How Far Is the Monarchy an Outdated Institution Essays

How Far Is the Monarchy an Outdated Institution Essays How Far Is the Monarchy an Outdated Institution Essay How Far Is the Monarchy an Outdated Institution Essay Essay Topic: History The question of as to how important the monarchy stands today in todays society is one of considerable importance of more recent times. Although recent polls suggest that around 70% of Britons want to keep the monarchy we can see a huge drop in the amount of 18- to 24-year-olds who say they do not want a monarch. This essay will try to consider both pro monarchy and pro republican arguments in analysing as to just how outdated the monarchy is as an intuition. To have a greatest understanding of the question we must first understand the what the monarchy is and the alternatives to it. A republic, unlike a monarchy is a polity in which governmental power devolves by popular election, and not by heredity. In Monarchy to Republic by Winterton (1986 p2) defines Its older meaning as simply a state or polity, or a state including a monarchical one with a mixed government or balanced constitution. But after 1649 republic was often used to describe a state without a king, or a state in which power was derived from the people, it was often treated in association with democracy or commonwealth. There are four main modern theorys as to how useful the monarchy is today these are: A celebration of shared values (Shils and Young) whereby the monarchy is thought to be a key actor in creating a nation state. The monarchy seemingly has the power to bring people together for the common good of the nation. The pinnacle of the ruling class (Karl Marx) Marx suggests that the monarchy is the is the largest symbol of the bourgeoisie and is just another institution trying to control the proletariat. An outdated irrelevance (Birnbaum) this theory is that the monarchy is insignificant in todays society and even though they may well have absolute power in it would never be used to any importance. The mainstay of an archaic state system (Nairn), this suggests that the monarchy is just the foundation of whats wrong with are state system at the moment due to conservative minds unwilling to change things. The first theory has very little evidence to support itself, in fact according to the recent Guardian/ICM poll and the Independent on Sunday MORI poll. Under half those surveyed in a recent poll considered the royal family to be important to Britain. One in three believed the royals were out of touch. Less than one in four thought they were hard working. Just one in 10 thought the royal family were good value for money. I believe this do be undeniable evidence that the monarchy does not bring people together with shared values for how can we identify with someone that has nothing in common we the people they govern. It all sounds like hypocrisy to me why are the royals held up as an example for people to follow. They must be one of the worlds most famous dysfunctional families. They are ashamed of divorcees, alcoholics and possible homosexuals in their midst. Their values are completely corrupt. Marxs theory on class war is very popular with leftist theorists. He suggests that were ever there is capitalism and the need to make money they will be institutions attempting to control others for there own personal gain. A relevant quote would be that of Keir Hardie on the 1897 Jubilee: The cheering millions would be there and cheer just as lustily if the occasion were the installation of the first President of the British Republic; the soldiers are there because they are paid for coming;the statesmen are there because Empire means trade and trade means profit.In this country loyalty to the Queen is used by the profit mongers to blind the eyes of the people; in America loyalty to the flag serves the same purpose.. Birnbaums theory is one of complacency in my eyes. I agree he is right that the monarchy is irrelevant in todays society but they still cost the taxpayer money. The taxpayer spends over à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½60 million per year on services related to the monarchy. This money could be spent on hospitals or schools and until recently, the Queen paid no tax whatsoever on her property or income. Everyone should have the same rights. People who didnt pay the poll tax are still being hunted down and locked up. Nairns theory on outdated state system is most relavant to todays monarchy. The theory explains as to has outdated and undemocratic the monarchical system is. The Queen can veto an Act of Parliament, intervene in policy decisions, and even dissolve the government if she wishes. And this isnt just in theory Queen Elisabeth II has even done it in practice. In 1975, she got the Governor-General to dissolve the Labor government in Australia because she found it too left-wing. The monarch can take over the government in circumstances that threaten the state such as a general strike or mass civil unrest and they could even sell the navy and get people put in prison without a jury trial. This is obviously an undemocratic and outdated system. In conclusion the execution of Charles 1st is an inspiration for all fighting to reform the undemocratic British state. After the bloodshed on 30 January 1649, until shortly after Oliver Cromwells death Britain enjoyed a successful 12 year republic, without any Monarchy or House of Lords, a true republic can be achieved. The Monarchy which, with the House of Lords, is supposed to embody our unwritten constitution stands in the way of us having proper rights separate from the state. The creation of a written constitution would help protect those rights that have been increasingly infringed in the recent. With no bill of human rights people of Britain have no statutory line of defence against these oppressive and unrepresentative measures. What is more, it is only through the creation of a social contract can we rebuild a caring civil society, which in my eyes has been lost over the recent decades. Without a shadow of doubt the monarchy is an outdated instition.