Should Britain Abolish the Monarchy?
This opinion piece examines the controversial topic of the British monarchy and whether it should be abolished. The author presents various arguments for and against the continuation of the monarchy in the United Kingdom.
The piece begins by acknowledging that opinions on monarchy can vary based on nationality, citing Germany's abolition of its monarchy after World War I as an example. It then notes the seeming stability of the British monarchy, making its abolition appear unlikely.
One of the main arguments for abolishing the monarchy is its economic impact. The royal family's marketing draws millions of tourists to London, generating significant revenue. However, this comes at a cost to the privacy and childhood of royal children.
Highlight: The royal family's public presence generates substantial tourism revenue for the UK, but at the expense of privacy for royal children.
The Commonwealth is presented as a reason to maintain the monarchy. The crown provides a common identity for former colonies, Canada, and Australia, uniting them with Great Britain.
Definition: The Commonwealth is a political association of 56 member states, most of which are former territories of the British Empire.
A significant argument against monarchy UK is the financial burden on taxpayers. The piece cites the Sovereign Grant of 2019, which amounted to 82.4 million pounds.
Example: The author questions why British citizens should pay millions for security at royal events like Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's wedding.
The piece then delves into the historical context, contrasting figures like Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I with the current monarchy. It argues that hereditary monarchy is at odds with modern democratic principles, despite Britain being a parliamentary monarchy.
Vocabulary: Parliamentary monarchy - a system of government where the monarch is the head of state, but a prime minister leads the government.
The hereditary system is criticized for contributing to a dual-class society and limiting social mobility. The author argues that this system is unfair and outdated in the 21st century.
In conclusion, the piece suggests that while the monarchy may have been acceptable in the past, there are now better and more democratic options for state administration. It predicts that younger generations may push for abolition or significant reforms to address issues of inequity, inequality, and excessive costs.
Quote: "Although Queen Elizabeth the Second might be the current head of state, the full perception of the royal family is becoming a more and more legally redundant interest which is possibly soon to be gotten abolished by the new generation or at least reformed into a fairer and even concept."
