The Effects Of Monarchy On The United Kingdom
A decently-sized quite short critique of a shorter critique of a short critique:The Crown Estate belongs to the Queen. Despite it belonging wholly to her (and the monarchy):The monarchy gives money to the country. The way the Crown Estate works is that, in return for the revenues from and the permission to run the crown's lands, the monarch is payed a fixed salary. Even if you (for some unknown reason) reject the Crown Estate's value, Brand Finance did a study in 2015 that showed that 'tourism connected to the monarchy and its heritage created 535 million pounds worth of revenue in 2015'. Additionally, VisitBritain said that when Prince William married in 2011: The monarchy undoubtedly provides a huge boost to the UK's tourism.
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch by virtue of their accession to the throne. It is not a 'public body', it is just accountable to Parliament. That is akin to saying, 'Oh, look at this dictator, she changed the constitution to give herself absolute power, it would be against democracy and equality to depose her. ' The Queen does not have absolute power. In fact, it has been over 850 years since the monarchy did (#MagnaCarta). She has virtually no real power, and could never gain any power for the following reason:The Queen is not an idiot. She realizes that if she tries to actually use any of the so-called 'powers' she holds, she will be deposed of immediately.
Therefore, she is not a dictator. Also, she has not changed the constitution. Next, my point about the National anthem and symbolism. The National anthem was just an example of how ingrained the monarchy is in the culture and history of Britain (as is Christianity, at least until recently). In no way did I suggest the UK is a christian country - this is an ongoing debate. To paraphrase, a bunch of BS. Elegant as ever, Max. However, recent surveys have shown that over three quarters of the UK's population (76%) wanted the UK to remain a monarchy as opposed to a republic. The public is not on your side; they love the Queen. In fact, the number of people who think the monarchy has a role in the future of Britain has increased by almost 10% from the beginning of the 21st century to almost 80%. Besides the point. These powers were 'once held my the monarch'; they are not any more.
As mentioned before, the Queen will not and cannot change this. From from letting the Prime Minister do this, she has no power over whether or not this happens. Your b and c points have both been already shown to be wrong above and your d point is ridiculous, to say the least. Financial effects, I think I have now fully cited. To reiterate, the monarchy provided over a billion pounds in extra tourism revenue in 2015. The public seems to agree with point d - they like the monarchy. And one final point: In most countries the role of national representative is combined with the role of political leader. This often results in tension between respecting the office whilst disagreeing with the decisions that person is making. The Queen and the monarchy provides a solution to this; by making sure the Queen can not make any decisions, and that she has no power, while representing the government, we can respect the UK, while firmly disagreeing with the actual man (or woman) in power. We get the best of both worlds.
