The British monarch is limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours, appointing the Prime Minister, and by tradition is commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces. Though the ultimate formal executive authority over the government is still through the monarch's royal prerogative, these powers may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament and within the constraints of convention and precedent.
Seriously this is the most stupid question I've been asked in my life and I've been asked if Muslim is a country before, seriously that's so moronic, even Kurt Cobain lyrics look intellectual next to this question why the hell would you abolish the Monarchy be ashamed dude.
No, they should be given more power. The government is corrupt and full of liars. The Monarch needs to be able to tear the government apart and rebuild it in order to fulfill Democracy to its full potential.
If they cost more than they make in revenue, then yes the monarchy should go, especially seeing as there are some people in this country living in poverty. That money would be better spent on the poor to make this an equal system. You cannot call our system a democracy with a non elected head of state, it's not fair.
No, however civil government officials must screen immediate royals who take part in high stake international relations, so to make sure they are suited for the task, and haven't been given the privilege because of their birth.
The number of members of the family who are funded should be scaled back, tax concessions for example inheritance should be reviewed and a move to self funding and taxation should be progressed. Places etc should be opened more widely to support the move to self funding
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion