The role of royals

Crown icon

43 countries around the world have a king or queen. But the role of royals is different in many of them. For example…

Fist icon

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.

History icon

In Jordan and Morocco, the monarch shares power between themselves and other leaders or groups within their countries.

History icon

In Britain and Japan, the monarch has no political power. Instead, their role is to represent their kingdoms and take part in ceremonies.

Comments (216)

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

  • 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. Could you explain more about a "Kisakate" please, confident_meaning?

          1. "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.

    2. 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.

      1. 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.

    3. 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

      1. 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 .

    4. 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.

      1. 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!

      2. 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.

    5. 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

      1. 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.

        1. 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?

          1. 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.
            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.
            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.

    6. 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.

      1. 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.

    7. 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.

      1. 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?

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

      1. 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?

        1. 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

    11. 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 .

    12. 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

    13. 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.

    1. 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?

      1. 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.

        1. You've done an impressive amount of research - well done!

    2. 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

    3. 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.

    1. Do you think the royal people should have the role of rule making? What dangers are there of them having autocratic control?

      1. 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

      2. 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.

      3. 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 ...

      4. 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.
    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.

    1. 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?

      1. 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.

      2. 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.

    1. 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?

      1. 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.

      2. 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

    1. Can you give some evidence of the public funding the royals?

      1. Each year the royal household publishes a summary of head of state expenditure
        together wit a full report on royal puplic finances.

    2. 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

    1. 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.

    2. Can you find any data to show how much money they bring into the country through tourism?

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. Do you think the Royals form an important part of British society?

      1. 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?

      2. 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.

    3. What alternatives are there to a king or queen as head of state? Can you think of examples from other countries?

      1. 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

    1. An interesting opinion, how do the Royals in the UK demonstrate pride and power, and why do you not think they deserve their place?

      1. 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.

    2. 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.

    1. 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

    1. Can you give any evidence of this happening?

    2. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. Can you give any evidence of royals helping with tourism?

    2. 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.

    3. 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 .

      1. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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?

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. 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?

      1. 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.

    1. 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.