We condemn the war and support Ukraine in its struggle for democratic values.
We also encourage you to join the #StandWithUkraine movement by making a donation at this link
Arguments For and Against the Monarchy

A form of administration in which the political authority is absolutely or ostensibly accorded to an individual or individuals is called monarchy. The monarch remains the head of government, normally until they die. Monarchy was a common structure of government in the olden times. The current constitutional monarchy in Britain does not have a lot of power. Nevertheless, studies shows that it is currently the longest surviving monarch as it gives the UK a lot of pride. In the UK republicanism is the association which attempts to get rid of the British monarchy.

The republicanism seeks to have a republic without a hereditary head of state. At present, the procedure of choosing the head of state is not agreed upon. Some advocate for an elected president, some an appointed head of government with less power. Still others think that the idea of leaving the political system the way it is while abandoning a monarch is the best. Though Britain is considered a modern democratic country, it is still governed in a controversial old institution of a royal family. There are some reasons why the monarchy is considered the best form of leadership for Britain.

Some political scientists argue that it is a safe form of governance that checks the instability of the government. The constitutional standing of a monarchy prevents the country from becoming a dictatorship. Monarchy is known in providing a neutral authority. Monarchists defends their position by arguing that  an independent, symbolic head of government is a step detached from opinionated, money-making, and factional interests. They also asserts that this approach allows the leader to be a unprejudiced figure who can play his roles well as an mediator between diverse levels of government and political parties. Since monarch supposedly holds all executive power, its advocators see it as beneficial. They argue that it is impossible for politicians to misuse the constitutional power for their personal achievements.

Calculate the price



Philosophers assert that monarchy gives a central point for unity and tradition. Monarchists believe that a legitimate ruler with incomplete powers and unbiased personality can give a focus for national unity. The awards and honours of the nation, institutions, and loyalty, are contrasting to a president affiliated to a political party. It is believed that the royal family enhances the image of the UK in the world. Monarchists associate the ability of Britain to reach out and connect to other states with the political philosophy of monarchy given by its leader.

A monarch provides a distinctive sign of national identity. Its advocators say that it is a national icon which is impossible to replace sufficiently with other politician or individual. The British monarchy embodies its history and uniqueness in all aspects whether good or poor. A queen gives some kind of assurance for political continuity and a living feeling of historical continuity. Advocators of monarchy believe that this kind of continuity cannot be given by any politician because most of them are short lived. British monarchy depicts an exceptional national treasure that gives UK a sense of pride. These among others are the reasons why Britain still has a monarchy.

Arguments against the monarchy

A lot of arguments have been put forward to oppose monarchy in the United Kingdom. Many republicans emphasize that heritable monarchy is unjust and restricted. A contemporary democratic society does not support the monarchy and some people have argued against it. The system does not work towards a civilization which is comfortable with itself. The system promotes attitudes which support a past age of imperialism not practical for a modern state. Some political analysts maintain that a privileged royal family belittles a society and encourages dependency attitude in some people.

Ideally, monarchy is the opposite of democracy and denies the citizens their essential right. According to republicans who oppose the monarchy, it is a primary right of the public to choose by ballot their head of government. Moreover, it is the right of any eligible citizen to hold a political office regardless of his origin. Political analysts assert that the head of state is more answerable and accountable to the people when elected, this result to a better country. Monarchy undervalues a parliamentary system of government. Its privilege authorities can be applied to get around standard democratic process with no responsibility.

Owing to the history of Britain and in particular plots of catholic Jesuits against Protestantism, it is clear that Roman Catholics cannot inherit the crown. The monarchy is therefore considered religiously prejudiced. Republicans assert that insisting on an Anglican head of government does not fully represent the people where only a few adults practice the Anglicans. Studies suggest that exclusion basically applies to Catholics and not any other faith in the UK. By obvious virtue of narrow procreation mechanisms, monarchs fit in an evidently restricted ethnic group making it an ethnic-discriminatory regime. This results to other ethnic groups being deprived of a head of government which they can associate to. The occurrence divides the societies as only one ethnic group link their ethnic origin to the royal family giving it a feeling of authority.

Our features

300 words per page instead of 280

Discount System

Vip Services

Revision within 2 days (on demand)

Affiliate Program

Plagiarism-free papers

Monarchy encourages gender favoritism in that the British royal family utilizes male primogeniture. The crown can only be inherited by the eldest son and can only be given to the daughter if the monarch has no sons. Those against the monarch argue that the throne should be inherited by the eldest child even if it is a woman. A monarchy calls for respect especially the way the ordinary citizens are supposed to the royal. The succession in a monarchy does not depend on the qualification of a person. The republicans argue that the highest ostensible seat should be taken by a qualified person and should be open in a fair and free environment.

The members of the royal family boost their place with undeserved symbols of achievement devaluing the intelligence and achievement of the state. The queen can earn many false military titles with no traceable participation. There is unproved probability that monarchy harms the monarchs themselves. Some studies evident that that many members of the royal family have suffered sensitively from the system. Monarchs are not fair and accountable and are likely to shield their personal reasoning and motives in order to guard their interests. Republicans asserts that monarchy in the UK lacks significant independent responsibility and transparency in their governance.


Analysts claim that monarchy system is very expensive to the citizens or the tax payers. The money spent in protection of the royal family in their official undertakings is too much to the taxpayers. Republicans against the system asserts that some of their expenses are done with a lot of secrecy and defies the freedom of information. The general perception of the governance in UK makes it appear as backward, conservative and archaic. The concept is ancient and outdated and therefore the state does not have a modernized political system. However, the roles and the position of a monarchy have changed with the development of the parliament and the law courts. The political decisions are left to a political position of a prime minister. As the head of state, she continues to have some symbolic powers though some roles have been taken by the parliament. Nevertheless, British monarchy continues to be strong with many advocators who associate it with a historical sense of pride.

Order now

Related essays