The role of royals
43 countries around the world have a king or queen. But the role of royals is different in many of them. For example…
In Saudi Arabia and Eswatini, the monarch has full and absolute political power. They can amend, reject or create laws; represent the country’s interests abroad; and appoint political leaders.
In Jordan and Morocco, the monarch shares power between themselves and other leaders or groups within their countries.
In Britain and Japan, the monarch has no political power. Instead, their role is to represent their kingdoms and take part in ceremonies.
What do you think the role of royalty should be?
Should they have absolute power to do whatever they want? Or would another way be better?
Let us know in the comments below. If your country has a king or queen, try to use examples from your own experiences. If your country does not have a royal family, would you want one? Why or why not?
Comments (216)
My country has kings and queens but they have power in their respective kingdoms and their ruled under the laws of the government. I don’t want want my country to have a royal family that has an absolute power over everyone, because first of all the corrupt behavior is applicable to both Kings and presidents . A president usually has powers that are checked and they have specific limits and time to rule a country, a king on other hand reigns throughout his life and shall be replaced when he dies . For example is the president of my country his regime started good but as time goes on it started to affect the wellbeing of its people but we endured it till he finished up his tenure but if a king reigns opposite to the interest of it people they would have to endure it till he dies . So in my own opinion I don’t think the royals should have absolute power over the government instead the royals should represent their kingdoms and take part in ceremonies.
He is very right, and I agree with you with every word you said. Therefore, kings must be fair in ruling their kingdoms, and not oppress anyone so that he does not become oppressive and high in the land. On the other hand, the matter is not easy at all, because they have to be fair with all the people, and this is very difficult for the king, because there may be regions whose existence the king does not know about, and the inhabitants of these regions are oppressed without the intention of the king. injustice to anyone.
I support you because , kings in Uganda have powers but are controlled by the government so, so when you say that royalty is not much I agree with you because even in Uganda in Buganda the Queen has something called "kisakate" even some kings do not know some of their powers because they have many powers , and also kingdoms collect tax which help the kingdom in resources.
Could you explain more about a "Kisakate" please, confident_meaning?
"Ekisakaate" is a cultural camp started in 2007 by the Queen of Buganda to teach skills and values to the youth. It teaches people skills like art, dancing, drumming, peeling matooke and many others.
I support you because if kings and queens are under the rule of government and follow them, royalty will not too much. I have liked your country unlike mine where presidents don't have a limit.So as long as people vote for you, no matter how old you may be you still rule. Also if a king acts so widely, people can inform his advisers and for the president the he is advised and changes his behavior.
I agree because... in my country it is the royalty to have more power than the other political leaders especially when the country is being ruled by a specific King like in my Jap land. I think the royals should have more power than the political leaders. In those days, the royals had more power than the political leaders but nowadays due to greed of powers by the political leaders especially when introducing themselves in parliament they don't include the royals.
I agree with you
We Arabs have many countries that have a king and a queen.
Unfortunately, the royal rule has many disadvantages, including abuse of power, as they use the power of law for their own interests. They enact new laws to serve their own desires and projects. Recently, cases of royal corruption began to appear on the surface through the press from thefts of people's money.
I think they are the main reason for the increase in unemployment in their countries. Among those countries are Syria and Morocco.
The saddest thing is that when the people realized the extent of corruption and the people revolted, the king used force to prevent people from changing and expressing themselves. I don't like the monarchy.
He should be president and be punished if he violates the law of the state
unfortunately such a life is sad because the people do not have a say on what happens to them and are disenfranchised of their right which is even against the rules they set. Some royals are law breakers and have harsh autocratic rule. Willing power and using it for theft, bribery and embezzlement. They use what they have to get pleasure in any way they can no matter the cost and sadly they can not be punished as some royals are not punishable by law. In some cases they put their citizens in danger rather than protecting /representing them in cases of succession to the throne disputes and wars. The people get killed or hurt the disadvantages of monarchy in this present time are unjust and unfair so i feel monarchy is not needed in this present time .
I agree because... there are also kings and queens in my country, and they have power and rule in their respective kingdoms. I deeply agree with your point of not having a royal family that has absolute power over everyone in a country because if they do, they can set rules and laws according to their desires which might not be beneficial to others. As you said a president has a limited amount of time to rule a country, however, if a country has a royal family ruling, the people have to be under the rule of the king before he dies, which will be torture for the people if the king is an evil one. Therefore I agree with your comment and every single point you made, therefore I also think that the government should rule and the royals should represent their kingdoms and take part in ceremonies.
Thank you for sharing your perspective on this topic. I completely agree with you that having a royal family with absolute power can be detrimental to the well-being of the people. It's important that laws and regulations are created in a way that benefits the majority of the population, and not just a select few.
While having a royal family can add cultural and historical value to a country, it's essential that they do not have the power to dictate laws and policies. As you mentioned, it's important for the government to rule and for the royals to represent their kingdoms and take part in ceremonies.
Overall, it's crucial to strike a balance between preserving cultural traditions and ensuring that the people's rights and welfare are protected. Thank you again for your thoughtful comment!
I agree with your perspective on royalty in Ghana. It is true that many countries, including our own, have kings and queens who hold power and authority within their respective kingdoms. This presence of royalty reflects the diversity and richness of cultures across the world. While acknowledging the significance of royalty, it is crucial to recognize the importance of checks and balances within a governing system. Having a royal family with absolute power over an entire country may not be beneficial for the well-being and rights of the citizens. As you rightly pointed out, if a king or queen had unrestricted authority, they could set rules and laws according to their personal desires, potentially disregarding the needs and welfare of others.
In contrast, a government with elected officials, such as a president, provides a system that allows for a broader representation of the people's interests and ensures accountability. The limited term of a president allows for change, fresh perspectives, and the opportunity for the country to evolve over time.
Nonetheless, the presence of a royal family can still hold great cultural and symbolic significance. They can serve as representatives of their kingdoms, preserving traditions, and participating in ceremonial events. This way, they contribute to the preservation of cultural heritage while the governance and decision-making are entrusted to the elected government.
I disagree because There is no king in the country of Nigeria, but it is a presidential republic, and if there is a king, mention some of them to me
I think that is a bit harsh. Maybe you just did not understand reserved_wolf's point of view. In Nigeria we do not have a king, we have kings. There are over 371 ethnic groups in Nigeria and quite a number of them are presided over by a traditional ruler and sometimes, his council of advisors. Yes, Nigeria is a Federal republic ruled by a President, but the traditional system is usually ruled by kings, for example, the Oba of Benin. Here are some other traditional rulers;
1. The Olu of Warri
2. The Ooni of Ife
3. The Gbong Gwom of Jos
4. The Mishkagham of Mangu
5. The Alaafin of Oyo
6. The Eze of Owerri,
And so much more. I hope I have shed some light on this topic and given you a little more information about Nigeria. Thank you.
Great examples, enigmatic_salak. Nigeria seems to have a unique system of power-sharing between traditional royal rulers and a modern elected parliament. What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of this system?
Hi, Marie.
Before I answer your question, I want to establish the fact that the power of traditional rulers is mostly ceremonial and between their respective kingdoms. They are still answerable to the government.
Advantages:
Firstly, I feel that this system shows the existence of a rich culture among different Nigerian tribes, ranging from the unique way they address the rulers to how long some kingdoms have existed. For example, the Benin empire's first Oba, or King, Eweka II, ruled from about 1200 AD.
The system also reduces the burden of administration of justice of the government. They resolve minor conflicts among members of their kingdoms and ensure that people follow the rules, so that the government can focus on other hefty matters of state. They mediate between the people and the state.
They maintain the moral decadence of their society, by expounding rules that will do so. Even though they don't have formal political power, their people still respect them.
Disadvantages:
There might be clashes in contrasting opinions between the government and traditional rulers on how to govern the people. Each side might want to take a different approach to solving problems involving their citizens.
Some kings may make selfish decisions concerning the governing of their people, and when the people's interests are not paid attention to by their leaders, different issues, such as riots and underdevelopment of kingdoms ensue.
My country has kings and queens but I don't think that we need them because the government is already making the country to progress while the kings and queens are just sitting there doing nothing to make the country progress, instead in some states the kings and queens are actually the downfall of some states.
For example: In a certain state in Nigeria there is a king named Ewuare ll. He is the head of the state, he wasn't under the government and he was leading the state. So when it was time to make important decisions it was his duty to make them and sometimes his decisions would lead to the loss of countless lives.
I agree if all that pressure is on one person to carry out what they think is best for their country. If a king or queen makes decisions on behalf of the entire country without any other input from government officials, it could cause many lives to be disturbed. Their decisions will affect that entire country. Also it could cause lives to be lost and many national resources to decrease.
I agree because most of the royalties we have represent their kingdom. They are known to be fair and just and they show empathy towards their people.
Since we're in the 21st century, I think the royalties should try and integrate some of the digital developments into their roles.
We've analyzed the positive impact the metaverse will have to the world but one of the issues that needs to have a sustainable solution is how the less privilege will not be able to have easy access of being in the metaverse because its expensive.
Royalties are known for their charitable activities around the world, they can use their power and wealth to include making the metaverse accessible for the less privilege in their agenda. Considering the power and wealth the British royalty have, it will be nice if king Charles after his coronation will make it part of his plans for the future to make the metaverse available for all including the less privilege in Britain and the world. If he implements this, he'll a set a good examples for other monarchs and heads of states to follow for their countries development.
This is an imaginitive way to combine two of the topics you have covered in this festival, amazing_horse. What other causes would you like the royals to support?
I disagree because it is not good for kings and queens to be ruled by the government because it lowers their dignity which is very bad .But in my opinion kings and queens should rule with out an interference from the government . Unless maybe if what the kingdom is doing is contrary to the expectations of the society . In Uganda the royals are very relevant for example the kings of Buganda organizes charity runs every year to collect funds which help people who are vulnerable like those with HIV/AIDS.
I'm in total support of this. Your country system of Royalty is similar to mine. I don't see the need of a royal family in my society but in other places of the world they are quite needed to represent the country in ceremonies because the president can't just leave his office unattended to and go to ceremonies. With what I read on the article I learnt that countries like Britain and Japan have royal families but they don't involve in political activities, they just participate in ceremonies and from these ceremonies more income is earned for the country. This will help the country in one way or the other.
Yes, my opinion concerning the royal family has changed, I would like my country to have a royal family of our own but all power will be shifted to the modern rulers, that is the president. So that they can attend ceremonies and prevent the president or governors from being distracted.
I disagree because... For my country, Palestine There are no royal families that can restrict the freedom of the people, but I want to know is the tyranny of the monarchy that bad. I do not know this question well because we do not have royal families, but you have already answered my questions 🤔🤔 But the question is here Is it good to give people the full right to determine their fate? Corrupt actions will multiply because there is no intimidation by the kingdom of those who break the laws. I am not saying that I want royal tyranny, but I think that it is better to put an end to the word of the people and put the laws of the king under the constitution.
Can I turn the question round and ask: do you think it is good if people have no right to determine their own fate? Should the king determine it for them? You seem to be drawing the conclusion that democracy leads to corruption - how can democratic countries prevent that happening?
whether individuals have the right to determine their own fate or whether that right should be reserved for a ruling authority is a complicated issue.I that autonomy is a fundamental right, however Isuggest that there are situations in which the individual must be limited in their choices. The role of authority in society will continue to be a subject of discussion, as human beings strive to find a balance between individual autonomy and collective responsibility
I disagree because...the corruption of presidents is a lot more than that of kings and queens because they start being groomed in manners at an earlier age for the important duty they are to handle in life whereas presidents are just elected, sworn in and they begin there rule .
In a way, you are right, but I do not agree with you, because I really respect the king and the queen, even though my country is not ruled by him. The modern era, I think that this does not exist, because it was also in the past, because of the greed of the old kings and their imposition of taxes on the general public so that they could enjoy it. They were removed from their thrones and ended their career. I think that this is the reason why the kings are now more keen not to be like the previous kings, and also I think it would be unfair. That the king only has importance in attending meetings and ceremonies, I think he should have a hand in making the kingdom's decisions
I agree because monarchies who have absolute power can really do anything they want so they may do corrupt behavior. This is why democracies or countries with kings who are just a political figure are better because there is not as much corruption.
Giving someone absolute power to do whatever they want is generally not considered a good idea. Absolute power often leads to abuses of power and can result in the oppression of those who do not have power. This is why most modern societies have some form of checks and balances on the power of their leaders, whether it be through a constitution, a parliament or a judiciary.
In the case of monarchies, the role of the monarch varies widely depending on the country. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, the monarch's powers are mostly ceremonial and symbolic, while the real power lies with elected officials. In other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the monarch has much greater power and can make decisions that affect the lives of ordinary citizens.
Whether or not a country should have a monarchy is a matter of debate. Some people argue that a monarchy can provide stability and continuity in times of political turmoil, while others argue that it is an outdated system that gives too much power to one person or family. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to have a monarchy should be up to the people of each individual country to decide.
Here are a few examples of countries with monarchies and the varying degrees of power held by their monarchs:
Sweden: The Swedish monarch, currently King Carl XVI Gustaf, has a largely ceremonial role and performs duties such as representing the country at official events and awarding prizes. The Swedish government is run by elected officials, and the monarch has no role in making or enforcing laws.
Thailand: The Thai monarchy is a constitutional monarchy, which means that the king's powers are limited by a constitution and the country has an elected government. However, the current king, Maha Vajiralongkorn, has been accused of expanding his powers and interfering in government affairs.
This is a very thoughtful and balanced summary, flowing_chocolate. I like that you differentiate between the various forms of monarchy practiced in various countries. Why do you think countries like Sweden prefer to keep their monarchies even though the monarch's role there is merely symbolic?
The decision to retain a monarchy, even when the monarch's role is largely symbolic, is often influenced by a variety of cultural, historical, and political factors unique to each country.
In the case of Sweden, the Swedish monarchy has a long history dating back to the 16th century, and the current monarch, King Carl XVI Gustaf, has been on the throne since 1973. The monarchy is deeply ingrained in Swedish culture and identity, and it serves as a unifying symbol of the country's heritage and traditions.
Additionally, the Swedish monarchy is generally viewed as a stabilizing force in the country's political system. The king has a ceremonial role in representing the country at official events and ceremonies, and he serves as a neutral figurehead that can help to mediate disputes and maintain a sense of continuity and stability during times of political transition.
Finally, the Swedish monarchy is also seen as a valuable tourist attraction and a source of national pride, with many Swedes taking pride in the history and traditions associated with the monarchy.
Overall, while the role of the Swedish monarch may be largely symbolic, the monarchy remains an important part of the country's cultural, political, and historical identity.
One example of the cultural and historical significance of the Swedish monarchy is the celebration of National Day on June 6th each year. This date marks the election of King Gustav Vasa in 1523, who is considered the founder of modern Sweden. National Day is a public holiday and is celebrated with parades, concerts, and other festivities throughout the country, with the royal family playing a prominent role in the celebrations.
Another example is the Swedish royal family's involvement in charitable and humanitarian efforts. For example, Queen Silvia of Sweden is a well-known advocate for children's rights and has founded several organizations aimed at improving the lives of disadvantaged children around the world. The royal family's involvement in charitable causes helps to reinforce the monarchy's positive image and underscores its role as a unifying force in Swedish society.
You've done an impressive amount of research - well done!
Yes, of course, absolute power always leads to authoritarianism, as happened with Napoleon when he wanted to lead the French campaign, although he wanted to spread justice, equality and the right to self-determination, but he was the first to breach these treaties and laws that he put in place himself and he killed millions of opponents of his revolution Because they only posed a threat to his rule, so no matter how wonderful and good a person is, there is still a bad side of him that will appear at the earliest opportunity. Also, I do not think that all kings are like that. For example, the King of Saudi Arabia is a good person and treats his people well, and I think that if he was a bad person, Saudi Arabia would not be like this in our present time
I agree with this comment because there is definitely sometimes both a need for a royal, such as in cases of diplomacy and presenting to the global community, and when there isn't, such as when important decisions must be made and decisive action must be wise and directive.
To begin with, being a royal is having the status of being a king or queen or being a member of their family. A royal has many roles, some of which are:
1. Rule making
2. National identity
3. Gives a sense of stability and continuity
4. Serve as representatives for their country.
5. They provide basic amenities for the citizens.
Do you think the royal people should have the role of rule making? What dangers are there of them having autocratic control?
I think During autocratic control ruler face high pressure and lack flexibility ..the ruler discourage feedback from suppordinates and this can lead to less innovation and creativity
In general, the idea of royal families having a role in rulemaking is associated with the concept of monarchy, which has existed in many cultures throughout history. Under a monarchy, the monarch is typically the head of state and holds significant power and authority over the government and its decisions.
The dangers of giving the royal family autocratic control include the possibility of abuse of power, lack of representation and accountability, and limited opportunities for political participation and freedom of speech for citizens.Monarchs who hold absolute power can make decisions that benefit themselves and their interests rather than the people they govern. They may also be resistant to change and reform, which can lead to stagnation and a lack of progress.
Additionally, a monarchy can create a sense of hierarchy and privilege that can be divisive and harmful to society. When one group has more power and authority than others, it can lead to resentment and inequality, which can undermine social cohesion and stability.
Overall, whether or not a royal family should have a role in rulemaking is a complex question that depends on many factors, including the specific context and culture in which they operate. However, it is generally recognized that autocratic control can be dangerous and can lead to negative consequences for society.
There have been many examples throughout history of the dangers of autocratic control by royal families or monarchs.
One example is the reign of King Louis XVI of France, who was an absolute monarch during the 18th century. His autocratic rule and resistance to reform led to widespread discontent among the French people, which ultimately led to the French Revolution and the overthrow of the monarchy. Louis XVI was eventually executed, and his reign is seen as a cautionary tale of the dangers of autocracy and the need for accountability and reform.
Tyranny: a cunning method, and it represents a malicious form in particular, based on manipulation and domination. The rule of tyranny will not exist, as King Louis XIV was an example of the greatest tyranny in Europe, so France at that time was suffering from the tyranny of the king and the people were suffering from poverty because of the policy of King Louis XIV ...
I disagree because I refuse to let the ruling family have a role in setting up the government, because indeed there will be injustice and tyranny because the king, if he establishes the rule will impose taxes on his people and it is possible that if a war occurs the king will impose more taxes to compensate for the losses of course it will not impose taxes on itself and if it sets laws, it will apply them to everyone except the royal family, and this will increase discrimination and injustice in society.
In my country Nigeria, we were ones ruled by a monarch system of government from the year 1960-1963. Until it was abolished on 1 October 1963.
In my country we are not ruled by a monarch, and I would not like one.
Why?
Because, a monarch system is very prone to dictatorship especially when the king or queen has absolute power. Another reason why I would not like a monarch system of government is because in a monarch system power is hereditary and so there would not be proper recognition of talent. What if a country that ruled by a monarch system of can be ruled by someone that will further the nation but just because the position is hereditary they cannot be able to get it. Another reason is that in a monarch system of government the people don't have a say whatever the king or queen says is final.
A well developed response with a strong argument!
1. Is there any benefits of a monarchy?
2. Why is a monarchy prone to dictatorship?
3. Could you think of a country where a monarchy is a positive for the country?
4. Could you give some specific examples about when the Nigerian Monarchy has acted like a dictatorship?
I believe that the monarchy has benefits first - that the king's personality plays an important role - if it is good - in the scope of international relations, and it can gain more respect and interests for his country thanks to the friendships he establishes with the kings and presidents of other countries.
Secondly, the monarchy can create interdependence and unity in some
A country whose people consist of discordant, heterogeneous elements
Thirdly, the monarchy achieves a kind of steadfastness and stability, which spares the country the violent political and economic shocks that could afflict the country in republican regimes when the date of elections to choose the head of state approaches.
In response to your first question, yes there are benefits to a monarchy, one benefit, is that the monarchy brings about political stability because of natural descent and conferment of sovereignty in a single ruler. And also it can easily adapt to emergency situations, as the monarch(especially absolute monarch) need not consult anyone to make decisions.
In response to your second question, it is prone to dictatorship especially in absolute monarch because he has absolute power in the country and no one has a say over his decision and besides that monarchy does not accept the principle of popular sovereignty.
To answer your third question, I think the United Kingdom, because they help in the provision of revenue to the country through tourism, they provide a focus of national identity.
In response to your fourth question, I don't think there is any Nigerian monarchy that acted like a dictatorship that I know of. But the only monarch system that we had that was generally accepted was when Nigerians were colonized
With regard to the authority of the royal family or the king in the country, I think that the authority does not have to be absolute. In our study, we learned from many of the revolutions that took place in France because of the tyranny of the king’s authority. The king, the municipality, the government, and so on, then the government will be fair and just. As for my country, we do not have a royal family, and I think that perhaps this is better, so the election takes place through voting, so that the people agree on who they want to rule, and there are no problems with positions of government.
Could there be situations where a monarchy and democracy work side by side and is beneficial? For example, do you think the Monarchy in England brings in economic value or do you believe its completely pointless?
Yes, it is possible for a monarchy and democracy to coexist and work together in a beneficial way. In fact, many countries around the world have both a monarch and a democratic system of government. The exact nature of how the two systems interact varies depending on the country, but in general, the monarch often serves as a figurehead or symbol of the state, while the democratic government handles the day-to-day governance of the country.
In the case of the monarchy in England, while the Queen has limited constitutional powers, she also served as a unifying figure for the country and a symbol of its cultural heritage. This can be valuable in promoting tourism and cultural exports, which can have economic benefits for the country. Additionally, the monarchy can serve as a stabilizing force in times of political uncertainty or transition.
However, it is important to note that the value of the monarchy is a matter of debate and opinion, and there are certainly those who believe that the monarchy is outdated and unnecessary. Ultimately, whether or not the monarchy brings economic value is a complex question and the success of this type of system depends on a variety of factors, including the specific circumstances of the country and the opinions of its citizens.
There are many countries that have both a monarch and a democratic system of government. Here are a few examples:
United Kingdom, Sweden, Japan, Spain, Thailand.
Yes.., there are many countries which follow both monarchy and democracy. The country which follow this type is commonly known as constitutional monarchy.
Monarchy is the power given to the general people to choose their leader. Democracy is a government where individuals can select their governing legislation.
The constitutional monarchy means there are some constitutional limits to monarchy. The monarch is just a figurehead.
A time before, Sweden had an elective monarchy but now has constitutional monarchy ruled by Carl XVI Gustaf.
As you said, Monarchy brings economic value in England. Monarchy generates huge revenue. Now, it is largely ceremonial. Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties. Here, ruling is done by the government and the king is obliged to follow governments advice.The functions of the monarch is to appoint the Prime Minister and other ministers, to open new sessions of Parliament, to give royal assent to bills passed by Parliament and thereby making laws. The new Britain monarch will be the head of Commonwealth of Nations.
The country which follow constitutional monarchy are: Bahrain, Belgium, Bhutan, Cambodia, Denmark, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Sweden, Thailand, United Kingdom, etc...
i believe that having royalty is outdated because all that they do now is only to be the face of england and its costing us money to keep them rich
Can you give some evidence of the public funding the royals?
Each year the royal household publishes a summary of head of state expenditure
together wit a full report on royal puplic finances.
I agree because... if we think things through, we actually realize that its our local taxes policies being used to sponsor the royal family which in my opinion, is a waste of money due to the fact that the money given to the royalties could actually be used to provide social amenities for citizens.
th royal famly shold stay because they brong in lots of turism and that what england is known for and key bring in lots o money from turism
I agree with you partially, for example the british royal family are estimated to bring in more money than they cost through tourism or other ways. There,they have no pollitical power but they take part in ceremonies.
But in my country I don't want that, because its not found at all. I prefer to have a leader by fair elections.
Can you find any data to show how much money they bring into the country through tourism?
I disagree because... even if England was ruled by a politician ,tourists would still visit the palace which would still earn them money.It would even be much better because tourists would go to see both the political and monarch system of administration which would even earn a greater amount of money.
I agree because even in Uganda, the Kasubi Tombs are a tourist attraction that help to generate income to both the royal family and the government. Even other things attract tourists in a kingdom like culture and maybe the design of palaces.
So kingdoms should continue existing.
i think that we don't really need the royal family any more because they don't have an impact on the political side of things and we only talk about the coronation or left members of the royal family. However, if we did take away their titles, they would still have a lot of money and still be famous.
I agree because if they have loyal family it would promote dictatorship and tribalism which will lead to disunity among the people. In order to control this the government has to bring people to together by refusing this proposal and creating other things like starting saving groups to socialize and satisfy their economy in order to achieve their dreams.
Do you think the Royals form an important part of British society?
I do not think so, because in British society the king cannot issue decisions, that is, his work is limited to attending official and national ceremonies, and is also limited to bestowing honors and appointing the prime minister. Don't you think so too?
Of course, they have importance in society, because they represent Britain by their morals. Although I object to some of the actions that they do, I think that whatever the king does, if this king is just and righteous, he will remain important in society.
What alternatives are there to a king or queen as head of state? Can you think of examples from other countries?
I would prefer that the people have a representative, as it is a constitutional parliament. The opinion of the people is taken into account in difficult circumstances. Many have creative thinking to solve the problem. The state will develop based on its reliance on youth thinking and building a relationship of trust between the people and the ruler.
I think that the royals still have role as they represent our country and show pride and power. they may not deserve there place but they do represent the country and it is also a tradition for our country to have a royal family and it has been like that since 1066
An interesting opinion, how do the Royals in the UK demonstrate pride and power, and why do you not think they deserve their place?
Because the huge money is spent on the monarchy and it all comes from taxes from the people while they are able to preserve the techniques and symbols and exploit these symbols in a distinguished museum or exhibition that is evidence of the royal heritage of Britain and will be a stop for visitors and tourists. And because they come to the throne without a referendum through inheritance and it is possible that The son will come and be bad or unjust and bring war and destruction to his people and be crowned king while he is not worthy.
I liked your response and your pride and pride in the fact that your country is a monarchy, in the face of disagreement between you and other opinions, but why do people in your country believe that the monarchy should end when you disagree on that??
But I disagree with you on some criteria, since the absolute power of the king or queen has many drawbacks in governance, including that it is the biggest cause of the tyranny of the monarchy and its oppression of the people, therefore there are many peoples around the world who reject this injustice and tyranny over it because they consider it plundering their rights and that it is a kind of nepotism Because of the presidency without the competence of the person, it tries in several ways to claim the violated rights and freedoms and stop injustice and kings at their limit, among these methods: immigration, revolutions and political unrest, violating the laws of the unjust state, political struggles between the king and his army against the people and other methods.
So do you think that peoples and generations will remain patient with that injustice and persecution to preserve the traditions of their country??
there is no use or space for the royals in modern society because they give nothing to our country apart from tourism they waste all of our money on castle and palaces. we give them money just for them to waste it on another castle whereas some people cant even afford food or rent whereas the royal family can afford multiple castles and feasts.
Can you give any evidence of this happening?
I think that the royal family is a useless part of
British society this is because it waste of our many by doing nothing all day and a occassionall avent
Can you give any evidence of this happening?
I disagree because...
I do not agree with you at all, because not all kings are like this. In some kings, they are kind, sympathetic to the poor, and support charitable associations and institutions that support orphans and the poor. To protect you all, I don't think as much as you do. Oh quiet imitator.
But I think that there are some kings that are as you speak, but do not pay attention to them Thank you
In my opinion i do not think there is a place for the royal family in the modern day world because in this day and age, we do not really need the royal family. It is old and i think that has only been carried on because of tradition and popularity. They do not serve any purpose or political power. we mostly only hear about them on the internet. As the royal family started in 1066, i think they have only kept the royal family because of history.
Do you not think they serve an important purpose of being ambassadors of the UK and the commonwealth of nations? I am interested in hearing your opinion on this?
in my opinion i do like the royal family. they bring in lots of money and people through torissium. Also it's a tradition to the country because we have had them since 1066.
Can you give any evidence of royals helping with tourism?
I agree because... like fun_ statement has just said so that royal family bring in lots of money like when tourists come into the country for a visit they pay some money and it also promotes tradition in a particular country like Uganda also has its royal family and i have also been observing this since I was born.
Hi ,
I agree with you. My father visited Britain in 1993 and he was very proud of taking some photos in the Buckingham palace area . This place shows old history . That's why people look at the place as amyth .
Great job in giving an example from your families experiences
i don't think the royals really matter.They are more like tourist attraction then a monarchy.They have little to no power over the british people.Their have power is more social power than political.
Although the British monarchy have no political power in the UK do you think they have an important role in representing the country globally? For example King Charles recently went on a European tour.
Do you not think they have "Soft Power" for example encouraging peace and prosperity, or by being a constant image of stability of British life? Many foreign leaders come to the UK specifically just to meet the Monarchy and see it as an essential part of British life. How important is this social/soft power?
I disagree because... there part of being a tourist attraction comes with the monarchy because other people will want to see and know the difference in their systems and other systems of monarchy so if that's the case this becomes a tourism sector to the country and there are many other interesting facts about these monarchies for example historical backgrounds which drive away our attentions to further places but still there tourist part is beneficial and when it comes to leadership they do there work so well that they are given much respect in society and that's why at some point of view I could closely relate them to politicians almost similar i guess apart from titles.
So they play a big role that others see.
I disagree because... You have said that the influence of the greatest kings is on the social side, but isn't strengthening your relations with neighboring countries an important matter for making peace and getting rid of wars, i.e. the point is that they have a role in a happy life for their people.
I believe that there is not a place for royals in the modern world. This is because, they do not supply our country with any political power, they influence instead. In newspapers, on the news and just about wherever you look on the internet. Even with the amount of influence they have, they do not use it to the greatest advantage. In the past, we have seen many controversial actions performed by the royals. This is why i do not think we need the royal family.
Can you give any evidence?
Personally i think that monarchs should not be given absolute power. In the United kingdom, the monarch is only the ceremonial head of state and the symbol of the nations. They practice constitutional monarchy because the powers of the monarch are limited. One of the disadvantages of absolute monarchy is the fact that it is hereditary, which means the people don't get to decide who leads them and so this could lead to tyranny and even if there are officials in the country, they will not be able to control the monarch because the monarch is supreme. I think constitutional monarchy is the best option for countries that still have royal families.
A constitutional monarchy is also hereditary, though. Are you in favour of the hereditary principle as long as the power of the monarch is limited by the laws of a country?
Not completely. Though it is better to limit the power of the monarch so that bad decisions will not be taken. Personally the concept of constitutional monarchy is quite good because the parliament is actually the one ruling the country but before they make laws they have to get something called the royal assent, which means the monarch must agree to establish the new law. In this way bad or unfair laws will most likely be limited. In absolute monarchy, once the monarch says it, it is final. This could lead to a abuse of power. A country must not necessarily get rid of the royal family even though they do not really play a role in ruling the country. The best I think they can do is allow people who are competent rule the country through the parliament but still keep the monarch as the ceremonial head of state.
I believe that the royals shouldn't have all the power to do whatever they want. We will be affect by the king or queens single decision. I prefer the democratic system we practice in our country because it's a fair system than power getting passed from generation to generation. The person who gets power passed on to him may not be a good person and make us suffer.
In my country Nigeria, we do not have a supreme king, we have traditional rulers in different states serving different tribes and they are under the government. They are the closest to their communities and help the politician reach the local community. There is the Sultan of Sokoto who is the spiritual leader of the Muslims in Nigeria, there are Emirs in the north who were once under the sultans authority before the colonial masters came. In the south we have the Obas and Onis.
Your thinking is absolutely right because the kings and queens shouldn't be given privilege to make independent decisions because this would gravely affect the non supporters hence causing division among the nation leading to civil wars causing destruction of property , refugee inflex , death of people leaving the children parentless and the young women widowed . So I strongly oppose that kings and queens should make make decisions independently.
I agree with your point. Traditional leaders in Nigeria hold few constitutional powers but are able to exert significant influence as they are seen as custodians of both religion and tradition. However the traditional rulers can be dethroned by the political leader if they don't lead their community according to their constitution.
On 9th march, 2020 the Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II, one of Nigeria's most influential Muslim traditional leaders, has been removed from his throne.
The government said he was removed "in order to safeguard the sanctity, culture, tradition, religion and prestige of the Kano emirate", accusing the emir of "total disrespect" of institutions and the governor's office.
Having traditional rulers is better than having a supreme king to safeguard the country from complete Monarchy.
It's very interesting to read about examples of traditional rulers from your country, vibrant_acorn. Does this system function well for the people in your country? Does the government share power with the local rulers?
The government doesn't share power with the traditional rulers. The traditional rulers work under the governors. The traditional rulers are members of the security council and report issues from their communities to the government. If there is a community clash, the traditional rulers help the government to calm the locals down. If there is a project that the government wants to do in the community the traditional rulers give them guides and helpers. This arrangement is very helpful to the government.
Is it necessary for the authorities to draw what they claim? Or would another way be better? Yes, but I suggested a better way, which is the people's vote. I think like what the people want, because it is a human right to live in freedom.
There is no king or queen in our town, whoever rules the town is chosen according to the Republican vote.
Now our town has no royal family, so I want to become the queen who rules our town, because I want to make all people happy and well, and I promise you if I were the queen I would return as
All your rights, and in the end becoming a king can be easy, but being the king is difficult because you don't know what to do because he rules an entire country or city.
It's great to hear that you want to improve life in your town. Can you give an example of something you could do to help people as queen? Do you think you could do that if you were a president or an elected politician, too?
This is really a wonderful question, so I searched for an answer to it until it became clear to me that the answer to this question depends on the person himself, that is, there are those who want to become kings in order to obtain wealth and think only of himself, and some of them want to become a king or an official to improve the conditions of their country or improve the standard of living, and these They are the ones who have a sincere love for the country.
I think that the role of royalty should be ceremonial, not absolute, like that of Britain and Japan, because sometimes when power and authority are centralized(concentrated in a single ruler),sometimes the concerned ruler tends to become power-crazed or to not always consider the opinions of the people. These are some of the reasons why I prefer a democratic society to a monarchy. If at all a country should have a monarchy, I feel that their power should not be absolute.
My country does not have a royal family but a democratic system of government, which I prefer because the people also have a say in government affairs through the voting process.
Though I feel the monarch doesn't have many roles to play in the modern world, There are few essential roles they play .
For example some monarchs control the way power, authority, and positions are shared within the state.
They pass laws and ensure their execution.
They preserve historical value and keep the memories of the past young by holding meetings, balls and so on like how it was done in the past.
They sometimes fight in essential wars, and attend ceremonial conferences on behalf of the countries or states which they rule.
Being a president or ruler is a very difficult responsibility.
I never really want to be president.
Well the problem is when someone wants to be a leader he wants to be the coolest and kindest person but he doesn't see the reality in leadership to keep the interest of the people it's really hard.
Being in charge gives you great strength and it is important to keep things intact and to have a structural foundation.
Hello!
In my opinion I think that royals are a symbol of the traditions of a group of people as such I think having royals is a good thing but from my perspective, I don't think it justifies the amount of revenue spent by the government on them. I personally don't think monarchs are should still be kept as a tradition due to the modern-day revolution. I think they should not be allowed because in the modern I think everyone should be treated equally but as I feel monarchy is not the way to go as monarchs had the power in the olden days to create, amend and establish laws without challenge. In my country Nigeria has diverse tribes and traditions and in my tribe monarchy was and is still practiced and had the power to create laws for a kingdom bot their power has been abolished and are now just symbols of their various kingdoms as such I FEEL MONARCHY SHOULD BE ABOLISHED AND DEMOCRACY IS THE WAY TO GO as democracy allows for every one's opinion to be upheld.
Hello, my personal opinion is what the king does in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Eswatini when they change, reject or update the laws. I do not oppose this if it is in the interest of the people, but as kings I think they have enough experience in ruling
In my country there are no kings, and I prefer this because I like that there is equality between all individuals and that everyone has the right to choose
Indeed, the monarchy is a double-edged sword that has positives and negatives if we look at the positives, such as that the monarchy achieves interdependence and achieves stability and constancy and others.
But when looking at the negatives, we find that they overshadowed the positives. Monarchy does not achieve democracy, and this regime may bring an unjust king who is not fit to be a king.
Other than that, kings can be proud and haughty over the people because of their position So I do not prefer this system
In Nigeria in various kingdoms they have kings and queens who are seen as people who have divine powers and they as seen as the 'gods' themselves but after colonization and gaining independence they are now under the Nigerian government and I think it is actually good that they tend to be arbitrary, despotic and autocratic and also tend they to be corrupt and unconcerned about their subjects even though they work and serve them loyally so, if they are now under the Nigerian government their powers are limited and this prevents dictatorship and also even though we are ruled by the president he also can't be despotic because we practice a democratic system of government and that means the people have a major role in government unlike the monarchy in which the people don't have a say in the government but now that we practice democracy we have a legislature that has the power to remove or impeach the leaders that do not perform their duties or roles and due to past experiences monarchies in Nigeria have done somethings that will forever scar us and our history and so in my opinion the end of monarchies rule is good for us and I am not saying that monarchies are bad they are actually monarchies that lead their kingdoms to greatness an d fast development such as Saudi Arabia.
In my country we practice a democratic system of government and in my opinion it is very acceptable to the citizens because it is the citizens vote and the citizens choice so it is very fair. But the monarchy isn’t the people choice.
In Nigeria, the ethnic groups have ‘gods’ who are seen to be the head example is ‘oba’ of the Yoruba land. But there are all under the president.
Due to past instances monarchy in Nigeria haven’t made any huge impact and in Nigeria it can lead it to wars because other people will want to be on the throne.
In Nigeria military rule was tried in the past in it usually lead to coup d’etat so now it is stopped.
In my country there are no kings or queens, and I do not want them to be, because they will not care about the people or their interests, but rather they care about their interests. When a war breaks out, will the king say, “This is my country, or this is my people.” No, he will rather hide in a place he built (a refuge for him) and leave the people in This suffering
Do you think a king or queen are relatable to the general population or not and why?
I believe that the king and queen have a relationship with their people because they are the ones who impose the laws and the people implement the laws
For example, King Charles III decided to impose a new law stipulating that poor people should not be forced to pay a lot of money, so the people will implement this law. This is a good law, but there are some kings who impose harsh and unjust laws
Are you sure King Charles did that? Could you share where you found this news? In fact, the King is not who makes the laws in Great Britain. It is the government.
I think the role of royalty should be one of the major political power in Nigeria, because the royal family are more respected by most of the people so if they would make rules more people will obey it because of their respect for the royal family, because in the pre-colonial system of Nigeria the royal family where the ones ruling us.
Do you think a Nigerian Royal Family would make better economical and political decisions than an elected government or not? Why? Why not?
I do not think that a Royal Family wouldn't make better because they may make decisions basing on their tribe mates or on the members of the royal family. For example in Uganda, if the Buganda king is given the privilege to make decisions independently without consulting other ministers, he may favor his subjects more.
Yes, They will make better economical and political decisions, because all royalty have the best interest of the people and the society at heart. Royalty have been ruling since the time of our fore fathers peacefully, respectfully and successfully without any hindrance and problem even before the political era began. In my country royal family are blessed with pure and unique leadership skills and powers which guide them in decision making.
FACT: The royalty is passed through blood from one generation to another generation.
In my opinion, I feel that royalty shouldn't have the power to do whatever they wish whenever they wish because others who aren't noticed as royals will a sense of inferiority. For example, the royalties that have the power to make laws may make a law which majority may strongly be against. But all in the name of them being royalties, they ignore the opinions of the people and do as they wish. And obviously, no individual would want to be under the rule of individuals who do not pay attention or show any relevance to their point of view. Therefore this could even lead individual to being reluctant or unwilling to abide by the rules being set out for them.
In my country, we do not have a king and queen, nor a royal family, and I did not like that there be a royal family in my country, and I am against absolute rule in the hands of the ruling family, so I would prefer that there be ministers and representatives of the people and others. For all to participate and governments must be out of powerThe king, for example, the government of the judiciary, I think it should be outside the authority of the king, and I think that the entire royal family should be subject to the laws
Hello!
In my opinion I think monarchy or royalty should not be allowed and upheld as in my country there was and are still monarchs. I personally feel monarchy should not be allowed as if there is a monarchy system of government will mean the royal family will have absolute power to make and implement laws without being challenged and this will mean people will not be treated equally as if they are corrupt leaders they will tend to racial and discriminate others.
In my country Nigeria there are also corrupt leaders, but their powers are limited and therefore they don't have absolute power and as such citizens have a say in the affairs of a country and even if they don't have power over in a country's political affairs and are said to be symbols of traditions way to much revenue which can be used to develop a country is spent on them. Also, monarchy provides for a king or queen to rule a country or kingdom till he dies but in a democratic system of rule there is a specified amount of time for rule and if the people feel the government is not doing what they ought to they can be impeached, so that in my opinion is why I feel monarchy should be allowed as it could deprive citizens of their basic rights.
I think the role of royalty should be that the sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride,gives a sense of stability and continuity, officially recognises success and excellence, and supports the ideal if voluntary service. In all these roles The sovereign is supported by the members of their immediate family.
I live in Palestine and our government is republican and we do not have a ruling family, but in general the Arab world has many kings, for example King of Saudi Arabia Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, and King of Jordan Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein, and many other kings, From my point of view, the achievements of the kings over the years cannot be denied, but most opinions, including myself, believe that Monarchy has come to an end and republican rule must prevail over the world completely.
And there is a point I would like to clarify ,that the people have the right to choose their president and are not obligated to follow a king who has been crowned according to the system of inheritance, which is a kind of coercion, because the people are forced to accept him because this is their prevailing policy for ages.
I would also like to point out that if the monarchy or the king is corrupt, then this corruption will continue and affect all the chain of succession candidates, and no one will be able to stop it except after a very long effort.
In conclusion, I would like to say that we are now in the era of progress and development, and we must meet its requirements, and we must know that renewal is the way of life, and we must give everyone the right to vote and run for the presidency, To continue moving the world forward.
It seems that you really value opportunities to hold those in power to account, for example, with regular elections.
In Palestine, we do not follow the monarchy, and I cannot say that they are elections, because according to what I know, the president is changed after years in the electoral system, but the president in Palestine continues to rule until his death, and then a new president of the state is elected, which I think is not fair, and from my point of view I choose to It will be like in Japan because I believe that the people should take responsibility for themselves and the role that the president plays is to listen to the demands of his people and try to improve and introduce laws that serve the people. Being president does not mean that you command others. It is a great responsibility. The president has to prefer his people over himself. I love Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and Abu Bakr.. Who are these? Let us say that they were among the greatest chiefs of the past, so Omar would go around at night to check on his subjects, and he would not sleep unless he was reassured that none of his people slept without being full and the money he used to distribute to the poor, so there was no poor person at the time of his succession. I wish everyone would be like Omar.
I do not want my country to have a king or queen, although they will make my country a strong reputation and they will bring the country a huge amount of money, but I believe that they will take the money for them and will not care about the people or their interests, so I do not want my country to have a king or queen
My country practices a democratic system of government and from my point of view I wouldn't want my country to be a monarchy. Why do I say so? I feel monarchies don't give the commoners a chance to be in power or to rule. Monarchies make it a privilege to rule a kingdom, but I feel it shouldn't be so, I think that in order to rule you must be qualified and have the right leadership skills. I feel that a ruler should be someone who has the right leadership skills, and someone who majority of the people would want to rule them. Being born into a royal family shouldn't just be a qualification to rule. I think in order to rule you need to work for it. No offence, but I feel monarchies create discrimination. I feel all humans are equal but, in some monarchies, members of the royal family aren't allowed to marry commoners and to me this seems like discrimination against the commoners.
In my country there is no king or queen, and I do not want to have one. If it had, it could be bad for the people, especially when the rule is hereditary. It is certain that the prince will be like his father, the king, and he will not care about the people for the people, and my state will remain in injustice and suffer from lack of food
In my own opinion, I would say that in our present time, that they is actually no use of the royals in our society/country due to the fact that the royals do not really do or execute most work but are being paid very huge amount of money . I'm not saying that they have no use but they do make much impact on government issues as some other individuals in power do. Although ,not all monarchies practice despotic rule. Some royals take the money and power they have for granted due to the fact that they loot and discriminate those inferior to them.
Can you give some examples to support your opinions?
Hello!
In my opinion I think royalty should not be allowed as it means people will not be treated equally. The reason I say this is because in a democratic system of government the leaders according to one of America's Great Presidents Democracy is'' by the people, for the people and with the people'' but a monarchy system of government doesn't make provisions for any role in the affairs of their country or kingdom for the people and also based on my research some rulers and monarchs have taken decisions that led to the downfall of their country for example Napolean I due to his greed and refusal to make peace with other countries he was attacking lead to his enemies forming an alliance to conquer him. Also when a group of people delegated with the responsibility to rule work together they tend to join hands to develop ideas which can be scrutinized by the public it leads to the growth of a country as it develops a healthy relationship between the government and the people satisfying the needs of both sides and making both sides happy.
In my opinion, I think we should have Royals around but they should not have political powers because in this case I will use my country as an example. In my country, we have Royals in all the different tribes and their sole purpose is to insert culture into people whereby with the world modernizing we need culture more than before because culture atleast helps people to watch their attitude and other behaviors towards their elders and leaders. But Royals do not deserve political power because when they attain political power I feel like it will distract them from their sole purpose which is inserting culture into people since they will be busy handling things like the economy of the country and others.
I believe that the existence of an absolute monarchy is bad because it puts all powers and decisions in the hands of one person or one family, and this reduces the practice of democracy in countries with a monarchy, so the absolute monarchy can be replaced by a representative monarchy, which gives an opportunity for the people to exercise their right through a council Representatives and also the King is not deprived of exercising some powers in the state, such as the United Kingdom and Spain. In my country, it is a country that practices the republican system, where elections are held according to the constitution every four years, even though elections were stopped in my country nearly fifteen years ago for political reasons.
That's a long time to not have elections. Without regular elections, can anywhere really be a republic?
We in Palestine live in exceptional political conditions. We still suffer from the Palestinian division between Gaza and West Bank, which I believe is the main obstacle to holding free democratic elections. I hope that the future for Palestine will bring hope and goodness so that we can exercise all our legitimate rights, on top of which are political rights.
But what exactly can you say that the royals are doing about this present situation since from the point your proving here, your trying to say or saying that the royals actually have important roles in government.
I do hope your country bring goodness and hope so that each individual would be able to have their legitimate right/political rights and also to let there be free democratic elections.
From my point of view, the ruler should contribute to the development of the country, improving the conditions of economic life, spreading justice, security and safety, providing job opportunities for the unemployed, supporting charities, educational institutions, small companies, and others.
Monarchs should not have the ability to do whatever they want. There should be a democracy system because there everyone has a say on what they want the government to do. My country does not have a king or queen but there is a president. I wouldn't want one because monarchs get to do whatever they want and they might ruin the economy.
I think that royality that has absolute power and authority the rise of democracy. If rolyality should exist, it should have limited political power and should serve as symbol od national identity and pride and often perform ceremonial duties such as attending state functions, welcoming forign dignitaries and suppoting charitable causes.
Well, as you know, there are a number of countries that are ruled by a male or female ruler who maintain justice and equality between people and care about the affairs of the state. Among the duties of the male or female ruler are:
1- Solving people's problems
2- Justice among people
3- Giving job opportunities to people who do not work
4- Inspect the conditions of the state in terms of the economy among the people
5- Defending the state in order to protect it
6- Raising people's morale by giving them hope
Thus, we see that kings and queens, despite their wealth, must do justice with humility, so that the people can enjoy freedom and security
In my country here, Palestine, there is no king or queen, and this is beautiful, because when we have a king who rules us, we will not be able to live comfortably because the monarchy is hereditary and from one family of limited lineage. We love each other, we have wide hearts, we love each other, we support each other in times of distress here, without a king, we work with cohesion and strong social cohesion that no one ever disturbs or shakes.
In my country, there is no monarchy, but I previously studied with my teacher that in the Middle Ages, the system of government was absolute, everything belonged to the king, even the people, the king who acted in their affairs, and at that time there was great ignorance and backwardness to the extent that the king used to prevent the people from inventing or innovating, everything was very backward And this was in the Middle Ages
As Royalty have existed since the middle ages, are you surprised it still exists in the modern world? Can you suggest why?
Why would I be surprised?? Even here in Palestine, we still preserve our traditions and civilization, such as the Palestinian dress, our popular dance the Dabkeh, in additiin to many things including our popular foods, despite the antiquity of everything, but we stick to them because they are the customs and traditions our ancient ancestors knew and taught to the rest of the generations, and until now we teach our heritage to our children because it represnets our identity. So, I'm not surprised at all that the ruling exists so far.
I think Royality still exists because of cultural , religion and historical reasons . They aren't useless but they perform very important ceremonial and ambassadors roles.
For example : Queen Elizabeth 2 does an excellent job . She contributes at trade and tourism. In addition she provides impartial advice and continuity in government .She really hold significant power
There is a president in my country, not a king who came through the proposal boxes -and I do not wanty country to have a family that owns it so it does not monopolize governance alone and enact laws that are commensurate with its king and monopolize the country's wealth I want the government to be a renewed democracy.
The role of the working members of the royal family supports the King in his state and national duties. They carry important roles in the areas of public services. They carry out official duties like state funeral or national festivals.
Supporting any encouraging public and charity sectors and Supporting the armed force's
Do you think Royals should be able to make/amend laws and be in control of the judicial system?
Yes, of course, they should be able to enact amending laws and be in control of the judicial system. Why? Because if kings are not capable or in control of the judicial system, then who will be able to over them? If he is not their ruler, then the judicial system will continue with its rulings and laws, whether they are negative or positive. This is a bad thing that society can destroy, so I believe that the king must be in control of society in order for it to be a good society.
Monarchies are repositories of tradition and continuity in ever changing times. They remind a country of what it represents and where it came from, facts that can often be forgotten in the swiftly changing currents of politics. I think monarch are still relevant
Kings should not enjoy the power to rule because that reflects negatively on democracy and the freedom of the people, and the rule must be democratic or through elections and the division of powers into executive, legislative and judicial, and that the king enjoys power that is restricted and controlled by laws that allow the rule of justice and reduce injustice
Royal should not have absolute power because if they have absolute power there will not be freedom of speech where there is no freedom of speech a lot of things will go wrong and people will not be able to speak up
Yes, more and more people are starting to believe that the monarchy have no value to the UK. But let me remind you of the great impacts queen Elizabeth has made. Firstly, she positively helped her country in World War 2 by joining the British army once she turned 18. Additionally, she joined the Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS) as a mechanic. "She started as a second subaltern in the ATS and was later promoted to Junior Commander, the equivalent of Captain ," as quoted by the World War 2 museum.
Secondly, Elizabeth the second has modernised our monarchy by inventing the Royal Walkabout thus changing the way royals interact with the public. This means that the royal family must shake hands with the members of the public. For me, this shows that Elizabeth wants the Royal Family, although richer and deemed superior, to treat all as equals. I respect her for this and without her, greetings would have been different.
Last but not least, her Majesty united the commonwealth. She has undertook more that 200 visits to commonwealth countries and even became head of the commonwealth. "She has donated to over 600 charities and had worked with professional bodies and public service organisations. These vary from well-established international charities to smaller bodies working in a specialist area or on a local basis only."
Elizabeth is an icon. We should commemorate the queen's achievements and remember that without her in the monarchy, everything in the modern day world would be different.
I don't think the royals have a role in the modern society anymore as they do not take part in any politics and are not even allowed to make political statements in public. My country has kings and queens but they do not take part in any of the country's politics. The era of monarchy has gone as most of the countries in the world practice a parliamentary or presidential system of government.
In my opinion, I think royals play a huge role. In some societies, royals have had significant political power and were considered the ultimate authority. In other societies, they have had more of a symbolic role, representing the country and its people, and promoting unity and cultural values.
In modern times, the role of royals has evolved significantly, and they often have a more ceremonial or symbolic role, representing their country on formal occasions and supporting charitable and cultural causes. Ultimately, the role of royals varies depending on the specific monarchy and country in question.
Monarchy is a form of government in which the monarch, that is king, or queen, has the power to make decisions and run the government. Monarchies were once common throughout the world, but now they are extremely rare. Monarchs generally reign for life and most of the monarchies are hereditary. Country like India had monarchy rule before independence. But after independence in 1971 monarchy rule have been abolished. Country like United Kingdom has monarchy rule over 15 realms that is Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada, New Zealand, Saint Vincent, the grenadines, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Solomon Island, Jamaica and United Kingdom. We need royal family or monarchy rule for unity and pride across the country which gives an impression of stability and continuity towards the monarchy rule. advantages of monarchy are stable forms of government, reduce the levels of political divide in a country, possible to reduce corruption within the boundaries of a monarchy, the government of monarchy can move faster when implementing decisions. One of the biggest impediments is creating a class-based society that is rich and poor differentiation will be very high.
After researching on the subject of the monarchy, I found it better than the republican system, but with conditions, as the monarchy does not have to be an absolute monarchy, as the king controls the three legislative, executive and judicial authorities. One person can run it. It needs a group of people because it is a big responsibility. Now let's go back to the first point. How is the best monarchy? The monarchy achieves something that is not found in the republican system (stability) because elections lead to chaos. And the division and disintegration of the people. In the end, we as a people love those who will put us among their priorities and interests. Presidency is not a game for children.
What are the risk of having a monarch rule without elections?
Choosing a monarchy without elections is a very bad thing , as the people who suffer from the insincerity of their deputies and representatives suffer from feelings of frustration thatdrive them to feelings of futility in participating in political decision- making, because they realize that electoral participation will not change reality nor will it fulfill its requirements.
In order to ensure the best positive relationship, the widest audience must participate in the voting process on the one hand and the selection and election process must take place according to precise criteria.
Participation in the elections is a national duty that requires the participation of all , an affirmation of commitment to the democratic approach to allow popular participation in decision making
Thinking about the matter, your question is related to what you said, but not in the way that you talked about. The answer to your question is what I said previously, that the monarchy does not have to inherit the throne from his son. A will says that a person inherits the government inherits it, but for now the matter is unfair. It may be a wrong decision for the king, so what do I know? Perhaps that person was claiming kindness, so the republican system is better, and from what I said before, the monarchy is better in terms of stability, but what I said is not true, as the royal family is always You will not quarrel over governance, and this will lead to division of the people in the end. I did not choose the republican system except because it is in the interest of the people, and this is what matters.
A monarch ruling without any form of democratic election can lead to several risks:
Lack of Accountability: Monarchs are not held accountable to the people as they do not have to face any election. They may become more concerned with their own interests and may ignore the needs of the citizens
Suppression of Basic Rights: A monarch may suppress the basic rights of citizens such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press. This can lead to a society where people are afraid to express their opinions and are not able to challenge the decisions made by the monarch.
Corruption: Monarchs may use their power to enrich themselves and their families at the expense of the citizens. This can lead to a society where wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few, leading to social and economic inequality.
Lack of Innovation: Monarchies may be resistant to change and may be less likely to adopt new ideas and technologies. This can lead to a society that is stagnant and unable to adapt to new challenges and opportunities.
Inefficient Governance: Monarchs may not have the skills or experience necessary to govern effectively. This can lead to inefficiencies in government, which can result in a lack of public services, inadequate infrastructure, and a poorly functioning economy.
Lack of Transparency: Monarchs may operate behind closed doors and may not be transparent about their decision-making processes. This can lead to a lack of trust in the government and a perception that decisions are being made in secret.
Overall, a monarch ruling without any form of democratic election can lead to a society that is less fair, less just, less innovative, and less stable
There are many examples of monarchies where the monarch rules without any form of democratic election and where some or all of the risks that I mentioned earlier have materialized. Here are a few examples:
Saudi Arabia: The country is ruled by a monarchy where the king is the head of state and the prime minister is the head of government. There are no democratic elections and political parties are not allowed. The government has been accused of suppressing basic rights, including freedom of speech, assembly, and the press. Corruption is also a problem, with the royal family being accused of using their power to enrich themselves at the expense of the citizens.
Brunei: The country is ruled by a monarchy where the sultan is the head of state and government. There are no democratic elections and political parties are not allowed. The government has been accused of suppressing basic rights, including freedom of speech and assembly. The country also implements strict Islamic laws that discriminate against women and LGBTQ+ individuals.
The risk of having a monarch rule without elections includes bad governance, lack of rights for citizens, and the practice of nepotism leading to abuse of authority. Since the monarch inherits their position, there is no selection process to determine the best possible leader to hold the throne. As flowing_chocalate rightfully mention''Monarchs may use their power to enrich themselves and their families at the expense of the citizens''. The people are forced to supply the costs that a monarch sustains/earns over the course of governing in practically every occasion of this government structure, which to me is very corrupt and bad.
A monarchy without any form of democratic elections can lead to several dangers:
1- The people’s cope against the government and leads deterioration of the society’s condition and its corruption, as they are not satisfied with its ruler which ignores the needs of the people
2- Making the people only working hands, not innovative, thankful people.
3- The king can put people from his relatives in certain powerful jobs. The right person must be put in the right place and justice and equality must be applied.
In general, having monarchs without any form of democratic election can lead to the creation of a corrupt, unfair, undeveloped, and increative society.
He needs to think about your words and your question is appropriate. This is an important question. I think that, for example, if a person becomes king without being elected by the people, then that is something that completely destroys society. how? This king could be a thief and not be honest and keep the country or not be as good to society as he should be. This thing will destroy society. This is very bad. Possibly stealing the country's money or destroying the country, or he may deal with another chief's property and multiply the taxes together. bad thing
I believe that the role of the king should be honorary and that he should not enjoy absolute powers in order to enhance the spirit of democracy and participation of the people’s groups and political bodies. The country is full of political elites capable of advancing the country’s economy and strengthening its policy and its relationship with other countries. Countries such as Britain, Jordan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia have given powers to form the Council of Ministers, and the royal role is a role of supervision. This is good for these countries, provided that the role of the royal family does not deprive the people of the right to democratic elections that result in a parliament and a government to run the affairs of the people. For my country, Palestine, I do not prefer the presence of a royal family. Because the democratic system based on candidacy and elections is a better system because it gives the opportunity to all the people's lives to participate in the leadership of the state
My country has a king. I sincerelly trust that there are both positives and negatives of having a monarch. First and foremost, having a sovereign defines that there is someone to lead you through battles. For example, Queen Elizibeth II provided succor to my nation during WW2. However, the youth of the UK should be the current face of my country. When someone rules the country, you have to strictly obey laws etc..
Even though I strongly believe, that having laws is a positive thing, I also think that having freedom is also essential.
Furthermore, like how presidents and prime ministers are voted on based on the good deeds that they will provide to a country, I believe that this should occur with our kings and queens. Since, our queen died, not much action is being taken from the kings, only the prime minister - Rishi Sonak, is willing to improve our country for the future and make mature laws which will be followed by generations of citizens.
my country Uganda is a monarch{ a country with many kingdoms}and all kings play the same role in their respective kingdoms. they can make a few small decisions as long as do not affect the laws of the government and kingdoms are expected to stick by the given regulations from the government. i don't think that the kingdoms should have complete control over everyone since they are more likely going to favour their own people and disgrace others but the government to should have a limitation on the powers they can possess over the kingdoms and the government should make laws that don't negatively impact the different kingdoms .
Hi all,
If my country had a king and a queen, their role should be alot such as, making peace,war announcement, army work reference, passports ' working out ,the agreements and unions,re arrangement the citizens' service and having a political power.
But I don't hope to have a loyalty system because it's un fair one.
Just imagine , an uneducated person rules a whole country only because he is the oldest son for the king
You are right. our country needs peace, freedom, passports, improvement of standards of living and many other things and on the top of it , we need real independance. But those things are the role of the presidant and the people to achieve our rights. People must be United under the leadership of a just, courageous and beloved President who was elected by all the people.
I think the UK should abolish or limit the power of The Royal Family after the death of Queen Elizabeth. Regarding from websites, The Royal Family used a whooping £102.4 million during the 2021-2022 financial year. Although the UK is a wealthy country, unfortunately the effect of Brexit, Covid-19 and Russia-Ukraine war issues had increased the price of living cost. I believe the expenses of Royal families could cover some financial problems and solve poverty for economic development.
My country doesn't have a king or a queen.and if i have the choice between a governmental role or monarch role . I would choose the governmental one. Why ?
Firstly . because kings and queens are not selected by people .they are appointed just because they are sons or daughters of previous kings or queens.
They could be good or bad;
They could be young like king Faisal II in Iraq or old like the king Charles.
Secondly. the king or the queen won't be changed by any one of the people even he or she become so old or he /she is proved to be unsuitable .
Finally. We live in the modern technological age which depends on Change . individual own value and creativity.and the monarch depends on old traditions and salvation.
Individual needs or opinions have no value in it.
I believe monarch in all its shapes political or just appears in cermonies should be ended .
Can you elaborate on some of the disadvantages of not having a monarchy?
The absence of a monarchy affects the country as it may lead to the division of the people and the existence of many parties and may lead to civil wars and the large number of disputes and conflicts between citizens
I personally believe that royalty should have a mix of political and ceremonial positions. Lineages of rulers often survive because of their favorable policies and fairness to their people, which stopped them from being usurped and gave them support. I think means that royal leaders are most likely educated in how to run a country, and what are good decisions for their people. I think for this reason giving them some political power would be good.
The job of royalty should be to represent and act as ambassadors for their particular nations or regions, creating international goodwill while also cultivating a sense of national pride. They ought to be living examples of the customs and values of their culture, speaking for the ambitions and ideals of their people. Modern royalty needs to play increasingly active roles in charity work, diplomacy, and social justice initiatives, even though they may still have ceremonial responsibilities like opening events or dedicating monuments. They have a special opportunity to use their money and influence to advance important causes that might not otherwise get much attention. They must also use their influence wisely by taking care not to interfere with the democratically elected administrations.
I think royals should have no power. Having a single family have any kind of power within government could be very dangerous. A royal doesn't have to adhere to the same rules a politician does, and if a royal is corrupt, it is not dealt with in the same way a corrupt politician is. I think royals should be purely ceremonial, acting as diplomats instead of actual officials of a nation.
No, a royal family, a king, a president, or any person in life should be given absolute power. There are several reasons: 1- There are people who have needs that governments will not care about, for example the rights of workers for whom they strike. 2- This will become a great injustice and we will have a reactionary mentality It is not developed, and we will go back to the Middle Ages, which was characterized by the theory of the absolute rule of the king, as the people were suffering the worst suffering because of the king and his men, as they were imposing exorbitant taxes and expropriating lands and other brutal acts 3- The king must abide by the laws and pay taxes like him The citizens, and if he is given absolute rule, he will not pay, but he will take the citizens’ taxes for himself and will not pay them to develop the country’s facilities. 4- There will appear a group of corrupt people who claim to love the king in order to ensure security and safety from him, and until he is exempted from taxes and they can make money and plunder lands, as was the entourage Medieval king. _ That is why I agree with the system of government of Japan and Britain, since the king and the king are nothing but representatives of the state and the nation’s voice before the rest of the countries, and they must improve their dealings with their people. As for governance, it is for the authorities and parliament in the state
In my country there are kings and queens in some parts of the country but I don't think that those kings and queens are a necessity because we already have a president and governors who help to make the country progress.
For example: in a certain part of Nigeria named zaria we have a king named Alhaji Ahmad Nuhu Bamali and every time he goes out he always gets special treatment but he has little or no contribution to governance of the region.
The role of royals? The royals are more of ceremonial activities or representing the people than actual work or political activities. yet they stay within the comfort of their homes and earn money. some of the royals take the authority/opportunity they have to rule as kings or queens . Some use power wrongly, having a despotic or autocratic rule on the people. Some also treat their people unfairly embezzle funds, and have no shame , as they go public about such terrible activities because they feel invincible as they can not be impeached or removed. Yes they have key important roles to play in the society, Some miss use their duties/powers. So I feel the role of royals are not as important or can be done by someone else of more capability. That wont take the advantage for granted .
I do not think that there will be an importance to the royal family in the modern era because the royal family was indicative of the strength of the country in the ancient era, as they considered the country that contained a strong king and they could not attack or seize it
One of the characteristics of the king who will rule the state must be justice and non-discrimination between the people and their children, and he must be a protector of his people, and he must be good in dealing and issue laws stipulating assistance, cooperation and forgiveness because it is certain that the people will implement the laws and inspect the conditions of the people who are poor and provide money He who does not have food in his house is servedHe has food or makes a place like the Muslim caliphs used to create a place where they put taxes and donations and they used to call it the house of money for Muslims. When such a king is, the people will not live in injustice, but rather they will live in justice, and no one will remain hungry, and the kings of other countries will cooperate with the king
In my town, there is no king and queen, so I do not have much experience in this matter, but in my personal opinion, I think that having one king in control of all the countries is difficult, and it may be tiring to rule the whole country, and for this, there may be a slight shortening of a specific region, so I think that if Judgment shared between the authorities and the king will be easier and more just
The Role of the Monarchy in Politics
While the British monarchy is largely ceremonial, it does have some constitutional powers, such as granting royal assent to legislation and appointing ministers. However, these powers are largely symbolic, and the monarchy is expected to remain neutral on political issues. Nevertheless, there have been instances where monarchs have intervened in political affairs, such as when King Edward VIII abdicated the throne in 1936.
Evidence: The role of the monarchy in politics is largely defined by convention and precedent, rather than written law. For example, the Queen is expected to remain neutral on political issues and to act on the advice of her ministers. However, there have been instances where monarchs have intervened in political affairs, such as when King George V refused to dissolve Parliament in 1910
The Future of the British Monarchy
As the world becomes more globalized and interconnected, the role of the British monarchy is likely to evolve. Some predict that the monarchy will continue to play a symbolic role, while others suggest that it may become more politically active. Additionally, the succession of Prince Charles and Prince William is likely to have a significant impact on the future of the monarchy.
Evidence: A 2018 poll found that 70% of Britons support the continuation of the monarchy, while only 21% are in favor of abolishing it. However, there is significant debate over the future role of the monarchy, with some arguing that it should become more diverse and representative of modern Britain.
intuitive_skill why do you think the monarchy will continue to play a symbolic role?
“Never exchange what is guaranteed for what is uncertain.” The republican system has pros and cons. One of his negatives 1- A political plan every few years I have a new electoral battle. 2- There are “presidents of the republic” who were rather kings in life, who inherited or tried to inherit power: Hosni Mubarak, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Saddam Hussein, Habib Bourguiba, the leader of North Korea today, Fidel Castro .. 3- Queen Elizabeth II ruled seventy years, It has no equal, so why should we replace it with a “republican” system that is good in name and bad in reality.
In my country we do have kings and queens but they do not hold that much power as that of our democratic government holds, because even with the little monarchy we practice we still hold a system of federalism.
The role of royals in my country well is relevant to those who still believe in our ancestral religions because before our kings mostly were believed to have been connected to our ancestral gods, but with the coming of Islam and Christianity the belief in those gods has been greatly reduced anyways not trying to divert the royals in my country mostly serve as strong representatives of their tribes or kingdoms, but left to me they are not that relevant because of our new government gives more freedom to the citizens and sense of equality between the citizens and the government because to me during the regime of royalty the people were given the mindset that the royals were completely above them and taking advantage of that the some of the royals disregarded the people. So in conclusion royals should not really be given the role of taking everything into their hands; instead they should focus on representing their people well.
the royal family may be outdated but it is seen as a tradition and they are representatives of Britian and the commonwealth they also hold power in the protestant churches but i do think that tax money being payed to the royals could be used for better things like trying to lessen poverty as the cost of living is going up and more people are finding it difficult to pay for their own families nevermind a wealthy family that already has a lot more than the average person
In my country, there is no Monarchy family, but we have a chief, not a king. but I wish there would be a Monarchy family in my country, because when I saw how Queen Elizabeth II lives in her beautiful old palace decorated with mosaics, I feel happy to show the ancient history of her country, and when I see the Monarchy family in Jordan and its simplicity and how it deals with its people, I feel happy. In my opinion, kings should have absolute power, but in a just way. The role of the kings must be just and strong, help his people and maintain security and peace in his country and be wise.
i think that we do not need the royal family in the united kingdom because they serve no role in politics and don't have a take on any decision made to do with the country. Even though they are the face of the country they do nothing to help or support their country. Right now in the UK we are going through a very bad money crisis as everything has been raised in price, so people who were struggling before could be on the streets by now as they cant pay housing bills,car bills and heating bills, and the royal family have done nothing to provide help instead they are given money every month from other people and will never have to suffer money problem at all in their life.
My country does not follow the monarchy, but it possesses the democratic republican system in which the head of the state is called the president. It is possible if my state of Palestine has a monarchy for the Palestinian people to feel a kind of stability and stability, and it also avoids economic and political vibrations, and it has a specific political entity and recognition is made it through several aspects
However, in other countries, such as Jordan, it follows the hereditary monarchy, ruled by King Abdullah II, who sits on the throne of the Kingdom and is the head of the three authorities.
Also in the UAE, it follows the monarchy, as it is a founding member of the Gulf Cooperation Council and a member of the League of Arab States. This means that it is also of great importance among the rest of the other countries.
I think the royal family should have a bit more power because yes hey really are only there for special occasions but we need someone to represent our country but not too much that it turns into a dictatorship because we get money taken out of our pay checks for them just to represent us at least they could do something for them to earn the money that we work hard for.
Is what you're describing the job of the Prime minister? Or do you think the monarch could have a different role?
I expect that after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the United Kingdom will end and be divided into countries including England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the islands still under British occupation around the world will declare separation and independence from the rule of the United Kingdom..This news will please Russia, America, France, China and India..more Anglo-hating countries.. With regard to the British monarchy, it does not interfere in the world of politics and beyond, nor in the affairs of the state. Rather, it is a traditional, hereditary and elegant adornment placed.. It is the culture and eternal spirit of Britain.. Likewise Japan and other countries..
Hello!
Giving someone absolute power is usually considered a bad thing as they can be power surges and abuse of power so as such I feel royals should have a place in the modern day world varying on cultural and diplomatic differences so I feel monarchy should be allowed but their power should be limited or completely eliminated
I feel the duties of the royals are to act as a potential for the nations identity, unity and pride. They are ought to live an exemplary live and take on the responsibilities assigned to them.
I think that one of the best ways to choose the king or queen of the state is through elections, which is a method that represents the voice of the people and is based on the principle of choosing and consulting the people. Jordan, so the president is chosen based on inheritance. From my point of view, this system is one of the ugliest systems, because the family and its descendants control the property, and the general public is not allowed to participate in the property.
The History and Significance of Royal Ceremonies
From coronations to weddings, royal ceremonies have played a significant role in British history and culture. These events are often marked by elaborate pageantry and traditions, many of which date back centuries. However, some argue that these ceremonies are outdated and overly expensive, especially in the context of modern challenges like climate change.
Evidence: The coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953 was watched by millions of people around the world, and has become a defining moment in British history. Similarly, the recent wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle generated significant media attention and tourism revenue. However, critics have pointed to the high cost of these events, with estimates suggesting that the 2011 wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton cost over £20 million
Thanks for making your evidence so clear, outspoken_climate. Don't forget to share where you found your evidence so that other Topical Talkers can assess whether they think your evidence is strong or weak.
The role of royalty in modern times is a matter of debate and varies depending on the country's political and cultural context. Some argue that royals should have a ceremonial role that represents their nation's history and culture without having any political power. Others believe that royals can have a more active role in their countries, such as promoting social and cultural initiatives, supporting charities, and being a symbol of national unity.
It is also worth noting that having a royal family comes with economic and social costs, such as maintaining their palaces, security, and lifestyle. Whether a country should have a royal family or not depends on various factors, such as national traditions, public opinion, and the government's priorities. Ultimately, it is up to the citizens of each country to decide the role of their royal family and whether they want to have one or not.
I think giving a person power over an entire nation may lead to misuse of those powers.
In our country, India, the power between the ministers is balanced, like one is dependent on the other (not entirely, but a little).
There is also a drawback to a royal family's rule because if a minister is corrupt, we can elect another president, but if a king is corrupt, we can't change him; the people need to suffer till he dies.
I like the balance and stability in our government, and I think there is no need for a royal family.
No, there are no kings in my country. In my country, the system of government is a political system of government. In the opinion of the king’s authority, it should not be absolute. The opinion of the group is better for everyone to discuss issues and laws. An example of that in the past in European countries was the king as the source of the three powers (legislative, executive The judicial system) in which the general public were the ones who imposed taxes, but the nobles and the clergy did not pay any taxes, which caused some revolutions to take place, such as the French and British revolutions and the colonial revolution. I think that the political system of government is better. The political system is better. We share opinions, and the best thing is the elections. Everyone gives his opinion. What do you think?????
In my country, there are royal families who in their respective regions are given power over the region whereas the president is in charge of the whole country.
If a person was to be given absolute power, it may get to the person's head and might affect how the person handles the country and it's citizens. Normally, power over a country is shared amongst a collective group of people in order to not create commotion and wreak havoc in the country in order to maintain peace and order.
Also the kind of power a monarch is going to have on his or her country might differ depending on the country.
For example, Malaysia and Morocco are constitutional monarchies but their monarchs still retain substantial powers. Whereas in commonwealth realms, the king or queen legally possesses vast prerogatives but fulfils a largely ceremonial role.
Welcome.....
I do not think that a king should be absolute and very serious in his rule... In my opinion, there is a better way for this, and that is for the king to use the principle of shura, that is, to take opinion. From his people, ministers and leaders when taking the matter.. to be aware of the conditions of his people and their trade.. To be serious with criminals, and to defend the oppressed, as these principles are the basis for the prosperity of his state.
As for my country (Palestine), there is no king, queen, or royal family. As for your question, do you want a royal family and why? In my opinion, for me, I don't want a royal family. It is possible that the ruler does not possess the above-mentioned good qualities, and his heir does not. It is possible that the king dies and his son is crowned at an early age. I think elections are better because people choose what works for them. I'd love to hear your opinion too...
Thanks
The royal family, like anything else, has its pros and cons. Among its advantages is that it sets an example for society and the country it governs. Every family in the society follows them in its family laws, and people also follow those of their generation. For example, if a member of the royal family is my age or in my generation, that's normal. I love him more than anyone else, I follow him in everything and he will be my example in life and I will strive to be like him. There is no royal family in my country but this is my belief and I see that the royal families are racing to who will be the best among the people he is trying his best to benefit the people and this in the end will be in the interest of the people
As for its downsides
Sometimes people cannot follow the royal family because they do not abide by the good laws that society, religion and morals adhere to, it affects all people or on the other hand now in adolescence I see everyone who wants to imitate famous people in their clothes. And when they come to the ruling family in their country, they cannot because of the high price. Also, many royal families are proud of their jewelry and don't care about people's welfare.
We don't have a ruling family but that's my opinion
I sincerely believe that monarchs shouldn't have the full freedom to appoint higher occupations to whoever they want, and create laws. The reason being that certain laws may not be agreed by the majority of the country.
LAWS
If a king or queen in Saudi Arabia were to suddenly decide that they were willing to create a law that people are not permitted to enter the park after someone has paid a certain amount of money for, not everyone would agree. There is a wide range of upper hands for going to the park.
First and foremost, the park is a place of tranquillity. When one is stressed, they can enter the premises of the park and leisurely meander across the viridescent plains. Furthermore, one may also go to the park to amble around and take in the beauty of the scenic views surrounding them.
Multitudes of citizens would debate on this topic and would be willing to turn down this law. However, when monarchs have all the power to do absolutely anything they want, peasants like you and I can't stop them.
Hence, I strongly trust that sovereigns shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want and make whatever they want.
JOBS AND ROLES
On the other hand, you never know if a king or queen has favouritism toward a family, their kins or even allies. Therefore, it isn't fair that they can give a job with a particularly high salary to whoever they want.
This defines that those people who have big ideas for the future and generations of mankind, won't be provided the opportunity to share their ideas since someone else has been appointed to their deserved role.
To conclude, kings and queens can have the power to think of laws and share them with people, but the final decision should be decided by the citizens of the nation.
In my country there are no king and queen, in my country Nigeria we operate a presidential system of government headed by the executive president. In my own opinion rulers should not have absolute power to do what ever they want, some rulers will abuse their power because their is a saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Instead their should be check and balance in governance as a presidential system of government. In my country the president will be elected through their vote to become the president for a maximum of eight years for two term. Nigeria do not have a monarchical system of government. But if we had, I would like to have a royal family to experience how does it feel to have a royal family. Loyalty is Royalty because when someone is loyal from the heart means they are treated with the upmost royalty.
In fact, we can answer this question yes in some cases and no in some cases First, I can say yes, they should have absolute power in their private lives, in their clothes, in their food, in their travels, in their marriage, etc. Since the royal family in Britain does not enjoy absolute politics with these things, where when touring abroad, modest clothing must be worn, and in marriage a man is allowed to marry another woman if his first wife dies, as this is unfair Finally, I can say that they should not have absolute power in their rule of the state where King Louis XVI of France staged several revolutions against him because of his absolute power in his rule, as he destroyed people in terms of their financial situation and the imposition of taxes and became distinguished between the inhabitants of his state until revolutions took place against him and ended the monarchy and established republican rule.
Well, there is no monarchy in
my country, which means there are no kings and
queens.
But based on what I have studied and what I know, most countries or kingdoms that follow the monarchy system, most of them use the policy of absolute power, and I do not see that this is a good or fair thing, because most kings do things in order to serve their personal interests, to meet their needs, and neglect people and do not They think about them ? and what do they want? And what do they ask?
And what do they need?
And what do they lack?
In my opinion, to be a monarch, you must bear the burdens of the state and the burdens of the people, in addition to working to implement their will and serving them, as well as working to win the love of the people.
And the ability to take responsibility for an entire country or kingdom.
I also do not see the hereditary monarchy as appropriate, rather it is an unfair system and may disenfranchise the people by assuming power.
Finally, I would like to reiterate that the application of a policy of absolute power is not appropriate and totally unfair.
My country has kings and queen and i feel they should stay. This is because due to the uncapable government we have. They people are forced to fall back on the king and queens who will hence bring forth their request to the government. The King and queen are closer to the people and also feel the same way the people do because they live amongst themselves unlike a president who lives in luxury. Although they are ruled by the laws of the government, they still a lot of respect attached to their name which will make them be heard. By the government.
In my country Palestine there isn't a royal family. I hope we have one because if we have a royal family this will bring wealth , equality, richness to our country.
We can develop our country and peace may be spread and people have good chances of jobs. Also, we can share in many ceremonies and festivals.
Good . There is no royal family in my country, but how beautiful it is to have a royal family in your country consisting of a king, queen, prince and princess. Really, this is something to be proud of. But I have a friend in Jordan and in her country have royal family who started talking to me about the kindness and simplicity of this family and how they treat the people as brothers to them. Frankly, I do not want a royal family in my country, because I hear that the royal family puts strict laws on the people, but I wish my country had a king who would be just and strong and satisfy all people and protect our country.
In fact I live in a small country that has a president not a king . In my point of view I hope if my country is controlled by a king because I see that when a king rule a country he is like a father who leads his family he will rule it with fairness love warm feelings and justice and he will not be affected by any other personal interest.
Monarchy: It is a hereditary presidency, and the head of the state is then called a sultan, king, or emperor, and this rule has its pros and cons.
. Positives:
1- Achieving stability and stability for the state
2- If the king is righteous, he will earn the respect and interests of the state
3- The importance of tourism, which helps to achieve balance in the country's economy
4- The ease of transferring the presidency to the crown prince after the death of the king, thus liberating the state from the political vacuum and conflict
Negatives :
1- If the king is not fit to work for the sake of the corruption and downfall of the state.
2- Preventing people from exercising the right to choose and elect their president
3- The king or the crown prince transcends the people and enacts laws. That prevents them from exercising their rights, so it is better for the state not to have a king, but rather to follow the democratic system that gives the people the freedom to choose their president.
There's no royal system in my country, therefore we don't have either a king or a queen. Now let's move to the next question, actually it is impossible to assert whether I would like to have a royal family in my country or not. But through reading the political history of Arab experiences, it can be noted that the Arab peoples who are ruled by monarchical or Emirati regimes are now in a better living and economic situation and more stability in the political system from those Arab peoples who lived under republican regimes, not because the republican system is bad and the monarchy system is good. No, but because the republican systems in the Arab world were it was constantly exposed to foreign interventions driven by the legacy of old colonialism, and it was witnessing continuous military coups that did not contribute to reaching stability.
In short, the Arab countries that stand by the interest and welfare of their people and provide them with a decent living and opportunities like work, health, medicine, housing, education, food and other services necessary for life are states that will be successful and its future is honorable, whether it has republican or monarchical regimes.. As for the Arab countries that leave their door open widespread for the foreign influence and its interference in their political, economic and social affairs, they are countries that will undoubtedly be the same failed regimes.. Just consider the situation in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen and the painful fate of the peoples of these countries.
I am from Palestine, the presidential system in Palestine is democratic (elective), and I see from my point of view that elections are the best way, and I am against the monarchy. I agree that the monarchy system has its positives until it has its negatives. One of its negatives is that it is an inherited system. If the king is just, the heir may be unjust, or if the king is able to manage matters, the heir may be otherwise, as the issue of equality and justice is the most important thing that should characterize the ruler. , where there are many unjust rulers who stand against their people like the president of Syria as he is ( to be clear, in Syria there is a system by name is republican, but what we see is that the son assumes the reins of the presidency after the death of the father). It is completely against his people and may expose them to harm. Also, one of the shortcomings of the monarchy is that it is a system in which people do not have freedom of choice, not even opportunities for people. to run for the presidency of the Republic. There may be many people who have the power to take over the government and manage the affairs of the people and control them, but he cannot run for power or assume the presidency because the system is unfair. that is my point of view .
My town does not have a king or queen, I do not want that, although they make the state a strong reputation among other countries. Rather, the truth is that the residents of the state live in injustice and poverty, and the hospitals do not have all the equipment to treat patients because the royal family will take the money that comes to support the people, and this was an example For the unjust and cruel king with his people
While if the king is just and wise, he will not make his people live this injustice and be with them through good and ba
Nigeria has a large number of Royal families. They are present in different ethnicities spread across the 36 different states. These families have kings or queens. They are expected to have a closer relationship with the people other than the government. After all, many of these were handpicked by their people.
Bringing the traditional style royalty into modern Nigeria has been of a great benefit to all .
What do I mean? A clan / tribe with problems such as dispute over land can go directly to the traditional ruler first, lodge a complaint and the issue will be solved communally.
The government may never have to intervene. Meaning, these people may never go to court.
The government are far from the people unlike the king.
We have so many kings and queens and they have contributed positively to our society, such as Queen Amina of Zaria, the Oba of Lagos and the Eze Ndigbo.
I particularly like Queen Amina of Zaria - this queen was courageous, she was known as the warrior queen. She was the first lady to be a Queen in place of men. She reigned as the queen of Zazzau . And also expanded the city of Zazzau. Please read more about her here - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amina_(Queen_of_Zazzau)
Their roles have continued to be diverse over the years of their reign. Some include
1. Ensuring protection, equality, 2. Preserving culture and history by keeping to our way of dressing, food, worship, greeting. If not for the royals all these would have stopped existing
3. Forging unity by amending conflict
4. Sourcing for the provision of social amenities for the people.
First of all, in my country there is no monarchy, and also kings enjoy absolute powers because absolute monarchy is complete control of the people and the land for specific goals. The monarchy is one of the oldest systems of government, so the ruler is the king and one of the advantages The monarchy system achieves order and unity of purpose. It is long-term and ends with the death of the ruler. It is the most stable system and the monarchy system may be, in my view, absolute, i.e. full sovereignty, the people and the land belong to the king.
I think it's better that the king doesn't have full power and the people should have some democracy in the choice of laws and at least have consultation, but I don't think there should be openness like in Japan and Britain.
No, because if people have the power to do whatever they want, they may end up using their power to their advantages, therefore doing whatever they want. So there should be limits to the power. This way will be good. My country does not have a king or a queen, here in my country, instead my country has a president and a vice president. In my country the president is elected by the people in a the general election with the highest majority vote and 25% of the votes cast in 25 states. An elected president can serve a term of four years but can also be reelected for another term in the office if he/she performs well in the first term.
I don't want a royal family because my country operates a presidential system of government.
One of the most prominent feature of human beings is change. Each day we evolve and so we discover new things and unfortunately for some others, inorder for the new discoveries to work effectively they must be removed or brought in thier shadows. I personally don't condemn the royals but living in our modern society, one of the major problem is inequality everyone wants a fair system and operating the monarchy system, you can never get that knowing that your ruler will forever come from one lineage. It is not the people's fault that they are not royals so why should be kept in the shadow in eternal silence "IT WON'T WORK ". The people must have a say, they need that right to choose their leaders because they know what and who they need to move forward we are also dealing with the issues of climate change and the turn up rate of strikes, the citizens will have to choose a government that can tackle these issues and other pending matters and not to sit back and watch a certain family rule them because of fate, it is our world no one has the right to rule for us unless we agree as one. Over time political authority has been restricted from royals but inorder to keep them in the picture some country's gave them ceremonial rights but some monarchs abuse their rights, some don't even know
the use of the rights given to them and it makes the citizens pay for it, the slightest public misbehavior of the monarch or a member of his family (the royals) may tarnish or negatively affect the image of the country so why should the people continue to suffer from what they never wanted. Besides we are entering a new phase of the world known as the metaverse i strongly doubt if there will be room to accommodate a class known as the "royals" in such a realm.
Lastly, get me right i am not condemning royals, i am saying, "i don't think there will be use or room for their class anymore with the way the world is evolving".
Royalty should have absolute power, because they deserve some type of control over the country. Because without taking control there's really no point in this role. My country does not have a king or queen, and i would not want one because i may not feel satisfied with the decisions the queen/king makes.
Giving the royal family or any individual else full power is not a good idea. It frequently leads to the abuse of authority, with the figure likely ruling for their personal benefit rather than the people's. Furthermore, because one group has control over the other, this sort of position leads to large feelings of inequality. Instead, the royals' position should be more influential in a way, and they should serve as ambassadors for their country. They play a symbolic role in their society and are extremely well known to the public. With such a significant position, the royals should prioritize philanthropy and social justice. They can draw attention to certain topics as a result of their significant influence and popularity.
Hello, oh really, a question occurred to me when I was reading your article, 1- Do you really think that kings do good deeds and achieve equality and social justice that help a lot in influencing their people, or is this only in front of cameras and photography, and thank you, I will ask my teacher about this
In my opinion, it is mainly dependent on the ruler. Some may truly mean it when they perform nice deeds and commit social justice. Others, on the other hand, merely do it to maintain a suitable and ideal image for their people.
Yes, I thought like you, but they should be among the owners of the first side, because this is for their interest and the interest of their people, and it should not be in front of the cameras only to give them a perfect picture with their effort and fatigue, and there is nothing in front of the photography and something behind it
I think the royalty should not have any power over the country because if they have a government to make decisions and rules there wouldn't be any use for the royalty but that does not mean they should be abolished, because I think a rule is meant to be made that will allow royalty to have control over the country whenever the government is not doing good. For example in Morroco, the king has agreed to reduce his powers and give some to the government, but it is still partially ruled by the monarchy, but I think that the monarchy is supposed to be on standby (just in case there is a problem with the government) and allow the government to rule.
As an example, I think that if Sudan had been a country with a strong monarchy system, the current crisis may have been averted through mediation by the Monarchs.
I think that the modern world does not need royals anymore. The idea of monarchy is outdated, not to mention it has disadvantages such as
1. In a country that has absolute monarchy, it could be difficult to control the powers of the monarch.
2. There cannot be assurance of competency coming from the leadership.
Therefore I think that monarchy in general is a thing of the past and is no longer seen as relevant in the present society. Not to mention that if a country still has a monarch, the country has to spend money on them and this could really affect the country's budget.
I feel like even if there are Kings and Queens they should not have absolute power.In Nigeria the Kings and Queens rule under the main government. Even so there are still places in Nigeria that have kings that do not do anything to improve the wellbeing of their people.
In my opinion royals should not have absolute control of power neither should they have political power. I say this because as we move forward through more difficult situations in society we should have leaders as defined by democracy to be leaders that are “by the people”, for the good of those people they rule over, and to be chosen by the same people of that nation, who see them as people who are “ready and competent” to lead the nation to a better and brighter future. In a monarch system of government, the leaders are not always guaranteed to be the right choice or the people’s choice unlike in the case of democracy where people are free to choose who their leaders can be.
Another point to take down is that being a member of a royal family automatically qualifies you access to power of the nation and that gives everyone of the royal linage automatic access to be successors or stand a chance to be potential rulers in case of the death of the ruling monarch and as such we cannot afford to have just anybody who enters the royal family to simply have such power, somebody who could be as much as a stranger to the people to rule over them and decide over the affairs of a state, as the person might not even be from that country, for instance Prince Phillip the late queen's husband who is also late was born at Corfu in Greece.
So in conclusion I believe that the “Monarchial” system is an outdated way to rule a nation in an era of great civilization.
In my country, there is no king or queen, but they cannot abide by dress, food, traditions and customs, and they must enjoy power. I also do not think so, because in British society the king cannot issue decisions, that is, his work is limited to attending official and national ceremonies, and is also limited To award honors and to appoint the Prime Minister.
First of all we all know that absolute power clouds the mind and does not allow one to think clearly so, I think they should have the power to rule the nation but not absolute power they should be like Jordan and Morocco where power is shared between the monarchs and the leaders of political groups in the country and that is how its meant to be there is meant to be a balance of power between the monarchs and the representatives of the nation to ensure that no one is arbitrary and being dictators and so that the people get a say in running the affairs of the country and if this balance is created the country will not face problems such as succession disputes, strikes, intra-wars etc. No nation is meant to be controlled and oppressed under the leadership of one man as that will be fatal to the growth of the nation and also bad to the welfare of the people.
First of all,
In my country we have different kingdoms ruled by different kings and queens and also have political leaders.
a-Why kings and queens should have absolute power: because
-It helps maintain order in a society.
b-Purpose of kings and queens having absolute power: because
They have controll over everything.
My country has a royal family and by the way it has many royal families, but my country has the biggest kingdom and that is buganda kingdom for its king's name is King Ronald Mwenda Mutebi ll and his wife the queen of buganda kingdom is Queen Sylvia Nagginda and there children. In my thinking I don't think that the king and queen of buganda kingdom should have absolute power over the country, they should just represent there kingdoms and attend functions about culture.
Thats all I had for the role of the royals,waiting for a postive reply.
THANKS!!!!!!
Some royals are good and actually play the role the are expected to play while others take advantage of the less priviledged. Royals have power over the actions of the people and sometimes they take advantage of the poor and this is not good but it is not all royals that are like this some are good.
Our country has Kings and Queens but they are not governing the country, each local government has their Kings and Queens, if you ask me, u don't think having them is important because the government are the ones taking all the responsibilities, the Kings and Queens are just there to be making money out of the citizens which is costing us alot
I support you because in Uganda we have kingdoms that have kings. In my country, the king of Buganda has started up a foundation called Kabaka`s birthday run. This foundation helps our country to fundraise money to help people who have HIV. The Kakaba of Buganda has helped our country Uganda to fight the HIV virus.
I would like to comment about role of a royal family. The royal family presides over functions and influences people to participate actively in what benefits them. They support charity activities and occasionally travel to different countries to make relationships stronger. They at times host heads of state and also take diplomatic roles. In Uganda, the royal family spear heads the program of helping the needy especially in Buganda. In addition to that ,Nabagereka the wife to the King of Buganda has formed an organisation where she teaches young girls and boys how to perform domestic activities given the fact that most parents in Central Uganda are mainly business people who have limited time to train the young on domestic activities and dressing culturally .
Hey, I think we don't need kings because they have no influence on aspects of life, for example: 1- Did they set climate laws to preserve the climate? Aspects, they only think about themselves, their personal lives, and their money, they don't care about those around them
In Palestine, there is no royal family, a king or even a queen Rather, it is governed by the Palestine Liberation Organization I think that the authoritarian power that is governed by the royal family only .. such as.. Saudi Arabia and Eswatini Rather, countries must take into account the opinion of citizens, not completely, but rather they must establish an organization headed by governments to take into account the opinion of people.............. From my point of view, I see Jordan and Morocco as the lineage for taking their opinion as an opinion and acting on it in all countries of the world because it gives to the family The royal has the right to express her opinions and the people or citizens as well
I think that he does not like to give every king the absolute monarchy. It should only be given to the kings who deserve this and have the qualities of a king such as (justice, equality, fairness, sincerity, trustworthiness, honesty, etc...) so that he is not greedy, does not enslave his subjects, does not violate their rights, and does not share their salaries, does not force people On something that is basically a bad thing and kings should care about matters of power and the state more than luxury and palaces
An absolute kingdom is a form of government, usually a king or a queen, and this monarchy appeared in the Middle Ages and prevailed in Western Europe, where absolute kings ruled these European countries. So they become tyrant kings who oppress the people, and no matter how unjust the king is, the people cannot change him except to be patient with him until he is changed, and since we do not have royal rule, I also do not wish that our rule be royal because the people are bound by this family.
No, they can oppose. Haven't you heard about the French revolutions and the revolutions of the American colonies. I also read that absolutism was abolished in some countries, including those who took it as a habit for them because of the good treatment of the king for them, so they took it as a habit or imitation.
I really think that this experience, which is that the system of government in my country will be mine, I think it will be a wonderful experience through which I can identify what is the most appropriate system of government. In my opinion, there is nothing better than doing the experiment personally.
There are hidden advantages and disadvantages to the monarchy system, which I concluded when I searched for the monarchy. I want to inform you about them and take your opinion: Among its advantages:
_ Placing the king above the parties and above the rest of the state's authorities - especially above parliament and the government - enables him to play the role of arbiter between all these competing bodies and authorities and reconciles them to reach the public interest.
_ The king's personality has an important role in the scope of international relations, and he can win his country more respect and interests thanks to his friendships with the kings and presidents of other countries.
_ The monarchy can create interdependence and unity in some countries whose people consist of discordant, heterogeneous elements.
_ The ease of the transfer of the king to the crown prince after the death of the king relieves the country from the evil of the political vacuum and the terrible conflict that is seen in the transitional periods of government that prevail in some regimes.
Among its disadvantages:
_ It is inconsistent with democracy, and does not allow people to seek the position of head of state.
_ The system of inheriting the throne may bring an invalid king, just as it may be given to young kings.
_ The upbringing of kings and crown princes can make them rise above the members of their people and rise above them
_ The monarchy may be incompatible with democracy, which is based on the sovereignty of the people and the equality of all individuals
Would you prefer to live in a country with or without a royal family?
To me, this question will be very hard to answer, this is because I would love to live in a country with a royal family, however, I do not want the royal family to interfere with anything about the government, they should just rule over their respective kingdoms, represent their kingdoms and take part in ceremonies. Moreover, having royals live in my country will be great for tourists, because a lot of foreigners normally come to Ghana for a vacation, through these vacations foreigners might learn about some history about Ghana, and they might want to visit the ancient places of Ghana. Therefore I would prefer to live in a country with a royal family.
I think I would like to live in a country where there is no king or queen's rule. Some argue that the presence of royal family can provide a sense of tradition, culture , nations pride and history. On the other hand people may view it as a outdated and unnecessary institution that perpetuates social inequality. But for me,based on my view, I prefer to live in a country without a royal family because I believe that a system of monarchy can limit opportunities for capable individuals to become leaders, even if the current monarch is incapable. In my opinion, a society without a royal family allows for more democratic opportunities for leadership and enables a broader range of individuals to become potential leaders.
According to research on history.com
One example of an incapable monarch is King Louis XVI of France. Louis XVI ascended to the throne in 1774 and faced a number of challenges during his reign, including financial difficulties, social unrest, and the beginning of the French Revolution. Louis XVI's inability to effectively address these issues contributed to the downfall of the monarchy and the eventual establishment of a republic in France.
One of the most significant examples of Louis XVI's incapacity was his response to the financial crisis in France. Despite numerous attempts to reform the tax system and reduce government spending, Louis XVI was unable to enact meaningful change, and the country continued to spiral into debt.
So due to an incapable monarch rule people suffer a lot. So a democratic system provides a more flexible and adaptable approach to governance, allowing for the selection of leaders based on their abilities and suitability for the role, rather than relying solely on hereditary succession. So I would prefer to live in a country without a royal family.
When I researched about the monarchy, I discovered new things that I wanted to share with you, which is that the monarchy may take several forms:
_ Authoritarian monarchy: It is the one by which the king is not bound by any existing law, does not recognize submission to any authority, and does not value freedoms.
_ Absolute monarchy: in which the king adheres to the existing laws, even if he can amend or cancel them, and he collects all the elements of power in his hand, and no one shares it with him, and there is no one to ask him about the exercise of this power.
_ Constitutional monarchy: where the supreme head of state in this case is a king who receives rule through inheritance, but the people are the ones who have power and have unity of sovereignty, and the king does not have sovereignty, not even any part of it, and does not exercise any actual power, The actual power is concentrated in the form of hands elected by the people
In my judgment, granting absolute power to any individual, including royals, is generally not considered a good idea in modern democratic societies. Absolute power can lead to abuse of power, corruption, and the violation of human rights. Therefore, it is preferable for there to be systems of checks and balances in place to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a few.
In the case of royals, many countries with a monarchy have evolved into constitutional monarchies, where the monarch's role is largely ceremonial and symbolic, and political power is held by elected officials and government institutions. The monarch may still have certain powers, such as the ability to give assent to legislation or grant pardons, but these powers are typically limited and subject to oversight and scrutiny.
Having a system of checks and balances can ensure that power is distributed among different branches of government and held accountable to the people. This can help to promote transparency, prevent abuses of power, and uphold the rule of law.
In the end, giving royals absolute power is generally not a desirable option, and instead, having a system of checks and balances can help to ensure that power is distributed among different branches of government and held accountable to the people.
In the State of Palestine, there is no king, and I do not wish for it to be governed by a monarchy, because it is possible for him to be a king who prefers his own interest over the general public, as I heard about the King of North Korea, Kim Jong-in, and there are also difficult and strange laws in
Britain prevents the death of a person from Parliament because it is a costly matter, but death is in the hands of God Almighty, and man has nothing in it
Germany and Denmark escaping from prison is a crime that is not punishable, but this is possible if a murderer escapes, who can endanger people
In Burma, it is forbidden to play football and basketball, but children's talents are a treasure that must be developed and become better than preventing them
But there are laws that must be put in place so that corruption does not spread
These would be my laws for a monarchy.
1) The monarch has no power except indirectly through the public.
2) The monarch can advise anybody on what to do. Not following this advice ends in no harm.
3) The royal family ( any siblings, descendants or partners of the monarch as well as the monarch) must donate 10% of their money to charitable causes every five years.
4) The monarch should appear at important (as deemed by the political leader) debates in Parliament.
5) A bank holiday should be given for the coronation and the death of a monarch.
6) The death of a monarch should be followed by the proclamation ( which the new monarch must attend), five weeks later.
7) The coronation (which the monarch must attend) should happen six months after the proclamation.
8) Any important (as deemed by the political leader) foreign diplomatic missions should be attended by the monarch.
9) The monarch must attend any ceremonies concerning themselves or other politically important people.
10)The line of succession descends first to the eldest child, then to the next oldest etc. until there are no children left. It then goes to the eldest sibling, then to the next eldest etc.
11) if the monarch leaves no heir, the next monarch is elected by the public. Anybody may stand, no matter if they already occupy an important position.
12) The monarch cannot also occupy a political position - he/she/they must drop either their royal position or their
other responsibilities.
Please tell me if you disagree/ want to add a law.
There have been numerous notable events in British history that involved the monarchy. Here are just a few examples:
1. The Norman Conquest: In 1066, William the Conqueror invaded England and defeated King Harold in the Battle of Hastings. William was crowned King of England, marking the beginning of the Norman dynasty and the end of Anglo-Saxon rule.
2. The Magna Carta: In 1215, King John of England was forced to sign the Magna Carta, which established the principle that everyone, including the king, was subject to the law. This document is considered a cornerstone of modern democracy and has influenced legal systems around the world.
3. The Tudor Dynasty: The Tudor dynasty, which lasted from 1485 to 1603, saw some of the most significant events in British history. This period included the reigns of Henry VIII, who famously broke with the Catholic Church to establish the Church of England, and Elizabeth I, who oversaw a period of cultural and economic growth known as the Elizabethan era.
4. The English Civil War: In the mid-17th century, England was torn apart by a civil war between the forces of King Charles I and those of Parliament. The war ended with the execution of Charles I and the establishment of the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell.
5. The Glorious Revolution: In 1688, King James II was overthrown in a bloodless coup known as the Glorious Revolution. This event established the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and led to the ascension of the Protestant monarchs William III and Mary II.
6. The Victorian Era: Queen Victoria's reign, which lasted from 1837 to 1901, was a period of significant social, cultural, and economic change in Britain. This era saw the expansion of the British Empire, the growth of industrialization, and the emergence of new political and social movements.
7. The two World Wars: The British monarchy played a significant role in both World War I and World War II. King George V and Queen Mary visited troops on the front lines during World War I, while King George VI and Queen Elizabeth remained in London during the Blitz of World War II, providing a symbol of strength and resilience to the British people.
These are just a few examples of the many notable events in British history that involved the monarchy. The monarchy has played a central role in British history and culture for centuries and continues to do so today.
Royal Family: King Charles III is the head of the British Royal Family, which has been a symbol of national unity and stability for centuries. The royal family has a significant cultural and economic impact on the country, with millions of tourists flocking to see royal palaces, attend royal events, and buy royal memorabilia.and. Constitutional Role: As the constitutional monarch, King Charles III holds a symbolic role in the British government. He is the head of state and performs ceremonial duties such as opening parliament and granting honors. The monarch also has the power to appoint the prime minister and dissolve parliament, but these powers are largely ceremonial.
Influence on Society: The British monarchy has a significant impact on British society and culture. The royal family represents the country's values and traditions and is seen as a symbol of national unity. The monarch also plays a role in charitable and philanthropic work, supporting various causes and organizations.
and Historical Significance: The British monarchy has a rich history that dates back centuries, with many notable monarchs who have left their mark on the country. King Charles III will be the first monarch to reign under a new law that limits the number of royal family members who can receive taxpayer-funded security and expenses.
In my opinion, kings should not have absolute power to do what they want. It is possible that their power is tyrannical and unjust and is not in the interest of the people. I believe that there should be another authority higher than them to monitor their actions and hold them accountable when they make mistakes or violate the law. In my country, Palestine, we do not follow the monarchy, but the democratic system of government, and I also do not prefer following the monarchy in my country, because the people have the right to political participation through nomination and election, and following the monarchy deprives them of this right.
Never, in other words, it is not right for kings and queens to enjoy absolute power, because I believe that if they enjoyed it and were unjust, they would only rule with injustice and corruption and enslave people. Rather, they should and should enjoy specific powers that prevent them from violating human dignity and honor, as for the country in which I live In it, it is not a democratic countryThere is a queen or a king in it, and as for me personally, I prefer that. I do not want to live under the rule of a king or a queen, because I am never convinced of the monarchical system of government, because it is not always fair. And the government cannot reverse the interest of the people, because if they do so, they will be converted toInvestigation and legal measures are taken by electing a new president who rules with justice, but if the one who rules is an unjust king, then his people must live under his rule until his death in order for his guardian to rule. ..Thank you.....
I think that the monarchies at the present time have no effect on our world. Most of the countries that follow the monarchy are weak and developing countries, and the other part is that the royal families have a formal role only in celebrations and holidays. I follow the news of the royal families in the world to get to know their somewhat strange customs and traditions. Curiosity and passion always drives me to see the elegance of the costumes of queens and princesses in the world.
Hi cheerful_dusk, thank you for your comment. Here's something to think about: Saudi Arabia is a country where the monarch has full and absolute political power. What do you think about Saudi Arabia? Would you say it is a 'weak and developing country'?
✨The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not perfect, but portraying it as one of the developing countries is unfair, it has a situation and infrastructure with all its shortcomings, but it is better than many other developing countries, and the percentage of credit for oil and forgetting the complexity and difficulty of the oil industry is also unfair, the Kingdom is at the forefront of countries and not its bottom.
—————————————————
✨Ranked as the ninth most powerful country in the world based on
A number of factors that are dealing with crises, military superiority, great political influence and speed in forming and strengthening international alliances, in addition to the huge economic capabilities enjoyed by the Kingdom.
In my opinion, Saudi Arabia is a weak country despite its enormous economic potential due to the presence of oil in it, and despite the presence of oil, it is not an industrial country that relies on imports to a large extent. If it were not for the presence of oil, Saudi Arabia would lose its economic and political importance, which is basically weak.
I apologize for what I will say, but as Arabs, I cannot stand by and do nothing. If someone talks about our Arab countries, I think everyone knows that the World Cup was held in Saudi Arabia for the year 2023. It is indeed a source of pride for all Arabs. What is the point of mentioning that? Just do not forget that Saudi Arabia is a desert country, so the climate of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is characterized by a semi-arid to desert climate, meaning that the temperatures are high in it, and this is what made many people doubt the ability of Saudi Arabia to hold the World Cup, but the King of Saudi Arabia surprised them with his plans, as he installed air conditioners in the stadium and prepared Saudi Arabia to receive people from all over the world, and we do not forget that a number of countries are competing to hold the World Cup in it because of its economic value because of the tourists coming. The king made a smart move that amazed me when he put on the famous player Messi, something that indicates the culture of the Arabs. That image is kept by many people, meaning that he spread the Arab culture. Also, the monarchy system is not bad as long as the king bears responsibility, and I think that what I said earlier shows Saudi Arabia is a great country. I am not Saudi, but we are Arabs, and this is what distinguishes us. Any achievement made by an Arab country is a source of pride for the rest of the countries. I want to tell you that whoever objects to my words and that Saudi Arabia is bad should tell me why and try to convince me, but I am confident that I will not easily give up my previous opinion.
In my opinion, Saudi Arabia is neither weak nor a strong country and I accept that it is a developing country. The politics of Saudi Arabia is a unitary absolute monarchy along traditional islamic habits where king is both the monarch and the government. Saudi Arabia is considered as both regional and middle power and it has the largest economy in the middle east. It ranks 28th in the list of richest countries. It is the one of the largest oil reserves in the earth.
It is a developing country. But why it has good wealth? Though it has good wealth it lacks in other areas. It has GDP about same as US. It has better health care for its citizens than the US. Further, it has much lower crime rate and a better domestic security than the United States. But there are still gaps in means of infrastructure. Public transportation, railroads are limited and now they are expanding. The other factors are:
1. Depending on oil
Saudi's economy is heavily dependent on oil which accounts for 90% of the exports. This dependence on a single commodity makes the country vulnerable which can have significant impact on its economy.
2. Social and political factors:
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with limited political freedoms and human rights. The government controls many aspects of society and the economy, which can discourage innovation and entrepreneurship.
3. Limited investment in education and innovation:
While Saudi Arabia has made significant investments in infrastructure and public services, such as healthcare and education, the quality of education and research institutions remains relatively low compared to developed countries. This can limit the country's ability to innovate and develop new technologies and industries.
These factors contribute to Saudi Arabia's status as a high income developing country rather than a developed country.
I do not prefer that the rule in my country be a monarchy for the extension of their rule in the country and a weak king can inherit the rule and cause the state to weaken and collapse. I prefer the method of republican rule because it gives the public an opportunity to choose their president.
In Nigeria, the role of royalty includes:
- they serve as connections to state or federal government
- they preserve cultural practices
- they enhance national identity
-they resolve minor conflicts and provide safety.
In Nigeria, Kings and Queens don't occupy federal seat e.g the likes of King Charles III. Kings and Queens are at the local level of government.
In Nigeria, we also practice monarchy but it is not hereditary, it is elective. And Kings or Queens are chosen by certain individuals called "Kingmakers" according to the deity or oracle.
I believe the royals should still continue in this 21st century but they shouldn't have a political power. Its better they serve as representatives to their kingdoms. Since the royalties are being respected and honored by all and both parties listen to them, the royalties can serve as intermediaries between the people and government which will lead to a peaceful development of the country/community. Also sustainable and lasting solutions can be found to solve problems affecting the region.
Having a country to have a monarch with full and absolute power will have a negative impact to the country. The whole country will e under the decision of one person and if that monarch is not fair and just, the whole country will be in trouble.
In my country Nigeria we don't have this type of system. Our country is governed by the president, governors, senators, legislators and other political aspirants together with royalties serving as representatives of the people in their community.
As we all know, Nigeria has over 250 tribes each with their own culture, traditions and languages. Having this type of monarchy will destabilize the country leading to more religious and cultural crisis which will affect the countries development and lead o loss of lives
Most of the countries of the Arab world are governed by monarchy, as in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Kingdom of Bahrain, and many other kingdoms. From my point of view, I think that monarchy should be ended. However, I do not deny the achievements of kings throughout the ages, but in my opinion, people should be given the right In voting, candidacy and election, they are not obligated to follow a king they did not choose, as this generates hatred because they are forced to accept as a tradition and a well-known policy throughout history.
Having power over others and changing the course of events can do strange things to your brain.
I've read that power can help you think more creatively, innovate better, stay focused, and remember things more easily . But from my point of view, there is a dark side to this power, as the famous British historian Lord Acton once said: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If you look at the history of human leadership from dictators to corporate executives it is easy to agree with me.
I've also found that the science agrees with Acton, but what I want to get at is that those in power may be less likely to see things from the perspective of others, and that people in positions of power and people who feel powerful also show signs of less empathy. They were more impulsive, were less aware of the risks, and became more selfish.
They were more likely to cheat and worry about guessing how someone else was feeling or how they might interpret something said by the person in power.
So I think "absolute power corrupts".
Lord Acton was right.
I believe that they should enjoy absolute power, but not as they want the opposite, as the people want according to certain limits, because the people should enjoy their interests as well, and that the authority of the kings should not have anything that makes the people resentful and protest like treason King of his country or anything else like that.
Monarchy, whereby the royal family possesses substantial power over the government, has been a prevalent system in various cultures throughout history. However, bestowing autocratic control upon the monarchy can lead to abuse of power, lack of accountability and representation, as well as limited political participation and freedom of speech for citizens. Monarchs who prioritize their self-interest over the welfare of their subjects can impede progress and change. Furthermore, monarchy can establish a sense of hierarchy and privilege that can be detrimental to society by generating resentment and inequality, thus negatively affecting social cohesion and stability. While the involvement of a royal family in rulemaking is context-specific, it is widely acknowledged that granting absolute power to monarchs can lead to adverse outcomes for society, as seen in numerous historical examples.
One such instance of a monarch who experienced consequences for their actions is King Charles I of England. He reigned from 1625 to 1649 and advocated for the Divine Right of Kings, meaning that he believed his authority derived directly from God and that he was not answerable to Parliament or the people. He imposed taxes without parliamentary consent and suppressed dissenting religious groups, which ignited a civil war between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians. The Parliamentarians, led by Oliver Cromwell, defeated the Royalists, and Charles I was eventually captured, put on trial for high treason, and executed in 1649. This event marked the end of the monarchy in England for over a decade and established the principle that the monarch is subject to the rule of law and accountable to Parliament.
When a monarch holds power without being elected democratically, it can lead to various potential dangers.
Monarchs may lack accountability as they do not have to face any election, which could result in them prioritizing their own interests over the needs of citizens.
A monarch without democratic accountability may curtail fundamental rights such as the freedom of speech, assembly, and the press. This can create a society where people fear expressing their opinions and are unable to contest the decisions of the monarch.
Monarchs may exploit their authority to benefit themselves and their relatives, causing the general public to bear the cost. This can result in a society where a small group holds the majority of the wealth and power, leading to inequality in both social and economic realms.
Monarchies may resist changes and innovations, making it difficult for society to keep up with new opportunities and challenges. This can result in a stagnant society that is unable to adapt to change.
Monarchs may lack the expertise and qualifications required for efficient governance, which may result in poor performance and inefficiencies in government. This could lead to a poorly functioning economy, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of public services.
Monarchs may conduct their decision-making processes in secrecy and without transparency. This can result in a lack of trust in the government and the perception that decisions are being made covertly.
In summary, a monarchy without any democratic election can result in a society that lacks fairness, justice, innovation, and stability.
There exist several monarchies where the ruling monarch has not been subject to democratic elections and as a result, the various risks mentioned earlier have come to fruition. One of the examples of such a monarchy is North Korea. The country is governed by a communist dictatorship that has been in power since its inception in 1948, with the Kim family at the helm. Political parties are not permitted, and no democratic elections are held. The government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses, such as forced labor, torture, and public executions. The government exercises strict control over all media and significantly restricts access to information from the outside world. Furthermore, the country has developed a nuclear weapons program, resulting in international sanctions and increased tensions with other nations.
My country does not have a king and a queen, and honestly I don't want that. This is a very old idea and it negatively affected people in the past, because the king will retain power for his royal family, and people cannot object to that, if the king is just and good, what guarantees to us his son Or the one who will take over the rule of the country after him, will be good and wise. There are many countries that fell and collapsed only because the sons of the kings did not deserve to rule, an example of that is the Ottoman Empire, this country fell after the strong kings died and their weak sons ruled the country,so the best solution , countries have to follow the democratic system of government where people choose the best leader for them. And for their country
As a person from the UK our Kings/Queens don't have full control of the country as they can't control the political system even though the Government still has to ask for permission. I think they should have a bit of control.
The role of the royals should be controlling the country they own by making sure it is safe not being an 'icon' and being a show star.In their own right they can go through their own hopes and dreams.However they were born as a leader and they can't leave just because they had their feelings hurt,Sorry Harry duke of Sussex but normal people are treated the same way so why are they exempt?
I think that they should have the absolute power to do whatever they want because the Royality never ends because it passes through blood unless the king or queen dies and that is when the Royality will be given to another member of the Royal family member unlike the politicians who have a certain time and they will stop ruling like for example here in nigeria you can only rule for four(4) years normally we have our election after every four (4) year so unless you have been re-elected. My country has Royal families in each state who are highly respected honored trustful and more .In my opinion i think other country that do not have royal families should have one but if they think it will have some disadvantage like it will cause a misunderstanding between the politicians and the royal families they should make them cooperate and understand each other because my country has experience this before but the problem has been solved and now we are living peacefully
The role of royals in modern society varies depending on the country and the specific constitutional framework in place. They have limited powers and serve mainly as symbolic figures that represents the national identity and heritage.
Absolute power for royals is generally considered incompatible with democratic principles and the rule of law. Most modern societies have moved away from absolute monarchy and toward constitutional monarchy or republics, where the powers of the head of state are limited by law and the checks and balances of the political system.
In constitutional monarchies, the role of the royal family is typically ceremonial, involving duties such as representing the country at official events, promoting cultural and charitable causes, and serving as a unifying figure for the nation.
Ultimately, the role of royals should be determined by the needs and values of the society they serve. In many cases, a ceremonial role that promotes unity and goodwill can be a positive contribution to society, but it is important that any formal powers are limited and subject to democratic controls to ensure that they are used in the best interests of the people.
Nigeria doesn’t operate a monarchical system of government but rather operates a democratic system of government where it citizens have the freedom to provide input on policy. The citizens are given the right to change the policy and are granted the authority to criticise the government. While the monarchy form of government, people do not have the right to criticise the monarch or any rules that have been set.
In a country like Ghana, royalty would be based on dictatorship. Even in the field of politics, the president feels like he has absolute power over anything and everything although he has limits due to democracy.Based on that viewpoint, having only one bloodline ruling our country as royalty would be chaos. Our country could even become autocratic because of that.
In my opinion, royals should not have absolute power to do whatever they want. In a democratic society, everyone, including royals, should be subject to the rule of law and be held accountable for their actions. Absolute power can lead to abuses of power and a lack of accountability, which can have negative consequences for society as a whole.
Instead, a constitutional monarchy may be a better option. In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch's powers are limited by a constitution, which outlines the monarch's duties, powers, and limitations. This system allows the monarch to perform ceremonial duties and represent the country but also ensures that they cannot exercise absolute power.
Additionally, the constitution may also establish a system of checks and balances, ensuring that the monarch's actions are subject to scrutiny and oversight by other branches of government. This ensures that the monarchy does not become too powerful and that there are mechanisms in place to hold the monarch accountable for their actions.
Historically, Ghana's traditional rulers and chiefs, who held similar positions to that of royalty, often held significant power over their subjects, with the ability to make decisions without any real accountability. This often led to abuses of power, including forced labor, land grabbing, and other forms of exploitation.
During the colonial period, the British colonial administration worked to limit the power of traditional rulers and chiefs, recognizing that their absolute power was detrimental to the interests of the people they governed. The abolition of Ghana's Royal Family in 1957 was also a recognition that absolute power could lead to corruption, exploitation, and a lack of accountability.
Therefore, the lesson from my country's history is that absolute power should not be vested in any individual or group, regardless of their position or title. The concentration of power in the hands of a few can lead to abuses of power and a lack of accountability, which can have negative consequences for society as a whole. A system of checks and balances, with power distributed among different branches of government, can help ensure that no one individual or group can exercise absolute power. In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch is often seen as a symbol of national unity and continuity, while the elected government holds the power to govern the country. This system allows for both stability and accountability, ensuring that the country is governed in the best interests of all citizens, regardless of their social status or background.
The King is the UK head of state. However, his powers are symbolic and ceremonial, and he remains politically neutral.
He receives daily dispatches from the government in a red leather box, including briefings ahead of important meetings, or documents needing his signature.
The prime minister normally meets the King on a Wednesday at Buckingham Palace, to keep him informed on government matters.
These meetings are completely private and there is no official record of what is said.
The King also has a number of official parliamentary roles:
Appointing a government - the leader of the party that wins a general election is usually called to Buckingham Palace, where they are invited to form a government. The King also formally dissolves a government before a general election
State Opening and the King's Speech - the King begins the parliamentary year with the State Opening ceremony, where he sets out the government's plans, in a speech delivered from the throne in the House of Lords
Royal Assent - when a piece of legislation is passed through Parliament, it must be formally approved by the King in order to become law. The last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1708
In addition, the monarch leads the annual Remembrance event in November at the Cenotaph in London.
The King also hosts visiting heads of state - such as South African President Cyril Ramaphosa - and regularly meets foreign ambassadors and high commissioners based in the UK.
For his first state visit, Charles visited Germany, where he became the first British monarch to address the German parliament.
The King is also head of the Commonwealth, an association of 56 independent countries spanning 2.5 billion people - and head of state for 14 of these, known as the Commonwealth realms.
My country has kings , queens and chiefs but they have power over their respective kingdoms and chiefdoms under their rules of governance. I don't want my country to have corrupt presidents ,kings and chiefs. A president usually rules a country for specific numbers of years for example Uganda, a president is supposed to rule the country for five years. A king rules a kingdom for their whole life until they die and a new king rules the kingdom. so in my understanding presidents should give chance for other people to rule the country.
Thank you.
My country has kings and queens and they have power over their kingdoms and each Nigerian state has a Council of Traditional Kings which advises the state on cultural and traditional issues, therefore in our country kings can keep our tradition going. But nowadays in our country presidents or governors can remove a king which I think isn't right. But even though I think kings shouldn't have absolute power to do whatever they want.
I believe that they shouldn't have the power to do what they want but they can rule the country in a good way. Like when Queen Elizabeth II was Queen she would rule fairly and wouldn't trouble anybody. Our country does have a royal family and I would love to have one because we need someone to rule. We are going to have a King since many years. Before the Queen died, we all celebrated the Platinum Jubilee as it was the 70th anniversary of the Queen becoming part of the monarchy.
Hello!
At first when I saw this topic my first opinion was that royals should have no relevant role in our modern era but after reading the views of other and their experiences in their country, I have had a change in opinion, and I now think that royals have a hugely significant role in our modern era. In my country there are diverse ethnic groups and I belong to the Yoruba people where they still uphold monarchy but just like other countries such as British and Japan, they have no political power and rather are largely perform ceremonial duties and act as representatives of their people. Based on these I think royals have many duties in the modern world apart from political influence such as acting as figure heads of their various traditions, they also act as teachers to the younger generations uphold their traditions and customs and so that they can have a sense of identity. These are just a few of the possible roles that can be carried out by the monarchs of the modern people. Rather than just looking at the monarchs as control freaks and power mongers we can look at the advantages they may possess in the modern world.
The primary goal of royals should be to serve as a source of stability and solidarity for their people. They ought to work hard to advance the history and culture of their country and serve as an ambassador for it on a global scale. Additionally, royals ought to support charitable causes and charitable organizations in order to give back to their communities. They should also serve as examples for their people, motivating them to strive for a brighter future. However, the royal family has a limited function in modern society, and their power is more symbolic than actual. However, they can still make a significant difference and act as a vital conduit between the people and the government.
I do not think kings or queens should have absolute power to do whatever they want. A constitutional monarchy, where the monarch has limited powers and serves as a symbol of the country, seems like a better way to go. I don't have a strong opinion on having a royal family in my country, but I can see why some people might want one because they promote cultural heritage and bring attention to causes.
I think that kings or queens should not have absolute power over a country, another way I think would be better is if monarchs had limited power over a country and started sharing the power with their government which would help more people because some monarchs might create laws that can negatively affect the economy, but with the government involved they might know what the people want to help improve economics in their country.
Even though my country does not have a royal family, I do not think that they should have absolute power to do whatever they want. This would not be the safest thing to do if the royal family takes advantage of the power to do whatever they want. This could affect the people, the government, and the monarch itself. As I said, my country does not have a royal family, but I would not want to have one. I feel like things are as fair as they are going to get with a president, and everyone has freedom with some limit. Having a royal family could put more limits to the limits and possibly no freedom.
The country that I currently live in does not have a king or a queen, and this is the best way in my opinion. Having someone just come out of the blue, and rule your country would not be very smart. The people would lose their privileges, and say in the government. A country can not move forward. If power is just left in the hands of one person. We have seen numerous examples of this, and lets just say it did not end well for the country. So no I do not think someone should have absolute power over a country.
I think the role of royalty is to influence the public to become united and grow the economy. I do not think that royals should have absolute power. If they have absolute power, the public may become angered at this, since they do not have a lot of power or freedom in their country. It would be better if royals had only some power and influence in a country. If this is the case, I would want a royal family. This is because the royal family can help the country grow to become even greater than it was before.
My country does not have any kings or queens because we are a democracy meaning we have government control mixed with the power of the people. I would not like it if our country had a royal family that had absolute power because of how obnoxious people are when it comes to having a lot of power. For example, my country has votes on whether or not laws should be passed or not and we can also vote for the leaders we want for the better of our economy. If we had kings and queens they would choose everything with no votes making our country have inequality and the economy may begin declining. Based on this information I do not believe we should have royal families with absolute power come into our country and take over our government.
What about a monarchy that didn't have absolute power? For example, in the UK there is a monarch but it is still a democracy. Would you like that for the US, fascinating_river? Why or why not?
Hello.. I think when the king or queen has the ultimate power to rule the people I think not all people will agree with that for example if the king or queen issues a law which they think is good not all people will agree with that. Why ? Because there may be a lot of unpreserved (digested) rights, especially those poor people who cannot cast their votes. They have awe of kings who will defend their digested rights. For example, the work of the government is to issue laws and rulings, and if one of the poor people wants to object, he can do so because he will not have the same fear of kings because dealing with kings is not the same as dealing with ordinary workers from the government, so I am with this
In Britain and Japan, the king has no political power. Instead, their role is to represent their kingdoms and take part in the festivities.
And thank you ❤️🤍
Beginning.....Hi👋 ➡️ Let's start with defining the president: it is a title used to denote the leadership position of an organization, or otherwise..... ➡️ Among the duties of the president (of the state): The head of state participates in official events and official visits in the country, and outside the country he acts as an envoy and representative of the state, providing security for his citizens. For example: what is happening now in Sudan, every president must evacuate his citizens. ➡️ In your opinion, why did I talk about what is happening now in Sudan, because I have an aunt there, and as we see now, our state is trying to evacuate its citizens from Sudan, and just as the Palestinians are trying to evacuate their citizens, other countries are trying as well, because the matter becomes more difficult, and this is one of the most important tasks of the rulers.. 🔚 Finally... Thank you ♥️.....and that's just what I see about the presidents 😁😅 Who agrees with me 💯???
In my country we have a king or a queen, but the Royal family don't have the same power as the Monarchs. I feel that this is really unfair because it could make other members of the Royal family and citizens of England feel less appreciated for who they are just because there are people who think they have more power than normal everyday people. We should live life without a Royal family full stop, but I think we should keep the Government so the country stays peacefullish.
i still think that britain and mabye japan kings and queens have political power because they aprove to new laws, once the king has accept the law it will now be a law if not the house of commons and house of lords will change the law so the king will accepet it it will be a law.
I think they shoudn't cause it isn't fair on evryone elce and thats a british value isn't it???
I think that the role of royalty should include some political power, but i also think it's a bit of a bad idea and should only be able to help in the political process; I also think it is a bad thing to give anyone power; royal or not .
In my country India we don`t have many popular royals at present this is because before independence India was not like how it is now it was divided into many dynasties so in this modern democratic India I don`t think if we need an royal family who has full power equivalent to the government but a royalty family which will not compress the democratic rule could be accepted which will help us to retain the old traditions and culture of our country and still in India in few small villages kings dynasties are considered and they are being helpful in helping the people to reach out for education , justice , rights etc...as the few uneducated old people still believe in the words of them but not like how they were ruling during the olden times.
Royalty, want an awesome word. In fact I have always wanted to be a princess ever since I saw Cinderalla.
The idea of royalty to me is a game of chance, and one lifetime you can have a loving king the next you can have a disdainful queen, it’s all up to fate.
I kind of support the Jordan and Morroco because having all the the power in the world is too much responsibility and if this power falls into the wrong hands well, let’s just say that we would have to wait for death and that’s just brutal. With great power comes great responsibility, on the other hand, please somebody raise your hand if you want to be a princess so you can pose in front of a camera and host tea parties.🥲
I just think distribution of power is good for a monarchy, but the best form of government is by far democracy.
I agree because... I gotta admit I felt the same way so hand up
.The role of royals is being absolutely battered. With the drive from monarchist to republican came the realization of the unfairness of it all - how does some one get all that money just from being born?
I, however, think that royals should be treated with a little more respect. True, they get a more luxurious life than us all, and I'm not saying that's right. However, they do donate some of their money to good causes. Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II raised £4.1bn for British charities, compared to Bernard Anault (the richest person in the world)'s £175 m.
The royals get a free ticket to luxury and that should be amended with a combination of laws that would force them to donate x% of their money each year. This would apply to anyone with a relation to the monarch which was either direct ( grandfather, grandmother, mother, great grandmother etc.) or a cousin with an added total of less (inclusive) 8 degrees. For example, an eighth cousin would count, as would a fifth cousin once removed. However, a fourth cousin five times removed wouldn't work. Also, they would be obliged to donate different amounts depending on their net worth - if an eighth cousin has the same amount of money as a none-royal then why should they be made to pay?
Good thinking! Do you think the royals contribute back to society through fundraising?
I completely agree with you on this comment centered_moose. While it may be true that royals have access to a more luxurious lifestyle than the average person, it's important to recognize the charitable work they do. For example, Queen Elizabeth II raised an incredible £4.1 billion for British charities, which is a remarkable achievement.
At the same time, I believe that the idea of royalty getting a "free ticket to luxury" is something that should be addressed. One possible solution, as suggested in the comment, could be to implement laws that require royals to donate a certain percentage of their wealth to charitable causes each year. This would be a fair way to ensure that they are giving back to society and making a positive impact with their wealth.
I also agree with the proposal that these laws should apply to a wider range of relatives of the monarch, such as cousins up to eight degrees of separation. However, I do think that the amount of donation required should be adjusted based on the net worth of each individual. It wouldn't be fair to require someone with the same amount of money as a non-royal to donate the same percentage of their wealth. And i also think that the royls can use the money they earn by themselves with no restrictions at all.
Overall, I think it's important to strike a balance between respecting the traditions and cultural significance of royalty while also holding them accountable for their wealth and privilege. Implementing laws that require donations to charitable causes could be a positive step in that direction.
I agree because although most people only think about the money that goes to the royals, they often don't think about the money that they give back. I've done some research and I've found out that she raised £1.4 bn a year, which would mean my other figures were wrong. The platinum jubilee, in 2022, cost around £28m, which just goes to show that they've done her bit. According to aljazeera, the royal family donated 1.77bn in 2017 alone.
As for your point in the third paragraph, which states that it wouldn't be fair to require some one with the same money as a non-royal to donate, I quite agree. If we imposed an x% donation for those members who had, say £35 million to £45 million then the donation would be quite different to somebody with under £500,000. Also, my eighth degree rule was made up and the limit would be people who actually benefit from the royal family's luxury and fame. I assumed that that would centre around the eighth degree but really I'm not sure.
It's definitely important to strike the balance between donations and privileges, which is why I think there should be a kind of "royal tax" which would mean that you had to donate all the money that you spent on royal events, such as weddings or jubilees. For example, William and Kate's marriage cost £26.85 million, and they would have to donate the same amount to a charity that they chose, which would also incluse the government. However, that money would have to be spent on public services, not on MP's weddings.
As people tend to enjoy royal events, this would mean that the royal family would give more than they took, without actually giving more than they take if you see what I mean.
All in all I agree with your comment and think that royals get too much of a bad rep and aren't remembered for the good stuff that they do in life.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts centered_moose and by doing some additional research on the topic. I appreciate your clarification on the amount Queen Elizabeth II raised for charities, and it's great to hear that the royal family donated 1.77 billion in 2017 alone.
I agree with your proposal for a "royal tax" that would require donations for money spent on royal events, as it would be a way to ensure that the royal family is giving back to society and supporting public services. It's also interesting to consider that such a tax could potentially lead to the royal family giving more than they take, which would be a positive outcome.
I think it's important to recognize the good work that the royal family does, but also to address the issue of privilege and ensure that they are held accountable for their wealth. The idea of requiring donations based on net worth and limiting the scope to those who actually benefit from the royal family's luxury and fame is a fair and reasonable approach.
Thank you for the insightful discussion on this topic.
My country has many royal familys every region has a royal family Central, eastern, western northern have different kingdoms and every kingdom has a leader for example central has the kabaka and I lthink they should not have absolute power because every person has the equal rights and most workers are corrupt
I don't think kings and queens should have absolute power; I believe that they should have limits. This is because they may set rules that maybe unnecessary and can be greedy/selfish about the country's money. In my country, we are ruled by presidents who have limits on the power and rule for only 4 years but still succeed in using most of our country's money. Now the point that his actions cause poverty so I can't imagine if he were a king- he would be ruling until he dies, by that time our country would be very poor. So, in conclusion, I think that royals shouldn't have absolute power but instead use their popularity and influence to represent their kingdoms positively and take part in ceremonial events.
I think they should be able to make decisions for the country, but everyone else should also have opinions on what they do by voting or something and then they decide based off the votes what decision would be best.
Yes, my country has alot of kings and queens all under the government with no absolute power as the government have the right to impeach and replace any king or queen of their choice under their government. it's of alot of benefit that the royals don't have absolute power looking at their long period of rule which will not give chance for the country to practice democracy,also the corrupt nature of my country will not give chance for people with patriotism of their country to rule and also people will not have the opportunity to choose the person they see to be perfect to be their leader.on the other hand the royals perform see really important roles in my country
1. They influence the decision of the government to the benefits of the people
2. They perform entertaining ceremony that inform and educate the people
3. They are closer to the people so they help forward their complaints to the government
4. They help their society to develop
No it's not right to have an absolute power because their rules may affect the people. So monarchy should be under the power of people...Our country Don't have a (king/Queen) Monarchy system of government. India is a democratic country. My opinion is we don't want a Monarchy system to rule us or our country. In ancient times India had a king who rules the empire and after him his next generation son would rule the empire. As the world evolved India too evolved. After India's independence the democracy system and constitution came. Usually most of the people don't want anyone to rule them right . Like same we don't want anyone or a specific family to rule us.Democracy involves people participation in politics and in government. For instance, in the democracy people will choose their leader by casting their votes during the election period..Democracy is the people's government...Democracy improves the equality in the country. We the Indians are immensely happy and safe with the democracy. So in India we don't want the monarchy system......
The role of royalty varies widely depending on the country and its political system. In some countries, monarchs have extensive political power, while in others, they have a more ceremonial role. In some countries, like our country India, there is no royal family.
In my opinion, the best role for royalty is to serve as a unifying symbol of the country's history and culture. They can represent the country at international events and participate in ceremonies that highlight the country's traditions and values. However, I do not believe that any individual or group should have absolute power over a country's political system. Democracy and the rule of law are important principles that should be upheld in any political system.
I think that whether a country should have a royal family or not should be decided by its citizens. Some people value the cultural and historical significance of a monarchy, while others believe that the concept is outdated and no longer relevant in modern society. Ultimately, the decision should be based on what is best for the country as a whole. For example, the UK conducted a poll in which 58 percent of adults wanted a royal family, while 42 percent were opposed to it. I think other countries should follow a similar approach.
During a classroom discussion about the role of royalty, my opinion about the lifestyle of royal families changed. Before, I thought that they were lucky and living a life of riches. However, after the discussion, I found out that they have many restrictions and cannot do some of the things that we can do. One of my teacher pointed out that they are under constant scrutiny from the media and have to be careful about their actions and behavior. They also have to fulfill certain obligations and duties that come with their position, which can be challenging and time-consuming. Hearing about these restrictions and responsibilities made me realize that being a member of a royal family is not as easy as it may seem.
In summary, I believe that royals should be held as a cultural symbol of a country rather than having power over the government. If a royal family were to be established in India, I would prefer it to have a similar role as the royal family in the UK, where they serve as a symbol of national identity and cultural heritage, without having any significant political power..
Yesterday we conducted a discussion about royals and their roles .
Arguments for absolute power:
Some of my classmates argue that royals should have absolute power to do whatever they want. They said that having a monarch with unlimited power can lead to more effective governance, as the monarch can act quickly and decisively when needed. they argue that a monarch with unlimited power can act as a unifying force for the country, bringing together people from all walks of life under a common ruler.
Arguments against absolute power:
Others argue that unlimited power for royals is dangerous and can lead to abuse of power. They argue that having limits on the monarch's power through constitutional laws and democratic systems is a better way to govern. This allows for a system of checks and balances, ensuring that the monarch does not become too powerful and that the rights of citizens are protected
I don't think that England needs a king or queen because they have no political power and they are just there collecting are money,buying fancy cars,being in big houses and the coronation costs a lot of money for the crowning and the escort.Why don't they just put the crown on and call it a a day.We have a king and the money to hire all this comes out of people's salaries but they're worth billions and have a lot of money but still they need ours .
Can you find any other comments from other Topical Talkers who give examples of how the royals contribute to the nation?
In my opinion I don't think we should have a king or queen. They have no political power which is what they need and if we were to have a king/queen I think it should be shared between the politicians. I always thought when I was younger the queen and king had the most power but now I feel like they are there to bring tourists and to look good plus if there was no king/queen I don't think england would be affected that much.
I think the role of royalty should be to help people's lives get better. To make sure the world is a great place for all, no matter what race or nationality you are.
I think that fairness is one of the most important qualities in the royal family because if everyone is treated fairly then the leaders of the world would be better and if the royals were nicer then decisions that were made would be more thoughtful and no for only a few people in the world.Overall I think that If the royal family was treated better then they would make better decisions .
In the UK there are Kings and used to be queens but really they do absolutely nothing apart from doing speeches. They can't really make any rules and just sit around making speeches. I feel like it's not that fair that they get so many things when they do basically nothing.
Can you find any other comments from Topical Talkers that disagree with you? What evidence do they give?
I really like your question Tiff and my reply for it is that royals are not just for performing speeches but to represent the identity of the people of that country.
An ordinary citizen of that country has the right to change or recreate or adapt to new traditions and culture but the royals are the ones who stick on to the traditional practices so they stand as the ambassadors of their tradition.The loyality shown by the people towards the royal family shows the respect which they show to the people and the most toughest thing to earn in this world is respect and trust which they seemed to have earned by their people this shows that they have done many great things in the past which stayed as a remarkable mark in the hearts of the people many royals are using their ability to do very nice things like giving awareness to people about certain issues like how to overcome diseases etc.....They even use their ability to do good deeds.
I think that royalty should be a fair thing because some of the royal family are getting treated badly by some of the paparazzi and people there getting hate comments.
Even though royalty is outdated, i still feel that royalty should have a role in the modern society, They should be able maintain the traditional laws and customs of the people. They ensure that such customs do not die. They royals also have useful roles in mediating between the people and the state, enhancing national recognition, resolving minor conflicts and providing an institutional safety-valve for often inadequate state bureaucracies.
it is good that we have rulers to rule the country because they make good laws and help the country and donate to people in need and provide for the country and they want to help the country they rule in every single way they know.
I personally , am not a fan of royalty as I don’t understand how someone can be simply born into a family and be made the leader of a country and ( speaking for England exactly)they are given such an enormous palace with 775 rooms , when so few live there and there is 271,000 homeless people including 123,000 children in England . In my opinion a monarch or a king/Queens job is to serve their country and not to let them starve on the streets when they have a palace , not to deny a poor child’s right to go to school just because they cannot afford it when the royals could pay for 100 children’s school ten times over without making a dent in there finances, they have a duty not just to their country but to their people and the future of their country.
I disagree with you because just because you're not a fan of royalty does not mean that they are not good rulers and in a royal family if anyone is born and is declared a leader then it's called tradition it's custom that once a queen gives birth then as per custom the child then becomes a prince or princess and am sure why they are giving them 775 rooms but am sure that the queens and kings are doing their duty but they haven't reached some people yet .
I hope that I am able to convince you now that kings and queens are not that bad
Hi, no where in my comment do I say that I do not like royals or think they are not good rulers, I simply pointed out some things that I disagree with regarding the monarchy. I’m sure that Royals have done many benefiting things to their countries and I hope they continue to do, but I find it hard to believe that a child is just born and given all these luxury’s and is told one day they will be king or queen. We don’t know what training these royals have had besides being mentored by the past kings and queens, we don’t even know if they would like to be king or queen , they simply have to. I much prefer living in Ireland knowing that my rulers are well educated and perfectly capable of ruling our country, and can retire when they are unable to do their job, where as in the royal family , you must continue this job until you die . So bold moth never did I say that royals were bad, but my opinion remains unchanged that royals are un necessary.
I would not like to have a King/Queen in my country.Ireland has fought for centuries to gain independence and to be a Republic country.
I think it is dangerous for one person to have such power in a country,and i think Ww1 and Ww2 prove this .In Ireland we have Micheal D.Higgins as our President and we also have a Taoiseach and a large government to support him.I think this is a fairer system than having a King/Queen.We are also a democratic country which let's us vote and express our opinions.I also think being born into a role is unfair.Atleast for government workers they worked there way up.Im not saying that Kings and Queens don't work hard I just think it's a but unfair to be born with power ,that's like me being born into a really good job!😅
I also think having too much power can be stressful and I applause any King /Queen/government workers who had the weight of there country on there shoulders
An absolute monarchy is a form of government in which a single person usually a king or queen holds absolute, autocratic power. In absolute monarchies, the succession of power is typically hereditary, with the throne passing among members of a ruling family. Arising during the Middle Ages, Without absolute power, they say, there is no peace, no unity in the state, no authority which is either final or supreme. Absolute power and sovereignty are sometimes called synonymous reigns. Absolute power means a power to invade principal that is not limited to specific or ascertainable purposes, such as health, education, maintenance, and support.
I feel like they should have absolute power because without absolute power there is no peace and unity in the state and if there is no peace and unity in a state there will be problem so I feel they should have absolute power and there will be peace and unity in the state.
Based on my view and opinion, first we have to look at the situation from different point of views. A country can be controlled, ruled or governed through different ways and also through different people based on the constitution of the land. So therefore just as how a country adapts or decides on how their country would be ruled I really think the situation should be like that considering other systems of government such as monarchy, but it should be guided by the constitution. The principle of complete and unrestricted government power, usually in the hands of one person, a dictator should be allowed if and only if it is included based on the constitution guiding the land. In a country where they choose to adopt to a monarch system of government their decision whether to have absolute power or not is based on the law guiding the country due to fact that different forms of government may come with certain requirements to enable the growth and development of the country, some which may appear positive in another country which adopts a different system may appear negative in another.
My country does not rule by a king or queen but a very good example of a country that use that system of government is England. Today England is one of the best countries in the world going by the fact that it is because her strong pillars in different aspect that keep their country organized and there is also no problem regarding the government.
In Nigeria, where we have many royal kings. Examples of royal kings in Nigeria are Ooni of Ife,Obi of Onitsha,Oba of Beeni,Emir of Zazzau.
In Nigeria where we adopted the parliamentary system of government favoured by her colonial master The United Kingdom.But after scenes of coups and counter coups, she opted for Presidential system of government .
This however, affected the power of many monarchial ruler. For example King Khalid of Saudi Arabia, who's an absolute monarch i.e he has unlimited power over the people .
Although an absolute monarch does not derive power from the constitution , which means that an absolute monarch does not accept the principle of sovereignty.
Unlike the constitutional monarch , The Great Britain is a good example under King Charles ,whereby the monarch is only a ceremonial head of state . Other
country that practice constitutional monarch is Morroco, etc .
In my opinion the royalty have lost its effectiveness, and especially in my country . Because in my country the only role royals have is to represent the country. For example in this right moment I am listening to the coronation of Charles III and the Kings of Spain have been invited to represent Spain. But I don't think they deserve to be there, I don't mean they are bad persons, but the only reason they are there is because they have born in a family that coincidentally it is the one that has the title of Spanish royal family. And if the kings of Spain are there as representatives of Spain, why I can't be the one to represent Spain. I'm as same as him, but because he has born in a family with that title he can do some things that for me are unable to do. So what I think is that in those cases the president that is the one that really governs the country, should be the one who should represent Spain.
In my opinion I don't think monarchs should have absolute power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely because having power makes the leader think that they are godlike. It gives the leader the influence on the followers that pressure them into doing what the leader wants like in the wave. We all desire power depending on how much is up to the person and how they use it. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". This statement is expressing the theme of Macbeth and what happen during the Holocaust. Macbeth and Hitler both received power at their own paste they did do damage with the power they contained and that failed them, but once they received total power the world fell right through their hands an corrupted due to their ego's.
In conclusion, I do not support the idea of absolute power being given to the monarchy.
1. No, royals should not have absolute power to do whatever they want. This type of governance goes against the principles of democracy, equality, and individual rights that are important for a fair and just society.
A better way would be to have a constitutional monarchy or a parliamentary democracy, where the monarch's role is largely ceremonial and symbolic, and the power is vested in the people through elected representatives. This type of system ensures that there are checks and balances in place to prevent any one person, including the monarch, from abusing their power.
A constitutional monarchy or parliamentary democracy allows for the promotion of individual liberties and the protection of human rights. It provides a framework for transparent and accountable government and allows for the people to have a voice in the decision-making process.
So basically in conclusion, royals should not have absolute power to do whatever they want to do.
2. No, my country doesn't have a royal family, rather we operate democratic ical system of government. I wouldn't want to have a royal family in my country because of the following reasons;
i. History: In some countries, the royal family has a history of oppression or abuse of power. In such cases, people may feel that the continued existence of the royal family is a reminder of past injustices or is a symbol of a system that they do not want to perpetuate.
ii. Cost: Maintaining a royal family can be expensive, as they often receive significant funding from taxpayers for their lifestyles, security, and official duties. Some people may feel that this money could be better spent on other areas, such as education, healthcare, or infrastructure.
iii. Equality: The existence of a royal family may be seen as contrary to the principles of equality, as they are born into a position of privilege and are afforded certain privileges and powers based on their lineage rather than merit or achievement.
So basically in conclusion, the decisions to have a royal family ranges from different individual perspective
The role of the monarchy today varies from country to country. In some, such as the United Kingdom, the monarchy plays a more ceremonial and symbolic role, performing representational functions and generating tourism. In others, such as Spain, the monarchy has a more active role in the country's politics and in promoting national unity.
In general, the monarchy is perceived as an institution that provides political and cultural stability, and that helps to maintain the cultural traditions of a country. However, there are also critics who argue that the monarchy is a relic of the past and should be abolished in favor of a more democratic form of government. Me personally I wouldn't agree with that statement.
In some cases, controversies and scandals associated with members of the royal family can undermine confidence in the monarchy and increase calls for its abolition. However, in other countries, the monarchy is seen as an important source of national unity and cohesion.
Ultimately, the role of the monarchy today depends on the circumstances and opinions of each country, and will continue to be the subject of debate and discussion. Nonetheless Im certain that the monarchy helps a country that's had / has a monarchy to identify the country's past and people.
I live in quite a Republican (anti-royal) area, and so have repeatedly heard the arguments against royalty. They are strong and true, and I think that this is the best way to protect the tradition of the royalty and yet somewhat balance out the divide. These rules focus specifically on the monarch.
1) The monarch is stripped of all wealth apart from £2million, not including property or the royal coronation objects ( the sceptre, the orb, etc.).
2) They would be left with a castle in each province they preside over (in the UK's case England, N. Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia, Canada, etc.)
3) The rest would be turned into centres for charitable causes (places where homeless people can sleep, etc.)
This would mean that you could keep the great tradition which comes with the coronation and royal processions, but you would even out the massive split somewhat. I've talked to some classmates and they think that these are suitable measures.
Please tell me what you think about the proposition and whether, and how, it would work in other countries.
I've done some research and this is what I value when talking about the pros and cons of the royalty.
The monarchy is an institution that has been part of human history for many centuries. Today, the relevance of this system of governance has been the subject of much debate. On one hand, the monarchy can provide a sense of stability and continuity, preserving traditions and cultural identity. On the other hand, it may be seen as an outdated and undemocratic form of governance that is no longer relevant to modern society.
One benefit of the monarchy is that it can serve as a unifying symbol for a nation, providing an emotional connection that transcends political differences. Monarchs can also act as symbolic leaders who represent the best of their nation, inspiring their citizens to aspire to greatness. Furthermore, monarchs can provide a sense of stability and continuity, making sure that traditions and cultural identity are preserved over time.
However, there are also drawbacks to having a monarchy. One major critique of the system is that it is undemocratic, with a hereditary monarch often holding significant amounts of power. This can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of a few, without proper checks and balances. Furthermore, it may also create a political situation where the monarch is resistant to change and reforms necessary for improved governance. Nonetheless this particular fact may not always be happen as in some countries like Spain,Japan or the UK, the monarchy has little to no executive, judicial. On the other hand we have other countries' monarchies which are absolute like Jordan's or Morroco where the situation is complete opposite to the previous countries' parliamentary monarchies .
Finally, critics argue that the royal family is an unnecessary expense that can be better spent on other social programs.
In conclusion, while the monarchy may have its benefits, it is also important to consider its drawbacks when evaluating its place in modern society. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to maintain a monarchy relies on a complex interplay of historical, cultural, social, and political factors.
The monarchy is an institution that has been part of human history for many centuries. Today, the relevance of this system of governance has been the subject of much debate. On one hand, the monarchy can provide a sense of stability and continuity, preserving traditions and cultural identity. On the other hand, it may be seen as an outdated and undemocratic form of governance that is no longer relevant to modern society.
One benefit of the monarchy is that it can serve as a unifying symbol for a nation, providing an emotional connection that transcends political differences. Monarchs can also act as symbolic leaders who represent the best of their nation, inspiring their citizens to aspire to greatness. Furthermore, monarchs can provide a sense of stability and continuity, making sure that traditions and cultural identity are preserved over time.
However, there are also drawbacks to having a monarchy. One major critique of the system is that it is undemocratic, with a hereditary monarch often holding significant amounts of power. This can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of a few, without proper checks and balances. Furthermore, it may also create a political situation where the monarch is resistant to change and reforms necessary for improved governance. Finally, critics argue that the royal family is an unnecessary expense that can be better spent on other social programs.
In conclusion, while the monarchy may have its benefits, it is also important to consider its drawbacks when evaluating its place in modern society. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to maintain a monarchy relies on a complex interplay of historical, cultural, social, and political factors. Hopefully you can agree to what I have to say. Let me know if you've got a different view tho!
I think the kings should not have absolute power because they might use it to rule people the way they are not supposed to. Like in Uganda, lets say they give the king more powers than the president, time will reach when there are conflicts between the president and the king which may lead to wars in the country because the president will feel bad when the king has more powers than the ones of the president.
In Nigeria we don't have king, we have kings because each state have their own king and inside each state they can still have another king apart from the state king. They can only control the state they rule but they ate under the government. A king can only be replaced only when his dead and the kingship can be given to his family when he has a male child but if he don't have it will be given to another family. In my opinion kings should not be given power over government, thy should just rule their kingdom and participate on their traditional ceremonies.
I think the role of royals is important for peoples countries but I also don’t think they should take advantage of it, all the fame and money and then people think they have to be so professional at everything and I think it puts them under pressure
I think it is important for some people and some countries that they have a king or a queen or even both I think that the role of royalty should be that they help their country in a way that makes it better or helps it, but on top of that I think they shouldn’t take advantage of it and that they should still treat the people bellow them just like they treat other members of the royal family.
In Ireland we don't have a King or a Queen but we do have a Presidant,and I wouldn't want him to have absolute power .I think it has to be somewhere in the middle...that they have some power but leave the important stuff to the government.I think Royals in Britain and Japan must be bored,having no power and no say in what goes on in there country. I think if your King ,you should at least have a say in what goes on in the country.In Saudi Arabia, they can create or reject rules,but what if there not reasonable?What if there crazy rules,who can stop them then ?I think Jordan and Morocco have it right sharing there power between themselves and the government.It should be a team effort full of different thoughts amd ideas 😀
Personally I don’t believe that there is a place for royals in the modern world ,I feel like there is to big a gap between the rich and the poor, royals are having a huge coronation costing £100 million , when some parents must chose between heating their homes , feeding their children or putting clothes on their backs . Not only are they spending £100 million but it’s coming out of public funds so when struggling families, students or basically anyone’s who’s struggled financially, has to pay their taxes it’s going towards an unnecessary, over the top and quite frankly waist full coronation. So no I don’t think their is a need for such over the top ceremonies for any rulers , but I also think their is no need for royals at all, they have to much privilege for example princess Charlottes net worth is 5 billion imagine the good 5 billion could do to Britain and all its subjects.
I agree with you because to me the monarchy system of government is not really well structured and defined because the monarchy system can require minors to be a country's head of state. And we all know that they minors are not ready to occupy such positions. For example, King Sobhuza II of Swaziland who became a ruler at just four months of age. He would go on to rule for 82 years. Even England was not immune to this problem, with King Henry VI crowned when he was only eight months old.
And another thing about a monarchy is that how your sovereign behaves defines the country which can serve as a disadvantage to a country if your sovereign behaves badly. Like in the case of Donald Trump, President Donald Trump makes a lot of headlines for the way that he treats people on social media. The fact that his wife runs an anti-bullying campaign only reinforces the public perspective of the Trump administration globally. His actions become the definition of how the world perceives Americans, even if the president’s approval rating remains below 40% consistently.
Although The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation. As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. Royalty has the right to take over, power, power is such a strong strength that not everyone has. In the British Isles, a general title for a prince or sovereign or for a feudal superior (especially a feudal tenant who holds directly from the king, i.e., a baron). In the United Kingdom the title today denotes a peer of the realm, whether or not he sits in Parliament as a member of the House of Lords. Royals should get the power they deserve!
I live in Nigeria in some parts of Nigeria like the Oyo kingdom, there is a king but in some places like Lagos there is no king. There are some limitations to being a king in Nigeria so they don't have absolute power
in britain we have a monarch when the current king or queen dies their child becomes the next king or queen i think there should be monarch because when there is democracy everyone would fight for the president position if you have a country that has monarch there would be no fight between people to decide who is the president
A few days ago our king had his coronation so i hope he stays around till at least his bronze jubilee and I think the royalty should still be in the U.K. because then we would be the odd one out
I think the royal family should be able to do what they want because in the royal family there the people that are in charge of the country and they have the power to do whatever they want but only sensible stuff because that could be something not sensible.
Very interesting the role of kings and queens can vary but in the commonwealth most people have the same rules as the other countries in the commonwealth but countries like India who have departed from the commonwealth have developed different rules. The UK has a king who does not make rules so the king does not have a more important role than the government, the king still looks after the country and every other country in the commonwealth.
Our kings and queens have power in their kingdoms or rulers house. WE want our rulers to be nice,kind and care for the country their ruling for, our rulers have a very important role in life. to keep their citizens safe but they need to control their power or else the world would be worse place. Behaviour is very important in order to be a good ruler the boundaries in the UK we had problems with Meghan being mad with the royal family for being "racist". The laws are only allowed by the government and be safe. Overall we should all listen to the royal family.
My country has a king since the queen died, I think the royals should have more control of what is going on in the country, the government only has to check with the king/queen if it will affect the country majorly. Being in the royal family is a privilege they should have had more of a role in the country.
My country is ruled by a king and Queen. I don't think we should have a Royal family because they were racist to Megan and Harry. They did it because Megan was a different skin colour and came from a different culture! Even though they did that they are still important to the country. They control the area and talk to other countries. However the government does a lot as well such as cost of living and some other important jobs/roles.
Hi i think England does not need royals because they are racist to Meghan and Meghan went to callafonya with her husband
Are country is rualed by a King and Queen. I think that we should not have a royal family because they are racist to Megan and Harry because Megans mum and dad are from the Caribbean.
It is Astonishing that some country's have no kings or queens. But that doesn't mean you can be mean. The story of Meghan is that she left the Royal Family because the rest were racist. She is now in California, our rulers can't have all the power, the government have power and more important people. I agree that rulers should stay DEPENDING on their behaviour, the thing I don't believe is that every country has a king or queen. This is because there could be a war and the Earth would be chaotic every king or queen should be listening to their citizens and be responsible for any decisions.
What behaviour should a royal uphold to remain in the royal family do you think?
The behavior should be kind, nice but when they need to be demanding they should be. To be in the Royal Family you need to treat people how they should, if there's a mean person they have to punish them depending on their deeds. They can't be too kind if someone do a really bad thing they, need to be in the right behavior and punish them. The behavior of the Royal family should be kind if necessary and demanding in necessary.
In our country we do not have aking or aqueen rether it is a democratic rule in which the president is electaed by the people through elections . I think that this is much better than the monarchy because we give the most qualifed personthe responsipility of the people whithout injustice the king dies .
And iam opposed to the king or queen enjoying absolute power becaus it fasters corruption in my opinion,i prefer that politics be separate from the king ,and that the king only perform his duties and represeut his counry will
Every kingdom or state needs a king to rule it🤴👸 The king must be able to make decisions and take responsibility, and he must provide a safe life for the people of the kingdom, and he must fix if someone quarrels with justice, and he must help the poor, and therefore the people of the kingdom must abide by the rules of the king And his laws. This is to preserve the Kingdom and its people and not expose the Kingdom to anything that harms it.
Hello👋🏻👋🏻
➡️From my point of view the role of royalty has been a topic of discussion for centuries. In the past, many monarchs had absolute power to do whatever they wanted, without any regard for their subjects' well-being. However, in modern times, most countries have moved away from this type of system.
➡️Instead, many people believe that royalty should have a more symbolic role. They can still represent their country and culture, but they should not have the power to make important decisions on their own. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Queen is a figurehead who represents the country and its traditions, but she does not have any real political power.
➡️Another way that royalty can be beneficial is by using their influence for good causes. For example, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are known for their charity work and advocacy for social justice issues. Similarly, Princess Diana was known for her work with AIDS patients and landmine victims.
➡️The role of royalty can vary depending on the country and its traditions. However, it is important that they use their position for the greater good and not abuse their power.
See you soon 🤗👋🏻👋🏻