Shop More Submit  Join Login
×

:iconknofear: More from KnoFear


More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
October 1, 2012
Submitted with
Sta.sh Writer
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
235
Favourites
6 (who?)
Comments
21

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
×

Greetings all!

This post concludes the second portion of my closer to September, and focuses on an international issue in lieu of a domestic one, which was covered yesterday. I’ve been saving this topic for a while, because I wanted to build up a reader base before I made a move on this. And now, I have enough people reading that I can feel safe posting this without receiving overwhelming amounts of hate. I oppose monarchies wholeheartedly, and a good portion of my readers live in countries which practice such systems; this is why I’ve been holding off. Now that a good majority of my readers are not monarchial subjects, I can release my tirade.

There are two general forms of monarchy in the modern world. The first kind is the one most of us are familiar with, and that is the powerless monarchy. These monarchies are characterized by kings/queens who possess very few actual powers over their countries and exhibit little role beyond simply being public figures. Examples of such monarchies are most common in Europe, for example the United Kingdom or Spain. The other kind of monarchy is the strong monarchy, monarchies characterized by complete rule by the royal family with no intermediaries as to who runs the nation. This monarchial type is more common in Africa and Asia, for example Morocco or Jordan. I oppose both types, although for different reasons.

It is much easier to make a case in opposition of the former type of monarchy, and in order to make my case I’ll be using the United Kingdom as my subject (www.cia.gov/library/publicatio…). For those not entirely familiar with the British governance system, it works as such. The legislature is made up of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, a parliament with a higher and lower house respectively. The executive is held chiefly by the Prime Minister and the ruling monarch, at this moment David Cameron and Queen Elizabeth II respectively. And lastly, as of 2009 the Supreme Court of the U.K. works as the judicial. The parliament creates laws, which are passed and enforced through the executive branch. Here is the only place where the British monarch appears to take part: all laws must be given royal assent. However, because any monarch must appear impartial to politics, most all laws are given assent whether the monarch opposes them at heart or not. The monarch and cabinet are formally appointed by the monarch to form the executive branch, however the prime minister often chooses the cabinet members and the monarch typically respects these choices.

By now, you can see how small the role of the British monarch truly is. Queen Elizabeth II certainly is not creating laws, and she is not enforcing them; she is not chief executive, as Cameron is the one with the power to do that. She does not exhibit overwhelming influence over the cabinet, at least not anymore; at this point, the cabinet choice has become far more centered on the prime minister. But then, why abolish the monarch? If it’s not hurting anyone, there is no reason to remove it, correct? Alas, if only this were true. The monarchy directly hurts every single one of its subjects by simple value of its existence: it has been estimated to cost taxpayers 202 million pounds per year (republic.org.uk/What%20we%20wa…). Think about how much wealth that is. Hundreds of millions of dollars, which could be used to better an economy being bitten in the ass by austerity. That money could be used to ensure damaging cuts don’t have to be made, which could keep the unemployed and other vulnerable members of society from being put at serious risk. Alternatively, that wealth could be used as a stimulus to bolster a nation which hasn’t been doing all that great for the past couple of years. Oh, and that wealth isn’t all going to the queen; some of it goes to the rest of the royal family, who do literally nothing in the governmental processes at all except wait to usurp the throne. These people are getting paid more per year than Mitt Romney, and are doing even less. If any person fits the bill of being a “leech” in American conservative terms, it is the members of any royal family which exudes little power but takes in huge amounts of money. Since these people effectively do nothing, nothing should be spent on them. Better yet, end the monarchy entirely, thereby removing a dead weight.

The second form of monarchy is one I oppose on different grounds, but equally as strong. These kinds of monarchies allow no room for democracy in their governments, and I’ll be taking Saudi Arabia as an example. In the country which uses the Qur’an as its constitution, there is little semblance of freedom in the government. The king and his family exert complete control over the legislative and executive processes within the country, only giving any power to the religious authority of the ulema, a force for ultra-conservatism in a nation where women already have trouble showing their faces or driving. Such is the cornerstone of my opposition; I believe that people should have an influence over their nation, and the easiest way for this to occur is through the allowance of, at the very least, a republic. Any nation with that many people deserves to elect those that rule it, especially when such an opportunity could be a drastic opportunity for improvement of life. The royal family here also takes in exorbitant amounts of wealth as well, giving another good reason to expunge the monarchy (www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02…). Obviously, you can see why my explanation here is shorter; it is much easier to see why absolute monarchies must be scrapped out of necessity. This form of governance should have died with Napoleon Bonaparte years ago; the fact it still exists is sickening.

That is all for September, and I hope I’ve given good reasoning towards my point of view. I also hope I haven’t offended any friends living under constitutional monarchies too much, but they’ll likely understand. If you’d like to comment about this, feel free to do so using anonymity if you must. Other than that, I can be primarily contacted through my email zerospintop@live.com. And of course, my accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and Steam are always good places to find me. And so, this is KnoFear, signing off. 

Another post to close up September. Once again, any and all feedback is encouraged!
Add a Comment:
 
:icondanny767:
Danny767 Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2012
The Brit's Monarchy pays for itself with interest.

"How much does it costs United Kingdom (UK) taxpayers to maintain the British monarchy and to keep Elizabeth II on the throne in a royal style? About 40 million ($57 million) annually. With the added cost of royal security estimated at 50 million ($71 million), the total cost of the British monarchy is about 90 million ($128 million). This cost is offset by the profits from the Crown’s commercial venture—the Crown Estate, which returns its net income to Her Majesty’s (HM) Treasury. In 2008, the Estate paid to the Treasury 211 million ($300 million)."

Not to mention the added benefit of to the, "52 billion (about $74 billion) tourist industry."
Reply
:iconknofear:
KnoFear Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2012  Student Writer
A source for all this, please?

Also, glad to know I forced you onto DeviantArt.
Reply
:icondanny767:
Danny767 Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2012
I only come to debate you.

"[link]"

Also,

"It is my understanding that the British Monarchy is paid by the people of Britan. They are given generous allowances and can ask Parlement for more should they need it. A lot of people think this is unfair, as many people don't realize what the monarchy does for Britian. Actually, the biggest contribution they do is foregoing all the rent on all the property they own, a staggering amount of money which would bankrupt the British goverment in short order should those debts come do. The crown estate is that property, which includes thousands of acres all over Britain and a lot of very nice property in down town London."

Also,

"Brand Finance says the net value of the monarchy is 44bn, although the methodology that underpins this is obscure and most of the numbers are open to debate."

[link]
Reply
:iconknofear:
KnoFear Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2012  Student Writer
Even if the monarchy did bring in a net increase in revenue, I would still oppose it. All monarchies are a bastion against democracy and a relic of times humanity should desire to forget.
Reply
:icondanny767:
Danny767 Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2012
I fail to see your logic, but okay. I do not support monarchies, the Brits are just an exception, along with any other monarchies that are in a similar situation of little real power, but a net gain economically to society.
Reply
:iconknofear:
KnoFear Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2012  Student Writer
Perhaps you can understand me if I propose something. You obviously know that the UK has no formal constitution of any kind, and that parliament can basically change the structure of anything they please should they truly wish to. However, as long as the monarchy reserves residual powers, it has the opportunity to take advantage of that a revert to a more absolute monarchy if given the opportunity. And therein lays the danger.
Reply
:icondanny767:
Danny767 Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2012
Saying that the British Monarchy would take power again is like saying Iran will actually Nuke Israel. It is completely unrealistic fear.

You know that the British People would not support, and neither would the rest of the world. It would destory
Reply
:iconknofear:
KnoFear Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2012  Student Writer
It is unrealistic such a thing would happen overnight, yes. But overtime, attitudes and world situations change. Should the UK ever be placed into a bind where democracy was a limiting factor, the monarchy would be the first thing they would turn to. After any conflict ended, that monarchy would likely be unwilling to relinquish new powers.
Reply
:icondanny767:
Danny767 Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2012
the royal family.
Reply
:iconpopov89:
popov89 Featured By Owner Oct 2, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I've already stated my fondness for enlightened despots under certain criteria in the past so I've not much to say other than that when an opposing army is right outside the gates, democracy is the last thing you want. There is no government that is best for all situations.

The Roman Republic attempted a government that could switch, but that only gave them Sulla with his bloodshed and Caesar with his legions. Tough questions without an answers.
Reply
Add a Comment: