he United Kingdom probably has the most monarchy in the world which draws millions of extra pounds from tourism every year yet drains it by over i?? 50 million. The position of monarchy has existed ever since before the roman times, but does this mean it should not be abolished despite its spiralling costs and seemingly useless democratic role. Perhaps the first point that should be made is that in a democracy; where everyone is meant to be given equal chance, why should the head of state be elected by birth right not by working towards a goal or being very talented and not being judged on his background.
In a democratic society, why should one person who has not been fairly elected have the power to overturn laws and influence the outcome of elections? However, no British monarchy has vetoed an act of parliament since around 1720 and perhaps the fact that the monarchy can advise and warn the prime minister in times of difficulty means that although they have not been elected, they can give a wise and fair view of the situation without being constricted by the will of the people who voted to put them into power
The cost of the monarchy is often a much fought-over and bitter battle. Many people think that the monarchy, with little political use and snobbish background is a waste of money. Figures released from the civil list which covers all costs made be the monarchy, show that in 2000-2001, the monarchy cost i?? 35 million to run excluding security costs from the army and the police. If this is worked out on a per head basis, the monarchy costs just under 50p per head.
A common misconception is that the queen has many estates round the country that is being paid for by the taxpayer but in fact, the queen pays for Balmoral and Sandringham from her own personal income. Something not known by many people though, is that the crown estate puts in about three times as much money as the monarchy takes out of the treasury. Tourism to this country is also greatly boosted by the presence of a monarch and the estates that she owns around the United Kingdom especially Buckingham palace which has become a world icon.
When the monarchy was first set up, the king justified it as a divine right of Kings with the support of the then very popular church. In modern times though, when Britain is trying to become more and more multicultural, should we be restricting access to the monarch to only Christians or is this another discrimination that needs to be rooted out form our country for it to develop?
Personally, I think that the monarchy should stay as its advantages far outweigh its disadvantages. The money that it draws in is considerably more than what it spends and although it is not a fair way of election, the monarch does not have many powers with which to spend it with although, in times of need, I am sure she would be a great advisor to the prime minister as she can look at the problem from a different prospective.