Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The case against monarchy
The case against monarchy
Monarchy in Great Britain
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In 1603 the Scottish and English monarchies were united and at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarchy of the United Kingdom was deprived of the decision-making privilege they once had. For the purpose of this essay, I intend to examine the many different arguments both for and against the British monarchy being abolished. Proponents argue strongly that the monarchy symbolises all that is British throughout Britain and the Commonwealth Realms. However, contrary to this, the monarchy receives exorbitant financial aid from the British taxpayers to maintain the monarchy. Does the monarchy have a place in the twenty first century?
The monarchy symbolizes unity and traditions, which is unique and treasured to the nation. The monarch universally known as head of the Commonwealth, she is voluntarily recognised as the Head of State to 54 independent countries (The British Monarchy, 2013) The Queen to modern Britain, is an icon, who cannot simply be swapped for an elected politician. The British monarchy has played huge importance in British history, which is integral to our national identity. The Queen reined for 61 years and she provides an existing connection between the past, present and future. This is exactly what a politician could not offer to the public; for instance, Tony Blair, prior to 1997 was unknown on a state level, as he had done nothing significant for the British public. The monarchy’s traditions are famous not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the ruler of sixteen other countries including Britain. Whilst the queen receives many privileges as head of state, it does come at a personal cost. Her privacy is limited as she is consistently scrutinized from t...
... middle of paper ...
...y, 2013). Glasgow Central has one of the highest percentages of children living below the poverty line in UK, at a shocking 37% (End Child Poverty, 2013). Clearly, the levels of poverty and deprivation would dramatically reduce with an annual cash investment of £33.3 million.
Similarly, diverting the money from the monarchy to statutory areas such as health would greatly reduce the cuts made in hospitals across the UK. “More than 5,400 nursing posts have been cut since the coalition came to power, as NHS trusts tighten budgets in the wake of an unprecedented slowdown in health spending.” (The Independent, 2013). Money invested into the health sector would help to reduce waiting lists, increase the number of beds currently available resulting in better care for sick patients and would even save lives, as the money would be available to facilitate medical research.
The history between the British Empire and its dominions always was significantly distinguished through the strong ties which people connected to the mother-country of Britain. However, as always in history changes were about to happen as each dominion urged to become more and more independent. The end of this process is marked by the Statute of Westminster passed in 1931 which granted the former dominions full legal freedom and established legislative equality between the now self-governing dominions of the British Empire. Therefore, the Statute of Westminster is one of the most remarkable acts in Canadian history as it set the road to the development of Canada in which we live today.
During the Stuarts, the only people who had the liquid cash to pay for the needs of the modern government were primarily the middle-class and gentry, which were represented by the parliament. The “awkward, hand-to-mouth expedients” (38) of the Stuarts agitated by the differences in expectations of governance, brought them into conflict with their primary tax base. The impatience of the eventual rebels was exacerbated by their Stuart’s disregard for the traditional balance between the crown and the parliament, as they were Scottish royals who had only dealt with a very weak
The Austrian, Habsburg Empire and England faced issues common to many European nations of the time. Religion and leadership were at the forefront of these crises. What set the two nations apart and ensured England’s survival was that England, not necessarily consciously, made improvements to their government while they addressed their smaller individual problems. With each growing pain came compromise. Through compromise, the English developed into a Constitutional Monarchy; this representative type of government, guided by a Bill of Rights, established checks and balances that inherently support a strong, unified nation as opposed to the self interests of individual factions.
Nederman, Cary J. "Monarchy: Overview." New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Ed. Maryanne Cline Horowitz. Vol. 4. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2005. 1492-494. Student Resources in Context. Web. 6 Mar. 2014.
When examining the bloody and often tumultuous history of Great Britain prior to their ascent to power, one would not have predicted that they would become the global leader of the 18th century. Prior to the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War, the Spanish and the Holy Roman Empire held much of the power in Europe. Only with the suppression of Catholicism and the development of national sovereignty did Great Britain have the opportunity to rise through the ranks. While much of continental Europe was seeking to strengthen their absolute monarchies and centralized style of governing, in the 17th and 18th centuries Great Britain was making significant political changes that reflected the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment. The first of the political philosophers was Thomas Hobbes who first introduced the idea that the monarch ruled not by “divine right” but through the consent of the people. This was a radical idea with ramifications that are reflected in the great changed Great Britain made to to their government in the 17th century. Through a series of two violent civil wars between the monarchy and Parliament and the bloodless civil war known as the Glorious Revolution, Parliament was granted the authority to, in essence, “check” the power of the monarchy. The internal shifts of power in Great Britain and the savvy foreign policy skills demonstrated by the British in much of the conflict happening in continental Europe can be credited with England’s rise to power.
Michael Barone wrote the book Our First Revolution, which details how the Glorious Revolution was essentially the stepping stone for the American Revolution and the creation of the United States. The author argues that the removal of James II and the agreement that followed to give William and Mary a joint monarchy was the blueprint for the American Revolution. Furthermore, the book details the events leading to the Revolution of 1688, it compares Britain in the political and religious aspect to the rest of the European countries in the late 1600’s, the issues taking place in Britain that essentially led to the removal of James, but most importantly, it describes the immense influence it had in America almost a century later.
J. Hoppit , 1999 - Parliaments, Nations and Identities in Britain and Ireland, 1660-1850 – Manchester university Press Publishing – Accessed via: http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/ - Quote from Daniel Defoe.
"THE RELIGION OF THE QUEEN - TIME FOR CHANGE." University of Queensland Law Journa (2011): n. pag. Web.The British monarchy is a system of government in which a traditional monarch is the sovereign of the United Kingdom out of the country territories, and holds the constitutional position of head of state. According to the article, the Queen's powers are exercised upon the suggestion of her prime minister. Moreover, she firmly reserves powers which she may exercise at her own discretion. The Queen has many theoretical personal advantages and disadvantages. One disadvantages was that UK prohibits her from get married with a catholic member either being a roman catholic. However, with the exception of the appointment of the major minister, which is done with every prime minister, there are few positions in modern British government where these could be justifiably exercised; they have rarely been exercised in the last century. These powers could be exercised in an emergency such as a constitutional
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Monarchy was not at all a new institution in the 15th, 16th, or 17th centuries. It wasn’t even very different with respect to the goals that prevailed in each monarchy. However, the differences between the New and Absolute Monarchy come in the way of the methods, theories, and conditions prevalent throughout the different monarchical reigns.
take it anymore. But when there is a long train of abuses and attacks it is the people's right, it is their duty, to get rid of the government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The same as these colonies have patiently suffered; the same that now forces them to change their old systems of government. The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and attacks, all contributing to the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to an honest world.
The United Kingdom as one of the remaining monarchies of the world, which head of it, the Queen Elizabeth II, has powers that provide an essential evolution of the country. These powers, are called Royal Prerogative powers. Obviously, British people respect the Royal family and additionally the queen, nevertheless they could have their own beliefs as seen on their references. According to the Royal Prerogative (“RP”), it is definitely the most historically and continuing tradition of Britain. In some situations, circumstances tend to disappear them and replaced them by other recent means. In this essay, it will define the RP and how can preserve the separation of powers. Therefore, it should explain how these powers dying to a democratic environment.
In conclusion, since 1832 a lot has changed within the monarchy. Because of things such as the Great Reform Bill of 1832 and the formation of political parties, the monarchy’s political roles have greatly decreased. In addition, with the help of growing technology, the social roles of the monarch have blossomed. Through ease of travel and advances in television and radio, the monarchy can be seen and heard by people all around the world. Although the public opinion of the monarch has fluctuated greatly over the years, they always seem to bounce back and land on their feet.
Spanning “over a fifth of the world’s land surface” and the governance of 458 million people at its peak, the British Empire came to bear the name of the “vast empire on which the sun never sets.” At the time of writing this in 1773, Macartney, a British statesman and colonial administrator, also asserted that the Empire’s “bounds nature has not yet ascertained.” When considering the significance of the Palace of Westminster, London in British imperial history, this statement could not ring truer. The House of Commons and the House of Lords meet within the Palace of Westminster, and it was within these democratic buildings that many of the most controversial aspects of the Empire were decided, discussed and debated. Whether this be over topics
The British Monarchy. “The Queen in Parliament.” The Royal Household. Accessed May 4, 2014. https://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueeninParliament.aspx.