British Monarchy - Should They Stay or Should They Go? Yona Oshrat

Thomas Paine is not an advocate of monarchy. In fact, he called monarchy institutionalized robbing. In his work Rights of Man, the political philosopher contrasts old government with new government, defining the former as hereditary and the latter as a representative system. Specifically, Paine had two major objections to monarchy; first, he argued that a hereditary government is a imposition on humans, and secondly, “it is inadequate to the purpose for which government is necessary” (Paine 113). A hereditary government unfairly binds future generations, this would make the monarchy illegitimate because a government must have continuous consent in order to be legitimate. If a monarch inherits a kingdom he too inherits its people, Paine says to inherit people is to treat them as farm animals. To sum up this point, Paine exclaims that a hereditary monarchy reduces humans to beasts.

A lot of people say that the Queen does nothing to help Canada, so why shouldn’t we get rid of the monarchy? Well, I believe the opposite because by removing the monarchy it’ll just cause even more problems than solutions. One of the big problems is that to remove the Monarchy you would have to create a Constitutional Amendment, which would mean that whole parliament and all provinces would have to agree with this decision; most likely this will tear Canada apart. This brings me to the second problem, which is that the provinces would just start to ask for more demands, specifically Quebec and/or Alberta. So if you really think about it, the Monarchy isn’t really causing any issues that need to be fixed and that it would cause even more problems if we got rid of

She was one of the most famous and liked monarch. Mainly throughout those fifty years Elizabeth maintained the stability of England through wars and political turmoil. Queen Elizabeth grew up as a typical royal child receiving education and strived in art and music. Elizabeth was able to inherit and control a male dominating word and she did it well. Ruling with genuine love for her people she was able to provide the stability a nation needs to strive.

But the British government was a monarchy at this time. “Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom. In a monarchy, a king or queen is the Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.”

Monarchies have lasted in a society, because of the king taking order of the people. There is a lack of trust between a

I argue for Great Britain to still continue being a Constitutional monarchy. Why you may ask, Well I argue for them because it makes Great Britain running smoothly. If they change it may cause money problems and more. On page 29, it says "According to the rule of male primogeniture, a female could take the throne if there were no direct male heir to fill the seat. In 2013, with the queen's support, a new law was passed to end that rule. As a result, Great Britain may have even more queen in the future." That means Queen Elizabeth II believes that there are going to be queens in the future and I'm sure that nobody doesn't want to not be queen or king of England.

Generally over the years the Monarch’s role has slowly decreased as more jobs have been put on the PM’s.

“The power of the monarchs of Britain - which I'm taking to mean "of England, then Great Britain and then the United Kingdom" - has waxed and waned over the years.” as reviewed by quora.com

Great Britain's political elite structure represents those fortunate enough to reap the benefits of being born into royalty or wealth. Derived from mostly royal influence, Britain's governmental structure symbolizes the lineage of the political elite. From an American perspective when viewing British government, I see many similarities and differences. Specifically, Britain's government and political structure is comprised of three components: a unitary state, constitution monarchy, and a parliamentary system. Those three components are akin to the United State's three branches of government. But, the influence of Britain's political elite affect all three components as well. Furthermore, Britain's high commendation of the royal family and the like provide enough influence on public opinion in order to determine what is best for the nation. In my opinion, Britain's political structure as well as their elite possesses vast amounts of qualities conducive to a successful economic, governmental, and social structure. Moreover, there are many qualities the British

Also if there is a smooth running society that has no political oppression or any political warfare there would be no reason for a monarch to abuse their powers. There would have to be a reason for a monarch to abuse their powers. They would have to either be mentally ill or stressing from either political warfare or oppression. For a monarch to abuse their powers they would most likely be a valid reason why. Monarchy has worked for thousands of years and yes there have been many monarchs that go down into history as bad monarchs, but that's just another reason why people study history so that we don’t make the same mistakes as we did in the past.

The U.S. would never workout if it was a monarchy mostly because we are the country that we come for freedom that citizens want more than what people want for them. Our mother country, Great Britain, is doing fine right now, but being in a monarchy such as them it would not change at all considering your making the same decisions as your ancestors. Which the country would like a change and other people might have better ideas on how to run the country better. More ideas and more money ideas because in reality the world runs around with money. The Declaration of Independence saved us from becoming a monarchy and having the same traditional things and fights for the same thing. Not all bad come from monarchies though. There come good in

Firstly, the abolishment of monarchial rule was a result of European state constitutions and the idea of individual rights; an idea derived from the Enlightenment. Not only did constitutions present items such as freedom, and property to citizens, but it also renounced two main aspects of royal authority: taxation without representation, and the passing of unjust laws. As stated by Harris, “By such concessions there disappeared--at least on paper--those two powers that lay at the base of the absolutism of the Old Regime.”

The common people hate the royal family and they have revolted several times. But, none have been successful.

It could be argued that the monarch was an important member of government however some may disagree and put forward the idea that the Privy Council was more important. This is for several reasons the first reason (for the monarch) was the fact that she could decide who could become a member of the Privy Council this is because it meant that she had total power over those who that would help run the country. However this did not mean that the monarch was the most important figure as it could be argued that the monarch did in fact have a ‘Back Seat’ with regards to running the country as historians could argue that it was the privy council, as opposed to the queen, that did the main portion of running the

Winston Churchill is probably the most important political figure featuring the series The Crown. Since he is the first starring Prime Minister, he is approached as a powerful and influential character. His prolonged experience as a Prime Minister enabled the Queen to have a mentor at the beginning of her sovereignty. Furthermore, since Winston Churchill was also Prime Minister under the reign of George VI, Elizabeth sees in him a paternal-like figure which brings her support. However, as Winston Churchill becomes older, he is no longer able to take great decisions for the country and will eventually retire.