First, the fact that taxpayers are forced to pay towards the British Monarchy without any democratic say means it is not a taxation with the expectation of reinvestment in the people, but rather is a forced payment of tribute. Whatever ones feelings are to the amount we pay, the fact that anyone in the 21st century should be expected to pay tribute is absurd.
Secondly, tourism is not driven by the Royal Family, but rather by the Crown Estate, i.e. the buildings and land. Tourists aren't drawn the Royal Family, but rather the various attractions that just happen to be currently part of the Crown Estate, which could easily be obtained by and for the country itself.
Thirdly, any and all charities that are ran by or funded by the monarchy are, in effect, taxpayer funded institutions. This would make them the only charities in the United Kingdom that the taxpayer are forced to contribute to without consent or democratic say. Alternatively, funding currently given to the monarchy could be redirected towards social programmes and infrastructure, thus creating an environment where the need for such charities would not be necessary. If not, then it prompts the question why some charities are allowed to be funded via the taxpayer, but not others, and without say or consent.
Fourthly, any diplomatic benefits once enjoyed by having a monarchy died with the passing of Queen Elizabeth II. Once headed by a seasoned figure, the Royal Family is now headed by someone who does not command respect by anyone, and thus has little diplomatic benefit. Arguably, by demolishing the monarchy, the nation would be seen as evolving or "growing up" to meet the expectations of the 21st Century.
Fifth and finally, the Royal Family do not represent unity and stability. In fact, they by very definition represent subjugation via divine decree. By virtue of its existence, Monarchy implies that the people of the nation are lower status and are the subjects of a singular authority, ordained by god. Any free person should find the very notion abhorrent and offensive to their core; if not then one must hold the view that they are a lesser person and as such are not deserving of freedom, but rather can only expect to be granted the gift of limited movement and action at the whims of those fortunate enough to have a particular blood-lineage.
Be the first to reply to this agreement.