education, even if They have grown up to rule, and for them we are very comfortable. Despite the hard work we do, they do ten times the work that ordinary people do, so do not underestimate their lives ❤️
If you could live the life of a royal would y choose to?
First, hello... If I were to choose to be a member of the royal family and to be a member of the traditional or ordinary family, I would choose to be a member of the traditional or ordinary family. Why? Because for me it is much easier than being a member of the royal family.. Thank you.. 🌹
Yes, I bear the responsibility despite my young age. I know how to manage the country for its benefit, society, or even how to help everyone and help charities and small institutions that help feed the poor and the needy. Even the orphanage I would like to develop and make more rooms for orphans so that they do not feel inferior to those around them. I would like to do this in order to earn the love of God and the love of people and their satisfaction with me, and for them to come to me when any problem occurs without fear. I think I can do that
An interesting question.
Well, when we all see movies about the lives of kings, we are impressed and say, “If only we could live the life of kings!!”
Of course, we will admire their lives and wish to live like them, but the question here is, is their life in the media the same as their life in reality? Well as we know there are many drawbacks to the monarchy in some countries.
Therefore, we must ask ourselves, are there really kings who do not care about their people, do not seek their interest, or what makes them happy, do not provide for their needs, and be unjust and oppressive?
I think the answer is yes. There are many peoples who complain about their irresponsible kings.
But there are kings who are loved by their people because they are responsible and know how to preserve the rights of their people and their society, and there is mutual respect between the two parties.
So I think we have to look at all aspects of royal life.
Well yes I would love to because anywhere I go, I want to be an agent of change, I will love you change some of the rules of royalty, and modernize most of the things, I think this will promote unity because I will try and produce some concrete reasons on why we must modernize to the people who are against modernizing and make sure I have their permission before making any decisions to promote peaceful co-existence, which is an advantage because it promotes augmentation and development, if One continues to live on old things there will be no improvement, It is just like a student continuing to read old books while the curriculum is changing.
I strongly agree with you, most people have this belief.
From my point of view, what made the idea seep into people's minds is the idea of money, the palace, transportation, a luxurious life, and other things.
To associate entertainment and a comfortable life with happiness is unfortunate.
Perhaps the reason for this belief is what people see on television or what you see in movies and series of clothes, servants, and cars, which makes the viewer believe that the life of kings is sleeping on ostrich feathers.
I am not advocating for that or anything like that, but by reading one of the books on the lives of kings and knowing their lifestyle of eating and drinking and the strict laws that cannot be deviated from.
And the rules also reach the way of walking, peace and other things that make life more complicated.
I disagree because...
"With all due respect to different viewpoints, your comment is truly exemplary and I liked it. However, the last part of the discussion caught my attention, which is to make oneself an ordinary person. I believe that the monarch should be distinguished in many aspects and fields because he is responsible for his country and seeks its prosperity, and I do not expect him to seek its destruction.
As for the rules and regulations, I believe that some aspects of them may appeal to you, while others may appeal to others. Change can occur, yes, if you engage in the field that the monarch or monarchy has worked on, it will turn you into a better person, and the same will happen with the rest of the people.
As for some criticisms, they can be resolved through consultation and understanding. Here, the monarch will be able to establish a prosperous independent state with an open-minded population.
Thank you for listening."
Hi interesting seed,
I completely agree with your comment, being a royal comes with a lot of responsibility and in order to be able to adhere to all the rules you would need a lot of self control, you would need to be generous and also selfless(you would have to put the peoples needs before yours). I read about some of the rules and personally I think if I were part of the royal family I would be a complete rebel because I would find it hard to comply with all the rules, I would actually create my own rules and live my life the way I would want to.
This is really a great question. In fact, I was watching some movies in which there was a royal family, and most of these royal families had a prince or princess who rejected this life and decided to live in peace like other people and were not bound by the rules of the royal family. In my opinion, if I were a princess and I was bound by these laws, then I would be like a bird locked in a cage. I would not be able to fly. It is obvious that I think of escaping and opening my wings to fly in this big world, discover new things and live a quiet life like other people.
Yes, he must abide by the laws to be an example for his people... In your opinion, is it possible for the people to abide by the laws if the royal family does not abide?? Of course not. That is why the laws must be adhered to.. Yes, I know that laws require patience and silence at times, but he must follow them in order for it to be a regular state that every passing tongue talks about. He must follow the laws so that we are not like the people who “advise and do not act according to advice” so as not to Hatred is born. This is from my point of view
If I were born within the hereditary royal family, I think I wouldn't abide by its rules because everyone individual in this world is the same so no one even a king is above in God's eyes we are all equal and share the same responsibility.
The royal family has to change some of the strict rules they have in the palace because their rules work to restrict the person through dress, mealtimes, etc. And if I was born into a royal family, I would have to abide by the royal rules, but if I could change, I would change the time to eat and not go out with my protectors to feel comfortable, and I think the royal family is unfair in these things.
If I was born into such a family, I would have modernized, I would have also tried to change some of those laws that guide being from the royal family, off course we are in a dynamic world, a world where by things change on a daily basis, I can't continue to deprive people in my family of living a life as if they are not normal humans, I think the best thing Prince Harry should have done was to try and make the late Queen and present King try to see from his own point of view and they[late Queen and present King] should have tried to make some changes to such strict laws and modernize some of the things and way they do things so that peace would reign, Prince harry too should have made a little sacrifice for the sake of peaceful co-existence. The main point is that royals should not be restricted and they should not be judged for modernizing some of their old practices, after all change is allowed.
Thank you for sharing this information about the customs and traditions of the British royal family. It's important to recognize that being a member of the royal family comes with its own set of responsibilities and expectations, and it's not necessarily an easy life as some might assume. It's interesting to see the strict habits that they must adhere to, such as not being able to marry without family consent and dressing modestly. It's also worth noting that the group of British royals who adhere to these customs consists of only a small number of individuals. It will be interesting to see how these customs and traditions evolve over time as the royal family continues to adapt to the changing world around them.
The royal family follows several traditions and I think that they should only have to follow those traditions if they choose to do. In relation to this, why is it compulsory for them to travel in black clothes? Shouldn't they be allowed to wear what they want?
It is possible that this may be a traditional practice in certain situations, such as during a state funeral or other formal events, but I cannot confirm whether it is compulsory or not. In general, members of the royal family are expected to dress appropriately for the occasion and to maintain a certain level of decorum and respect for the position they hold. However, as for what they choose to wear on a daily basis, that is likely up to their personal preference and discretion.
The royal family follows various traditions and I think that they should only follow the traditions if they have to do so,In addition to this, There's a strict dress code in the royal family, Example: Members of the royal family are expected to dress modestly and never overtly casual, Shouldn't they be allowed to wear what they crave/want?
We explained this topic at our online classroom and my attention was attracted by the protests that took place in Morocco in 2011. The protest against the King of Morocco achieved a somewhat positive result, as the King reduced his power and gave some of them to the government, they acheive democracy and took the right of expressing their opinionThis reminded me of what happened in the Arab Spring against rulers in some Arab countries such as Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen.
In my opinion having a royal family or royalty is an autocratic system of government because power over that community is concentrated into the hands of a single person or particular group of people; it can also be called a centralised system of government. Mostly the power is concentrated into the hands of a king or queen. Their duty is to look toward the well being of their kingdom and they are normally held in high regard from their people.
Are Royal families always held in high regards from their people?
I don't think so, not all royal families held in high regards from their people like King of Morocco who was protested by his people ,but there are exceptions there are fair kings that are loved by their people. They have popularity like in the past, the king of Abyssinia, Ethiopia now, was knwon for being just and not oppressing anyone, and he was loved by everyone, his people and not his people.
Not necessarily. The level of support and regard for royal families can vary widely depending on the country, the culture, and the specific actions and behavior of the royal family members.
In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, the royal family is generally well-respected and supported by a majority of the population. However, even in these countries, there can be varying levels of support and criticism depending on the actions of individual members of the royal family.
In other countries, there may be more mixed feelings towards the royal family, or even active opposition. This can be due to a variety of factors, such as political issues or scandals involving members of the royal family.
Ultimately, the level of support and regard for royal families is not fixed and can fluctuate over time, depending on a wide range of factors.
Here are a few examples of incidents that have affected the level of support and regard for royal families in various countries:
United Kingdom - In the 1990s, the popularity of the British royal family was at a low point, due in part to scandals such as the breakdown of Prince Charles' marriage to Princess Diana and his affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles. However, the popularity of the royal family has since rebounded, in part due to the younger generation of royals, such as Prince William and Prince Harry, who have been seen as more relatable and
Saudi Arabia - The Saudi royal family has faced criticism and opposition for a variety of reasons, including its close ties to the United States, its human rights record, and its involvement in regional conflicts such as the war in Yemen. The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, which is widely believed to have been ordered by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, further damaged the reputation of the Saudi royal family.
The Royal family has along history that goes back to early days of British Iseles.The Royal family has been involved in many aspects of British society&culture including education charity work&the arts.They also have contributed to their prestige.Historically members of Royal family have also played arole in some significant battles such as the Battle of Waterloo,&Battle of somme.Its important to note that Royal family isn't held in high regard by every one.
I do not think so. There are some countries whose people think that kings are tyrannical and stingy and do not care about their people. This is from the point of view of some peoples of countries, while others love their king with great love
If this king is keen on his just rule and his ability to deal with the problems of the state and is able to satisfy the people and give them their rights, then this king will be very popular, not only in his country, but in the whole world, and if he does not have these qualities, his people will hate him and revolutions will rise against him
I don't think ..because there are some countries that think that. Its rulers or kings are strict and stingy and do not listen to the opinions of their people
And there are some countries that like to take a good picture of their kings.. This is spreading in most countries that the kings are fair to hear from their people, not like some countries
It is possible for them to be appreciated according to their behavior with the people. There are royal families who do not respect and appreciate their people, and there are some of them who respect and appreciate the people . "I mean, the royal families are not always appreciated by the people."For example, those who do not receive appreciation from the people are the ones who do not treat their people in a fair way and other injustice, unlike those who receive appreciation from the people.
In my opinion, some of them receive appreciation and respect from their people, and some do not.
Not all kings are just and responsible to rule an entire people and country.
Some mistreat their people, do not provide them with the necessary services, do not fulfill their demands, ignore their requests, and seek only their own personal interest.
And some kings have mutual respect between the king and his people, and works to meet their needs and demands.
Therefore, I believe that not every king is truly a king.
If you want to be a king, you must be fair and responsible and aware that you have to run a country and an entire people.
I think so because in Uganda, the royal family is given higher regards even in school they are given the privilege to do what ever they want and no one has a say in the matter. they do whatever they want and even the school leaders don't say anything.
No, I do not think that it is everyone who is appreciated, because the good kings who help and sympathize with the community are the ones who will receive appreciation, love and attention from the community itself, but if it is the opposite, then the community will not love him, appreciate him or talk to him, but rather they will file complaints against him that he is an unjust and arrogant king. This is my point of view
What some people are yet to understand is that the power that royalty holds is not recognized without their people , the people are the ones that give this amount of power to royalty , without their subjects neither their opinions nor they themselves will be respected. Royalty also uphold constitutional and representational duties.
☐ It can be hard to tell what the royal family's official duties are.
■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.
I believe that the people love King Charles and that King Charles is fair to them. I do not follow much news, but through the few clips that I watched, I could see the great love of the people for the royal family
If we don't follow the news and rely on a few clips or pieces of information, are there any risks to us getting a broad understanding of an issue?
We must delve deeper into the issue we are talking about, as it is possible that we see only the good aspects or only the bad aspects, and this gives an incorrect impression of this person
I agree because relying on few clips isn't enough so we need to follow news resources like BBC channel to know the whole information which will help us in understanding the issue well
I agree with him because I'm following the BBC news and I'm really learning a lot and I'm getting information and understanding the issue very well.
I do not think that a few small passages can give me a complete and comprehensive idea of the subject. When I search for something, I search all communication platforms in order to be sure of the information and look at it from all sides. Life is important, so information must be confirmed by radio, television, mobile phone and many others, because most of the problems arise through our knowledge of one side and our lack of knowledge of another side of the information and it can lead to the disintegration of society, so we must understand the information from documented and confirmed sources so that it does not have side effects harmful to society
.I strongly agree with you..because many of us follow the clips or reels in getting the news only. This is not enough and we should delve deeper into the issue, so we must procrastinate in searching for the reality of the news and read a lot about the mentioned topic from different points of views.
I brought this question to answer it..
1. What do members of the royal family do??
I think this is his answer..
Many individuals assist the King by taking care of public engagements and often pursue charitable works and interests
Your question is more than wonderful, and I agree with your answer, but the royal family has a very important role in the life of the king and in the lives of the people, because a person from the royal family is the legal heir to the king, what? The king and the people, so that the king is not let down by one of the people, and they pursue charitable work and other difficult matters. Therefore, I extend my greetings to all the good kings and their families.
In my country Nigeria we practice a democratic system of government but some tribes still following our culture and customs from way back even when we are still under this system of government carry out the monarchy system by appointing kings and queens who represent them, most of the time the throne is inherited , it follows a blood line. For example: Oba Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi, he is the 51st and current Ooni of Ife who ascended his forebearers throne in the year 2015, he is the traditional ruler of the Yoruba kingdom of Ile-Ife . We treat our royalty with respect because even with the coming of Islam and Christianity some of us still think that our traditional rulers are connected to our ancestral gods but even with this we still respect our democratic system of government; this is the way monarchy is practiced in my country.
if you're going to ask what the point of having a king or queen is, I'll just point out that most of the best countries in the world (according to various indices of democracy, human rights, economic freedom, and happiness) have kings or queens.
Can you name some of those countries?
Britain, burning, Cambodia and Denmark
The Islamic kingdoms are (The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Brunei, Kingdom of Bahrain, Kuwait
Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Sultanate of ,Oman
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kingdom
Moroccan).
According to my knowledge, there are not many people who are unjust. Except for King Abdullah in Jordan
I should not count them or list them on you, because the truth is clear to the people of the people or the state itself, and there is equality between the citizens and there is no discrimination between them, and he is quick of judgment and acumen so that he can solve the problems of his state and he has the ability to take his decisions and put the right person in the right place so that he is not arrogant towards his unarmed citizens
Brunei, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swatini, Thailand .. This is what my teacher recalled. But I liked to add information that may benefit my friends here, which is the goal of the presence of a king or queen of my answer is that they protect the people from the catastrophic dangers. The people become firm below one line. Providing the daily food and food for the people .. And I add that this is strongly for this people without a king that governs these countries. The king is the head of the people ... This is what I wanted to clarify ..
If you want to talk about what is ancient because the rule goes back to the ancient time, then I will mention you kings who were great 1. King Ahmose Nefertari 2. 3. Amenhotep the First 4. Queen Meritamun 5. King Thutmose I 6. Thutmose II 7. King Hatshepsut 8. Thutmose III, and we will not forget those who ruled the earth and owned it 1. Solomon 2. Nimrod 3. Dhu al-Qarnayn 4. Bakhtnasir These are the ones who ruled the whole earth from its east to its west, and there are many great kings
What do you mean by "great", emotional_raccoon?
In today's society, what is the relevance and significance of royalty and monarchy in general? Should countries continue to have monarchs or move towards more democratic forms of government?
Why not ? If the king applies the law and provides an excellent life for the people. Not all kings are bad. Look at Britain, for example, as a good royal model.
I think it depends on the method of government and the results of used system. He may be a corrupt democrat who does not apply the law.
Things differ from one people to another.
I think it is important to advance the state and make progress in all aspects of life either monarch or democratic.
Frankly, I do not support the monarchy, because in most kingdoms it is a dictatorial, unjust and tyrannical rule, and works to restrict freedom of thought, and does not give the people powers to express their opinion, and works not to preserve the rights.
Well, here in my country, we follow the democratic system that makes us enjoy freedom of expression, works to preserve our rights, and provides us with the necessary services.
Well, it is true that I do not support the monarchy, but I do not deny that it has important advantages, such as that it works to control matters in the state, and works to preserve its reputation.
Some countries that follow the monarchy system are happy and this is of course the most important thing, but there are also countries that follow the monarchy but they are unhappy and restricted, so in my opinion its disadvantages are more than its advantages.
In my opinion, the democratic system is better than the dictatorial system
I will compare the systems of government in the current era, "hereditary / Shura, i.e. elections". I will start with the hereditary system. I think that the hereditary system is a good system to some extent, but it has damages, such as the king ascribes power to his son immediately, but the characteristics of the king in his son may not be that he is unwise It is not prepared for ruling without consultation from the people. As for the electoral system, I think it is an appropriate system because it allows the people to choose their president and allows them to choose a wise and fair president through voting. From my point of view, most countries should work on the electoral system. This is from my point of view. Do you agree with me?
We have discussed in the class the subject of kingship, and the teacher has directed us some duties and I want a solution to them, and among these questions _ What are the most prominent challenges facing kings and how do they face them How is the king or queen chosen? On what basis is the king chosen? What are the qualities of a good king?
I think he should be fair , helpful , educated,responsible ,,think about others and about his country and achieved many accomplishments
Can you give me country names for fair kings and why do you think they are fair?
The royal family plays a largely symbolic role and most of their duties involve putting on social functions and entertaining esteemed guests. Technically they do hold some political power though.
I have a question that is important to me, what punishment does not apply to members of the royal family. Are there laws that do not apply to members of the royal family
I do not think so, the king must treat them like the rest of the people, so that there is no racism in society, even if this is in paying taxes, they are part of society and they must receive laws like others, and even increase them, because they are the ones who will inherit the rule After the death of the king / queen, so they must set an example for others
When Queen Elizabeth II was alive, the royal house paid taxes like the rest of the people, and there are ruling houses who do not pay anything and nothing of the law applies to them because they believe that they are only their place on the throne and that their money does not go out to anyone. This is only a category, I do not know if it is big or small that class
Well, I did a little research and it turned out that there are 32 countries that are still getting used to the monarchy, but I think that republican rule is the best solution, where the people elect the best person for them to meet their demands and improve the situation of the country, as he can be more intelligent and responsible than the crown prince himself, and he may be More righteous and beneficial to the state, but I still wonder what would happen if there were no sons of the king, would he resort in the end to following the electoral system?
If the monarchy was banned all over the world and the whole world became under presidential rule, what would happen? And how would the world become under this rule?
If Monarchy was banned all over the world, the people of a country will have a more fair and even democracy. But when the whole world comes under presidential rule, we have to consider the fact that what is good for an individual need not be good for a country and what is good for a country may not be good for another country. Presidential system of rule has certain advantages and disadvantages
ADVANTAGES :
1. Quick and decisiveness in decision making
2. Fixed tenure of office
3. Presidential discretion in appointments
4. A single countrywide constitution
5. Individual Ministerial responsibility
6. Separation of powers
7. Insulation from Political parties
Disadvantages :
1. Prone to dictatorship
2. Friction among Government organs
3. Lack of flexibility
4. Expensive to operate
5. Interference of political parties
6. Process of lobbying encourages corruption.
From the above information, it is concluded that presidential rule may be good in certain areas such as law enforcement, defence, technology, etc. But more regulations will hinder the freedom of people. Therefore, I say that people vote for a government which gives them more freedom and which fulfill their obligations and correct law enforcement. So implementation of presidential rule all over the world is not possible.
I think that if the world came under presidential rule as long as it was democratic everything would be smooth and free especially nowadays seeing as the British Royal family don't take part in anything political.
okey...
The late Queen Elizabeth gave birth to 4 children, 3 boys and 1 girl. Why do you think that King Charles III will be crowned soon instead of his brothers, for example?! ...I know that he is the first heir to the throne and speaks different languages, but this is not a sufficient reason for his sitting on the throne. Please tell me your opinion and explain it.
In my belief, we have reached a stage of progress, development, civilization, and the practice of democracy. Some countries still practice a monarchy that is controlled by a certain family that practices its own customs and rituals that distinguish it from other people. I believe that we do not need a monarchy as long as we are in Countries that practice democracy, and each individual has a role and responsibility in building civilization, whether he is a king, a prince, or an ordinary person. The holder of the title must be the one who achieves more and serves humanity better.
The Royals in Britain do not have any political powers. Can someone tell what royalty is about in a country that is democratically structured?
Maybe some of our students in the UK can share their experiences!
It feels like the rich are " the Royal Family" and the slightly poorer are the " commoners" ( members of public.) Do you believe that the fact that the rich represent our country and the poorer do not makes you think that we are living in a plutocratic society?
The royal families are really good because these families teach or inspire people who are not even from royal families to work hard and live a happy life . The royal families also help children to know more about their cultures.
l would also want to know more uses of royal families in a country . Apart from fianacial help
I would like to point out that the existence of monarchical rule or republican rule both have advantages and disadvantages, but most saw that the negatives of republican rule are less than monarchical rule, so you find that most countries operate under republican rule, So that the people choose the president according to specific conditions, and his capabilities and promises that he announces and promises to implement, and it is said that in this way we give room for new ideas and creativity In order to spread in societies.
Also, the election policy is based on increasing the strength of the individual's personality, and works for him to have a role in decision-making, and to be aware of the result of his choice, It is also a means of renewal and diversification.
The republican system also provides the possibility of re-election and the selection of a new president in the event that the previous president is not suitable for the presidency and to appoint someone better than him, in contrast to the monarchy in which the king remains ruler of the country even if the policy of his rule was tyrannical.
If the brilliant brains ruled their country instead of some of un educated kings, what would happen????
Society will develop and prosper, and interest in the scientific aspect will increase, which affects the development of all aspects of economic, social and cultural life. Achievements and inventions that benefit humanity and help save our planet. Find a cure for chronic diseases. And explore outer space.
A good question I have is what links the lineage with the rulers of old?
A question I have about royals that I think would make a great discussion is whether or not children conceived by mistresses or affairs, are legitimate and allowed to succeed to the throne.
King Charles III's reign is called the Carolean era.
Just to add to the discussion:
He is called King Charles the third because there was a former prince Charles that took over the British throne and the people where thinking if he would use His other name George when he becomes the king so he decided to give himself King Charles III so that was how the name King Charles the III came about and he is also the first to rule the United Kingdom in more than three years. I got this information from a presentation at graduation event that I attended 3 years ago the students decided to talk to us about King Charles III's coronation.
Did you know that being a monarch was such a dangerous job in the past.
Including Scottish monarchy, 16 died in the battle field while 17 or more monarchs in the British Isles have been killed away from the battlefield, making it a very dangerous job indeed.
In Russia, the last Tsar and his family were all killed by the Bolsheviks.
In conclusion I feel that the way the monarchy is run now is better than before.
Hey dear Kim,
I'm wondering if after the death of Queen Elizabeth II will British stamps, coins and passports change ?
Hi honourable _city -- the answer to your question is, yes! The things you mentioned are now being made with the face of King Charles III on them.
Hello,
Now when every king rules, he/she sets their own rules, but the question is do you think when the king/queen dies, any Royal Warrants issued by him/her become void??
welcome
I do not support the monarchy. If we look at its defects and advantages, we find that it is a double-edged sword, but in my personal opinion, its defects outweigh its advantages.
I think this is what I am going to discuss is the most prominent of its shortcomings
I do not like what the members of the royal family are subject to. They enjoy more privileges than the members of the people. Other than that, they are very rich, and some of the people suffer from poverty and are in dire need of food, drink and clothing. Not every king enjoys the advantage of justice, and some kings do not carry out their duties to the fullest. What I want to clarify It is that appointing the king as a ruler until his death, and after him this crown prince comes, is the biggest mistake, because he may not have the competence to rule and oppress his people, and thus people will migrate to other countries, as my teacher told me that if they suffer from an unjust king, they will go to countries where there is a republican system of government And it is better because the people choose who will rule them through elections
I agree with you. And I believe that the worst thing about the monarchy is that there is no authority higher than the king that can punish him if he erred against the people or fell short of his responsibilities.
In my opinion I think that the royal family is always going to be unjust as everyone in it is not picked by the people of the country, but by complete chance or by marriage. Most will be born into royalty and stay in it for the rest of their lives, having everything paid for for them. The money that goes towards them could easily be put towards the many other issues in the UK now.
I agree because...
I liked your opinion that "the royal family will always be unfair, because each member of it is not chosen by the people but by chance." Indeed, the royal family should be the same as the rest of the people, but I see that there is a distinction between the members of the people and the royal family, as the royal family will work and receive large sums of money without any fatigue, but the rest of the people tire a lot to take it, to the point that they work Strikes to receive full salaries, so I think there should be no royal family, but at the same time they are also under pressure because of the royal family's laws such as the unified religion for all and the dress code.
Does anyone think that the royal family brings any importance? I personally have a mixed opinion on this since this is quite a tough topic, I do think they have some importance since they do rule the entirety of the united kingdom, but I don't really think that they need to be given money by us since they already have quite a huge salary. I mean, don't you already have a giant mansion in London?
I totally agree with you . The monarchy in Spain gave the Spaniards the opportunity to vote our representatives after the dictatorship, but , I really don't understand why the royal family have that big salaries of thousands and thousands of euros if they don't pay taxes or even pay their own food . They have important roles in our society , but , with all the money they have , we could reform our public schools or help homeless people by bringing them food . My point of view have been changing since all that scandals have surrounded the ancient Spanish king Juan Carlos I .
What do you all think about these topic ? Should some countries with problems with their royal families start to be a republic ? Should the government give the opportunity to the people of the country to elect if they want to stay a monarchy or change into a republic?
Well, this is wonderful, but I see that the royal family has an important role, because it is the closest supporter of the king and cares about social affairs in the state and that the next king after the death of the king will be one of them, so they must be taken care of, and their minds developed in order to help the state more and more. It also has other tasks such as knowing the people and how they live and what they need.
After my research and study on the subject of the coronation of King Charles III, I heard that there were many surprises in the coronation. My question for today is: What are the surprises that occurred in the coronation of King Charles III and what are the consequences of each?
No, I did not do a class lesson on the subject, but I am interested in the affairs of the royal family, specifically in Britain. A lot of things have happened that made me interested in them. My opinion of kings, past and present, in the past was all their concern was power and adding new lands to their country. My opinion of them was that they were greedy. Also, they did not care about their people and they used to differentiate between social classes. It always reminds me of the French Revolution. King Louis XVI used to differentiate between the classes of society. Recently, there has been a lot of development. Kings have become interested in the people, and this is a good thing. News topics that appear about kings, the coronation of a new king, the death of A king loved by the people, family disputes occurred....
The monarchy was ended in the ancient era, and the republican rule was spread in the countries. In your opinion, why? The answer to this question lies in the views on royal rule and republican rule, for example, King Charles III. He was appointed king of Britain after his mother, Queen Elizabeth, but why King Charles the Third in particular, while Queen Elizabeth has 6 sons, and while the reign of King Charles the Third continues until it ends, his brother or son will be appointed, and thus it is not fair. Why? For some reasons First: It is not possible to know the intentions of the king who will be appointed king of his country Second: Under this royal rule, the state will be restricted by provisions and laws, and these provisions and laws will not be rejected, and therefore there will be no freedom for the king, the king’s brother, the king’s son, or the people themselves.Third: The tyranny of freedom of expression, for example in republican rule, elections are held around the president who is to be appointed to rule, and he is appointed on his principles and intentions. Also, opinions are taken about all the people, and they also freely elect the person they want. As for the monarchy, it is inherited around the family and remains so and does not end with that. In my opinion, republican rule is better than monarchy
Hello everyone, would you like to be responsible for your country one day? Would you rather be president or king and why?
I'm curious to know your opinion
As for me, I would like to be president because I am not convinced of the idea of the king and the royal family because if I were a king, I would be keen on my people and that peace be upon him But I do not guarantee that the crown prince who will come after me will follow in my footsteps? or will he be a tyrannical person who is keen on his personal interests the presidential system will be more fair since it will be elections and opinions of the people on the other hand, the rule will not be limited to the royal family and its descendants rather, there will be opportunities for better people to rule the country.
From my personal opinion, I do not support the thought of continuing the monarchy. For myself, I see it as a tyrannical and unfair rule. When the rule is inherited, there will be no opportunities for other people to rule, and the people will not have expressed their opinion regarding those who rule them. Therefore, I see that this regime tyrannizes the freedom of personal opinion as well. Kings from the royal family always have a distinction from others and are wealthy and nothing else. While there are people who suffer in the streets from hunger and cold because of poverty, I think that this way of ruling is somewhat racist. For example, if the rule was bequeathed to one of the family members, and he is incompetent, what do you expect to happen? In the country he rules?
Does your country have a royal family? If yes, what is there role?
I live in Nigeria and yes, we do have royal families in my country, but they are not in the presidential level. I mean they do not occupy federal seats probably like King Charles III does.
Royal families in Nigeria are at the local level of government which means they serve as a bridge to the state or federal government. In Nigeria, the monarchy system isn't like it is in the UK and some other nations like Dubai, Saudi Arabia etc. Some kingdoms in Nigeria have their kings appointed by certain individuals that we call '' Kingmakers''. These people choose a new King on the claims of the deity or oracle.
Kings in Nigeria include: Sultan of Sokoto, Oba of Lagos, Ooni of Ife, Alaafin of Oyo and many more.
Other Kingdoms are however ruled by one family and it has been so over centuries. The Warri kingdom for example has been ruled by the Olu Of Warri 1480! (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Warri#:~:text=Ginuwa%20II%20Emiko%20Ikengbuwa&text=17th%20Olu.,was%20dominated%20by%20merchant%20princes.). Only this family will ever be king in Warri.
What are their roles?
In Nigeria, these are the roles of royal families.
-They serve as connections to the state or federal government.
- They enhance national identity.
- They resolve minor conflicts.
- They preserve cultural practices.
- They provide safety.
I agree because... with your opinion of their roles because they all provide safety to all their citizens
I agree because... with your opinion of their roles because they all provide safety to all their citizens
Hello my friends all in our school we learn a lot like this but I have been wanting to ask a question for a long time.... What would happen to countries if they gave their people the full right to express their opinion and their rights, and could this happen in the immediate future? Can a country give full democracy to its people? And who are the happiest countries and obtain their rights in all aspects of life Thank you very much
Two days ago, I saw a post on instagram talking about a royal princess, I think she's the daughter in law of Queen Elizabeth. The post had her picture and commented " Oh finally the princess is wearing red nail polish". When I saw this comment, I literally said to my self: " Really! Is this something important that people are talking about now, who on eath doesn't apply red nail polish!!!". Frankly, I was curious to read the comments to see if there's someone who agrees with me then I found some people saying that this happened after the death of queen Elizabeth, so do you think that queen Elizabeth, before her death, imposed some laws or rules that all the royal family must follow? And do these laws govern their over look from the outfit, makeup, jewellery, even monicure?!
I noted someone who was talking about, dropping down Monarchy and picking up Democracy as their system of government. So i would like us to think into this discussion: Countries who are ruled by kings or queens would they prefer to remain with their Monarchy system of government or switch to democratic country, so lets see what we think about it.
Any country practicing Monarchy as their system of government formed a law which says it is illegal to insult or defame the Monarch or the Royal family. A man was caught doing so and was sentenced to 28 years imprisonment just because he posted something about the Royal family on social media.
That is so unjust and cruel, so that is why I feel that Countries should practice Democracy not Monarchy because monarchy don't value their subjects.
I agree because the monarchy form of government has become oligarchic in character. Every citizen of a country has a right to express his views and ideas fairly.
But some royals take this as an insult and give punishment to the innocent people. If a political leader of a Democracy is corrupt people have a power to remove him, but if a king / queen is bad we can't remove him and if they die the power passes to his successor. The people do not have any power and the royals think that no one is there to question them and they can rule their country as their wish.
In the royal family, there is more danger of gender discrimination and the female member of the royal family were made to follow strict rules.
But this statement does not apply to all, as there are some good monarchs in the world.
I agree because... democratic government don't make people face oppression from a democratically government but monarchy subjects may face oppression if the ruler is tyrant. Democratic government consider their people as equals but the monarchy government don't consider their people as equals so i think democratic government is better.
In my opinion, it is difficult for citizens to follow laws, especially if the laws belong to the royal family. It is easier for the royal family to facilitate and reduce laws so that any citizen can keep up with them with his consent and not by pressure on him.
We had a great discussion in our class about the royal family, especially King Charles III, but I would like to ask a question in my mind, which is what are the challenges that faced King Charles III in his reign and coronation and I want to I know what the coronation of King Charles III was like. Is it like we attend and watch on TV, or is it a very huge royal ceremony?
I really want to know whether the British people still accept the idea of the royal family even now and in modern times
Or are there opponents of the people against this idea?
I hope you will answer me
We had a discussion about royalty and the way they live with my tutor ,I learnt a lot , but they is a question that I would like to share ,what do you think about members of the Royal families involving themselves in affairs of the state.
Since ancient times, the monarchy system prevailed greatly, but after the French revolutions, that rule turned into a republican system, but there are those who keep this rule because it is one of their old habits and they have adhered to it
Royalty 👑, this status as nice and shiny as it looks, it has a very deep down side affecting both to the members of the royal family and the subject of the royal family. The power handed over to the royal family though was efficient in the ancient days but now seems like a time bomb in our modern age. Yes, many opinions will contrast with mine but I believe that Royalty should be abolished because I don't seem to see the usefulness in our modern world. Queen Amina of Zazzau was one of the greatest queens in the history of my country but that was in the ancient days, presently, they don't play any crucial roles in the running of a country. The roles they play have been taken over by the new system of government which is the federal, state and local levels of government. This new method of governance was designed to ensure that the needs of the citizens are attended to in optimum time. The royal family of England may bring them more money than they cost but I feel that they are not necessary for the effective running of a country. Therefore, I feel that royalty should be abolished in the modern world and all power should be shifted to the government because it will encourage fairness and it will reduce inequalities instead of promoting favoritism among citizens.
What do you all think about the future of the monarchy of the U.K knowing that Charles III is going to be the future king and knowing all the scandals that the British royal family is going through?
Do kings and queens have customs and things that they adhere to?? And why??
Yes, after the unfortunate death of the queen, the United Kingdom needed a monarch. But I think we need to notice that The Church of England, which coronates the monarchs, is actually a Protestant Church; and Protestant Churches don't really accept divorce agreed to coronate King Charles III.
As a person who is growing up in a Protestant family, I don't accept the fact that the rules of the Church and God were bent. There must have been an alternative person or way that could've been observed instead of bending the rules, tradition and way of God that has been existing for years.
(1).Do all kings and queens do their job as a Royal family for example Fairness,Equality e.t.c
I agree because... Actually most of them do they do their duties of kings and queens like providing shelter for all their subjects and not a few of them. They treat people fairly, they punish the criminals and make them pay for all their crimes. They provided school for all the children, so to me they are doing their duties as kings and queens.
What is the king's ability and influence in unifying and uniting the groups and parties of society within his kingdom?
Global royals, also known as members of royal families, often have ceremonial, diplomatic, and symbolic roles. Their duties can vary depending on the country and the specific royal family, but some common responsibilities include attending public events, representing their country at international events, supporting charitable causes, and promoting cultural and historical heritage.
In addition, some royals also have constitutional roles, such as serving as a head of state or a representative of the monarch in a constitutional monarchy.
As for the question of whether we need royals in the modern world, opinions differ. Some argue that royal families serve as cultural ambassadors and provide stability and continuity in times of political change. Others argue that they are outdated symbols of inequality and privilege, and that their positions are no longer relevant in modern societies that value equality and democracy.
Ultimately, whether or not we need royals is a matter of personal opinion, and it is up to each country and its citizens to decide the role that they want their royal families to play.
We learned a lot with the teacher about the monarchy and we learned the concept of the monarchy and that monarchy is a form of government and he is the head of the state for life. And we knew that kings are called by many names, such as King, Queen, Sultan, Shah, Caesar, Raja, Emperor, Caliph, and Khan. Royal regimes continued until the 21st century, as there are 45 countries that have rule and have a king. And we learned that the parliament has evolved, so the monarchies are called monarchies. And we learned that property is linked to hereditary rule, meaning that if the father dies, his son takes his place, and if the son dies, the son takes his place. Kings are trained on how to maintain their future responsibilities.The benefits of the monarchy are: 1- Check stability. 2- Avoid violent political and economic shocks. 3- Placing a supreme king above the authorities. As for the disadvantages of the monarchy: 1- It is inconsistent with democracy. 2-Raise above the rest of the people. 3- some times bringing an invalid king. 4- some times bringing an unfair king.
Yes we had a lesson about royality at our classroom. We knew many information about this topic We knew that the king's work is limited to granting honour and appointing the prime minister he's also considered the protector of faith and he's the head of the country . We learned that the executive authority is following the king or the queen in the monarchy of the United Kingdom as a result of that royality didn't fall in the UK uptil now.
We discussed with our teacher a lot of terms related to each other, so I chose the topic of fairness and compared it to the topic of racism, because some people are treated according to their gender or color, then white people are treated well and in a polite manner and take care of them. As for the black-skinned, they are neglected and humiliated, and no one defends them
In our state, whites are not distinguished from blacks, and are treated as such with equality, justice, and fairness
So is there a role for monarchy in the modern world?
Monarchy is a system of government whereby authority is given to the leader(monarch) who is an individual ruler and functions as the Head of the state.
Monarchy is the oldest form of government which has been existing for over 500 centuries which started in Egypt and I believe that there is no role for monarchy in the modern world.
My reasons for saying is because:
- The world is vast changing and systems need to change with it.
- Monarchy still believes in power and colonialism which goes against people's fundamental rights.
- Hereditary monarchy causes corruption: The monarch may make important decisions in favour of the Royal family.
- It puts children over men.
- There will be disagreement in the Royal family about the next successor which can actually lead to death.
- One person being on the throne for his entire life and bad decisions could be made because the monarch is the only the one in power. (Elective Monarchy).
- It negotiates principles of democracy.
- It is possible for the monarch to turn to a dictator.
- It does not accepts principles of popular sovereignty.
- Most officials in the monarchy are not elected.
- The divine rights of the monarch makes their subjects positive participants in the political system.
So with all this, I believe that there is no role for monarchy in the modern world.......
royal families, often have important roles. Their task can change depending on the country ,in addition some royals also have built-in roles,
now come the question whether we need royals in the modern world, opinions differ. Some argue 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. Others argue that they are outdated symbols of inequality and privilege, and that their title is no longer relevant in modern societies.
Hi genuine_goat, thank you for your comment. What are your opinions on this matter? Do you think there is space for royalty in the modern world?
Royals play a major role in the UK history but most people argue that the monarchy isn't democratic and that the head of state should be elected and not inherited. yes the monarchy is a significant part of UK's cultural heritage they have no real power over the people and the position of king and queen is something from the past.
From my point of view when the Queen of Denmark decided to strip her grandchildren of the title of prince and princess، she was right as she gave them freedom because the word prince and princess works to restrict the person in his actions and life. She wants to show equality and justice amongst the children of society and from another point of view in the opinion of the grandmother she kept the eye away from her grandchildren by giving them their freedom to behave without titles. Basically they are known, but by this way they get rid of people's curiosity which robs the grandchildren of their rights.
I think when Prince Harry and his wife rejected their status or authority and decided to leave the palace .They saw that there was racism even towards them and they were exposed to hostile messages from social media they were wrong. They could have stopped these problems and reduced their risks
In my perspective, opinions about royals vary depending on the individual. Some believe that royals can serve as advocates for charity and social justice. Royals can be those to look up to and influence people. However, the are many conflicting opinions that can outweigh these. On the other side of the debate, the monarchy system is uneven. The royal family is a living illustration of inequality and unearned wealth. To those people, royals have an excessive quantity of wealth for no apparent cause. The money paid to them with taxes could easily be used to benefit those in proverty in need of support.
Hello, the question is: Is royal life, its customs and rules difficult, is there not freedom to choose everything, or is this a restriction
Hello, Well, in my opinion, I believe that the monarchy is actually a dictatorial regime, in the sense that it is a regime that works to restrict the freedom of thought and expression of opinion of the people.
I also think it is a system that takes away the rights of others by making themselves kings, because as we know of course it is a hereditary system.
But when we look at countries that have a responsible and strong king who works to preserve the reputation of his country and his people, and performs the necessary duties towards his people, we are impressed by him and some take him as an example.
But there are also countries that have an irresponsible king, who only cares about his own interests, does not think about his people and their interests, neglects the rights of his people, and works to restrict their thinking and restrict their freedom.
In short, I am trying to say that the monarchy has hard rules and works to limit people's freedom.
I agree with you. This is a wonderful statement, because there is a king who bears responsibility, and there is a king who does not care about his people, who cares about himself and his family
Hello, I were a king, I would change the rules and laws of royal life. It should not be different from the life of the simple, because this is called discriminating the return to be equality.thank you
Can the kings raise the standard of living in the country easily or by their will???
Can kings raise the standard of living in the country??
There was a question in my mind, who is better, the monarchy or the presidential republican system, and this was the result of my opinion
The royal system The prince is raised from birth so that he can bear the country and its responsibility and does not resign from the throne until death or abdication
The republican system is about a president who is appointed for specific years, retires, and then another president comes, but there are many problems facing both parties when he is
In the royal sleep, there is a corrupt and greedy king, and he teaches his son injustice and greed, and no one knows what the king’s morals are, and he can be kind until he reaches what he wants, and thus no one can stop him.
As for in the republican system, if he was a good man, then another corrupt person comes along, and here either the public regrets and cannot replace him, or he is rejected because they are the ones who made him stand on this great position.
But I only see that God is the just king and I am only God's servant
In conclusion, this is my opinion, and I wanted to present it, and I hope to receive your responses and opinions on this subject
If you had to answer your own question and choose whether the monarchy or an elected president is a better option to govern a country, which would you choose?
I think that I will choose the monarchy because there may be fraud and fraud in the vote, so there will be no justice or equality, and I think that a person should be placed on the prince to teach him right from wrong and to make a box for complaints to be presented to the royal family every week
For me, I will choose the election method because it is the best method in this era. In this way, all people will have the opportunity to choose their president. As we all know, running for the position of president is a right for all people. In this way, no one is deprived of his right.
I think I would choose an elected president to govern a country, because the president will be proud to rule over a country and will do his role
Why is having elections important?
What is the ability of the king of the state to do justice to minorities??
Is it possible, when Charles III becomes king one day, that he wears the clothes of the shepherds and goes to check on the condition of his people, but not with his true personality, meaning that no one knows that he is Charles??!
Since Metaverse is a new world to rule, I had some questions about the connection of Metaverse to the real world since they are twin sisters:
Will there be rulers in Metaverse who rule this world like the rulers who rule this reality of ours?? And if the ruling is done, will there be a royal family, or will the ruling be done in a new way?
Since we say that everyone will use metaverses in the future, and they will have their own influence and aspect in the world of metaverses, but what is the influence of rulers around the world in the new world of metaverses??
Interesting thought rational_mood, do you think 'rulers' would be important?
Yes, I think that the rulers will have an important role in the world of Metaverse, to organize the affairs of the world there and enact transparent and deterrent laws to fight corruption there and other crimes committed, and punish every violator according to the legitimate law, and monitor the conditions of the people, and reduce human problems and deal with them intelligently, but with progress Time and the evolution of reality Will the rulers abide by this work in Metaverse? And will the people be more aware and developed with the progress of time??
I hope so very much and look forward to seeing this in the world of metaverse in the future.
The Monarchy are important, they provide plenty to charities (according to Royals Finding, Her Majesty gave money to 198 UK registered charities), and King Charles III owns his own organic foods company (Duchy Originals, founded in 1990 and farmed on his own land.). Although these are good things, personally, I disagree with the Monarchy, the fact that they can spend out tax payers money on royal events is disheartening. We're in an energy crisis , but instead of thinking of the public , where a family could barely support themselves and feed, clothe and warm their house all the while The Monarchs are sending money on Royal Events. Many say that paying for Royal events should come out of their money , since they seem to have plenty. Does the charity patron and organic food business make up for this? or is it inexcusable.
I agree with this, we pay taxes to a family that could live many lifetimes with how much money they have, instead of us giving them more money they realistically spend, they should give us money to heat our homes and live our lives happily.
This is all very good, but I don't think they would ever give free handouts (especially now). They basically live on the money we give them.
Whilst the royal family has no power in the country, I believe they are still hugely beneficial and relevant as they bring money to the country due to tourists, this makes them very relevant
i think there is a role in the monarchy like if we didn't have a king or queen who would be on the notes and coins
For me, i think a royal family could be relevant, but the question is; are they needed? Adults have paid their taxes for the royal family, but where is all that money going? I'm sure that some adults need some extra money once in a while so I guess it would help if there was no royal family taxing them.Currently, the UK basic income tax rate is 20%. This increases to 40% for your earnings above £50,270 and to 45% for earnings over £125,140. Your earnings below £12,570 are tax-free.
If you didn't know, the coronation of King Charles III has/will cost 200 million pounds (90720933.14 in israeli new shekel, 249,435,000.00 in usd ,20,407,150,360.00 in rupees, and 11487708959.57 in naira). Most of these funds come from UK taxes- I dont think this will help at all, if you are unaware, there is a "cost of living crisis" going on in the UK, which means almost everything is rising in price. Income tax on earned income is charged at three rates: the basic rate, the higher rate and the additional rate. For 2023/24 these three rates are 20%, 40% and 45% respectively. The coronation is taking taxes and using them on things that some people think we don't need.
So overall, I do not think the monarchy doesn't have a role in the modern world.
There are 32 monarchies in the world, and the rest of the countries are republics , Since the number of kingdoms is less than the number of republics,I think the monarchy will soon disappear,but that doesn't mean the Republican system is the best ,Because it depends on the elections and fraud can occur or even people's votes can be bought ,so the president will be unable to carry out his mission because he doesn't good for this job , if this is my opinion that doesn't mean that the Monarchy system is the best too , next president can be young or he can be incapable of heading the country .
in your opinion ,What is the best system of governance between them?
No one choose to belong to a royal family, they just born like that. This comes with merits and demerits. They are rich, live in a high standard life and should be respected by the people. At the same time, they have responsibilities. For example, they represent their countries in different ceremonies and they are the public figure of their countries. As a result, there are obligatory rules they should adhere to. It's a position in which a person can support his people and make difference in their lives. I wonder what monarchs can do else for the sake of their people nowadays?
Does your country have a royal family? If yes, what is their role?
We in Nigeria have many royal families. They may not probably have a high status like King Charles iii. But every region, town or village has its own traditional ruler in one form or the other. for this reason, there are many region and cities with their own monarchy.
Here are some of the royal families in Nigeria: Alaafin of oyo, Emir of kano, Sultan of sokoto, Ooni of ile-ife, Dein of agbor, Oba of benin etc
What are some of their roles?
-They provide safety
-They enhance national identities
-They resolve minor conflicts and provide solutions
-They ensure payment of taxes
-Their aim is to achieve peace.
Which will be the best form of ruling a nation? My opinion is both forms of government have their own advantages and disadvantages, and which one is "best" depends on many factors, including cultural values, historical context, and the specific circumstances of a given country or region. Monarchy is a form of government in which a single ruler, usually a hereditary monarch, holds supreme power over a state or territory. Monarchies can offer stability and continuity over long periods of time, as well as a sense of tradition and national identity. However, monarchies can also be susceptible to abuse of power, lack of representation, and dynastic conflicts. Democracy is a form of government in which power is held by the people, either directly or through elected representatives. Democracies can provide a greater degree of accountability and representation than monarchies, as well as greater opportunities for public participation and transparency. However, democracies can also be vulnerable to populism, factionalism, and polarization, which can undermine the stability and effectiveness of the government. Ultimately, the question of which form of government is "best" is a matter of ongoing debate and depends on many different factors. It is up to the citizens of each country to determine which form of government best suits their needs and aspirations. Countries like United Kingdom, Dubai and Saudi Arabia are the best country in monarchy rule because they were developing their country in an effective way by using their nations resources in a best way to develop their country across the globe. Democracy is a form of governing a nation which gives its ultimate priority to public welfare as it depends upon the terms of the people, by the people and for the people. There are still countries that prefer other forms of government, such as authoritarianism, communism, or monarchy. These types of governments prioritize centralized power and control over individual freedom and participation in the political process. However, many people argue that these forms of government are outdated and do not serve the best interests of the people. In the democratic form of government people could raise their voice if the ruling government maintains an unfair betterment in public welfare which could not be done in monarchy form of government. So, there should be a hub discussion on the topic that is opinion of modern people in ruling a nation which would give more ideas from many participants in this platform.
During my research about the royals, a question that I think would make a great discussion is this: What are some of the traditions and customs surrounding the coronation of a British monarch, and how might King Charles III's coronation differ from those of his predecessors?
I think would be great to discuss because the coronation of a British monarch is a centuries-old tradition that has a great deal of historical, cultural, and symbolic significance. It involves a complex series of rituals and customs that have evolved over time, and each coronation has its own unique characteristics and traditions.
Furthermore, the coronation of King Charles III, whenever it may occur, is likely to be of significant interest to people around the world, given the global reach and impact of the British monarchy. It may also provide an opportunity to reflect on the role and relevance of monarchy in contemporary society and to consider the ways in which it has changed and adapted over time.
We have talked about the subject of the French monarchy in the past, which used to treat its people unfairly and make them pay heavy taxes while they did not find anything to meet their needs. And with all this corruption, it led to the French Revolution in 1789, and here the people revolted and ended the corrupt king's rule and called it Freedom Day. Which the French still celebrate, and then the revolution contributed to the consolidation of a set of principles that spread in Europe and the world, such as freedom, equality and the sovereignty of the people. This was one of the bad models in the old royal era, but in the current era, it lives under republican rule and in better conditions, so we learned that power and control face power and must end, so the royal family must be fair.
Well, always when a new king is crowned, his goal is to live up to the expectations of his people. Does King Charles only think about living up to the expectations of his people, or does he have more plans than that?!
I had already thought that the life of the ruling family was a life of luxury, but after reading about this subject, it was much easier than I expected. Rather, the ruling family must meet the needs of the subjects, and it must take care of political and economic matters...
Don't you think it's difficult?
how do the royals get so rich? like how did they get the money in the first place is it from taxes? also how come they get to go on such fancy trips? where do they go?
How long do you think king chales 3rd will be one the throne for? Ithink 4 years.
What makes you think that, decisive_coyote?
We had a discussion on this topic and my teachers showed us some new stories regarding this topic. And one story that caught my attention was that, In 2011, following protests, the King of Morocco said he would reduce his powers and give some of them to the government. The country is still,however, partially ruled by the monarchy, and is not a full democracy. So I did a little research about this, and it said that the constitutional changes included reducing the king's role as the head of the judiciary and making the prime minister the head of government with more executive powers. The reforms also granted more autonomy to the regions and recognized the Amazigh language as an official language alongside Arabic.While these changes were seen as a positive step towards greater democracy, Morocco remains a partially constitutional monarchy where the king still holds significant powers, including the ability to dissolve parliament, appoint key officials, and intervene in matters of national security. A partial democracy and partial monarchy system, such as the one in Morocco, can have both benefits and drawbacks.On the positive side, a partial democracy can provide some level of political participation and representation, allowing citizens to have a say in government decisions. The monarch can also serve as a symbol of unity and stability, providing a sense of continuity and tradition to the country. And the monarch can play a role in diplomacy and international relations, representing the country on the global stage.On the negative side, a partial democracy can limit the power of elected officials and make it difficult to achieve significant political reforms. The monarch can also hold significant powers, which can lead to
authoritarianism and a lack of accountability. This can stifle political participation and limit the ability of citizens to hold their government accountable for its actions. I just wanted to share this new story about partial monarchy and partial democracy that I had learnt in my session.
I think the King will change how Britain is today. I think he will change the rules and the law.
What do you think he will change?
I understand your thinking, however, the British royal family do not have a say after being coronated. This means that after King Charles III's coronation, he will not be able to interact with the choices of the government, he will only represent the country.
A step further than is the royal family relevant; is it actively harmful? Are there better, alternative political system? Is the monarchy outdated? And can it cause problems?
The royal family brings in a plethora of money from tourism, but they do already have millions of millions of pounds from just being born. As Charles is using taxpayers money to pay for his own coronation whilst being able to pay for it himself and still have millions left. The importance of the royal family has lessened due to the smaller interest of the monarchy, and the dislike of Prince Charles has made many people start to dislike the family more.
I think that another interesting topic to talk about is, "Do you think that the British royal family members have a healthy relationship with each other?" I think that this would be interesting because of the departure of Harry and Megan from the royal family and after Diana's death, Camilla will become king. And I wonder what William and Kate think about this situation. Are they happy about what is happening, or will they leave the royal family too?
do you think we should be paying the royal family because they already have so much money
Are these types of celebrations like the coronation a waste of taxpayers money?Don't we need some of this money to go to the people who are striking?
Who would be the next King or Queen when the King passes?
Should we paying the royal family or should they be paying us?
They should be paying you, many people in the uk are struggling with money, and are having to make the impossible choice between feeding their children or heating their homes, and the fact that the royal family are worth billions each, sitting in their 775 room castles and palaces is disgraceful when all they did to deserve this was be born into a rich family.
Would it be better if the royal family just stopped after the king passes or should it go on for centuries and decades?
I think being part of a royal family is a big responsibility, for example, the king has to show a good example for his citizens and his kids, the queen needs to support the king and be a role model for her kids she has to maintain her royalty, so therefore i think there is no discussion because all part of a royal family has big role to play it is a huge responsibility, despite the part they have money and stuff, i still think it is a huge risk, because now at days famous people like kings, queens, celebrities are in danger because there some people that want to cause harm to them, just because of their fame, so basically i think it is nice being royalty but on the other hand it is dangerous, you will need tight security everywhere you go, you cannot come out freely without security you are not free, so it is not that nice as it seems.
I think that the royal monarchy and the royal family should have stopped once Queen Elizabeth died because I think that having a royal family who are above everyone, it just seems so old fashioned and back in the day were different jobs changed how you were treated and to be continuing in the modern world makes no sense whatsoever.
It just seems like this country cannot move on from the old days with kings and queens who are just above everyone and everyone just praises them for doing nothing but walking.
I agree with that, because in England for example they have a prime minister who does all the actual work involved in running the country, the royal family are just symbols of wealth and nepotism, all they do is go to important events. On the other hand the prime minister has to work for their position, has to earn respect from people so they vote for them, and then they're faced with all the problems of the country. The royal family sit in their 775 room castles all day, maybe going out to show their face at an important wedding or funeral every so often. Also, not only was 100 million pounds spent on the coronation, that money came from taxes paid by the public. Instead of helping the millions of people in the uk struggling with money they spent 100 million on one day, which isn't fair. If they had asked people to donate to a charity or donated themselves from their billions of pounds each, for which all they did was be born, they chose to spend that much on one day.
Our next topic is on nepotism. Perhaps can you can make some links!
My opinion on the kings coronation is i don't think they need royals I think all they need is a president who will sentence laws and look after their country.
Can you have both?
I think they over did the coronation because they spent so much 💵 money.
I think royals are outdated and have no place in the world today. No offence to anyone who's country is run by royals but I think they represent nepotism because they didn't work to get where they are, all they did was be born into it, which is unfair. Lots of people talk about celebrities children being given opportunities without having to work for them because of who their parents are, this is the exact same. Also in the case of the English royals and the coronation of king Charles, as an Irish person I think the English royals are a symbol of how England took over Ireland and we're reminded of that all the time. I also think spending 100 million pounds on the coronation is pointless, especially when so many people in the uk are struggling with money, a lot of them having to choose between buying food for their children and heating their homes. I think that money could have been very helpful to so many people, and spending it on one day for someone who already inherited so much is unnecessary.
You say "No offence to anyone who's country is run by royals ". Most royals have lost their ruling powers now. Does that affect your opinion?
That’s a good point but it doesn’t affect my opinion, I just don’t agree with the idea of royals, including ones that lost their ruling powers, because like I said in my other comment I think that means they represent unnecessary wealth that they did nothing to deserve, they just happened to be born into it. For example king Charles in the UK inherited 1.8 billion pounds from queen Elizabeth without having to do a day’s work in his life for it, and she inherited it from her parents without working and it keeps going like that. I thinks it’s unfair because since they don’t have their ruling powers they just become a symbol of inequality. When I said no offence to anyone who’s country is run by royals, that was badly worded, I just meant I didn’t want to offend anyone who believes royals are a good idea and has respect for royals that are involved in their country, either as rulers or as symbols, because I think I should be able to share my opinion but I didn’t want to start an argument
After watching King Charles's coronation, I wondered how the children of the royal family lived
Who will take care of these children, is their mother or nannies, and what will be their future?
Will they live like other children, or will they be in a tight palace?
They don't know anything about the outside world and will study in private schools.
I suggested this discussion to get an answer
Should UK still be based on the previous form of rules whereby it is ruled by kings and queens or should it allow itself to be part of the new age whereby countries are ruled by presidents
At the coronation ceremony of King Charles III, some people opposed the monarchy and suppressed this phenomenon...but my question is (will this phenomenon continue or will it be extinguished every time?! Will after the rule of Charles III a monarchy be chosen or will someone other than the family be elected royal?!) What is your opinion
Sure, here's a question related to royalty and royal family that could spark an interesting discussion:
Question: Do you think the institution of monarchy is still relevant in modern society? Why or why not?
This question could lead to discussions about the history and role of monarchy, the pros and cons of having a monarch as a head of state, and the cultural significance of royalty in different countries.
What is the royal family hiding from the British public??