Long live the monarchy? Twelve countries are sovereign monarchies in Europe today. These include seven EU members (Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom), as well as Norway, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Vatican City.
Supporters argue that monarchs rise above party politics, bringing political stability, respect for tradition and a sense of national pride. Critics, meanwhile, argue that an unelected hereditary monarchy is an anachronism in a democratic society.
What do our readers think? We had a comment from Rueben arguing that the “price we pay” for hereditary, unelected monarchs is too high. He believes that monarchies are from a bygone era, and ends his comment with a stirring “Long live republics.” But is he right?
Reueben has a very good point here, but we have to look at what the institution means to the nation. Case in point, in the Netherlands the tax payer does pay for the king. He makes about 800,000 euros a year to do his kinging. But there’s something to be said for what the tax payer pays in the Netherlands; we have unity, we have steward of custodianship of the past, we have a uniting factor for the present, but we also have a crown that shouldn’t be known for the power that it has, but the power it denies overzealous politicians of really usurping the role of the crown, in wanting to be partisan. That’s what it is here.
So, it is a safeguard in the day of overzealous politicians. It is a mechanism, such as the case in point, Belgium and Spain, when the political government shuts down the people don’t suffer, because the sovereign is there. The sovereign keeps the nation going with ministers. Day-to-day business doesn’t stop, as it does in a republics like America.
Here in the United Kingdom, the taxpayer doesn’t exactly pay for the crown. It is self-sufficient through the crown estate. So, there are a few differences there. But what crowns do is a lot more value than expense.
Monarchies are indeed very expensive. Research has shown that they are far more expensive than republics. It does depend, though, on the way the heads of state of the republic is elected. If it’s a ceremonial head of state, like in Ireland or Switzerland, this can be done, for example, by parliament or by a simple election. But if it’s an executive head of state like in France, the costs are different.
But monarchies are expensive because you have to pay not only the head of state but also the whole family, and you pay them all their lives. Many of the costs connected to the monarchy are hidden in call kinds of budgets which citizens don’t see. So, even if governments say monarchies are not that expensive, you should be very reluctant to believe that and look into the actual costs of the monarchy very carefully to find out how much it costs each citizen.
Do European monarchies still have a purpose? Or are they unelected and expensive institutions from a bygone era? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
Of course they have. Some of the European monarchies are among the most democratic and civilized countries in the world. Do democracy, prosperity and civilization still have a purpose? What do you think?
Charlotta
Of course democracy, prosperity and civilization still have a purpose. In my view, monarch does not. I would not say that these European monarchies are democratic because of them being monarchies, so your argument does not hold. Take for example Sweden, in what way would it impact democracy if there would be no royal family? I would say, if anything, positively.
Nikolas
No
John-romi
Yes , the monarchies look more for the people and country , and the political parties care more the corporations and themself.
Michael
No
Maria
Yes
Павел
Yes, to spend taxpayers money.
Marco
I strongly disagree with monarchy and nobilty. the idea that a person has a specific role or dignity based on his/her ancestry is clearly contrary to the basic principle of equality among humans. Of course EU monarchies and nobilties respect the rules of democray, but it is a matter of principle. Noone should be considered more or less important because of his/her surname.
Charlotta
I fully agree with this, it preempts the comment I was planning to make. And it is indeed this principle of equality, much more than the costs, that bothers me.
Florian
Absolutely right. There is nothing to add or argue about. All other considerations are secondary and cannot outweigh such fundamental principle.
Civis
In some countries – e.g. Belgium – the monarchy is one of the few building blocks that keep a divided country together, so yes they do.
Anonymous
It wouldn’t be a huge loss if the frail state of BE would collapse.
Sheila
Yes absolutely . And proud . Better than any country with a dictator in charge.
Filipe
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, and I believe you wouldn’t like to live there.
Sheila
no i wouldn’t . But that’s a dictatorship in disguise.
Nelson
A King or Queen can be outside the political games, a President is still – in the first place – a politician… He will never quit his party and will never put the interest of the people in front of the interest of his party…
Anna
No l disagree
Betti
No
Vivian Wildeboer
Well, I think the question of whether or not they serve a purpose seems to be under discussed in the two point above. Their purpose is named in a few throwaway lines, and most of the discussion is about what they cost.
And yes, they cost a lot, but there are ways to mitigate that. But they bring something that is not easy to quantify, making it much harder to say weather or not they are ‘worth’ it.
I think certain parts can be updated, but I also see a lot of royal families are indeed modernizing, especially in Europe. Monarchies in Asia and Arabia tend to be more ‘powerful’ and conservative.
Debating Europe
A King or Queen can be outside the political games, a President is still – in the first place – a politician… He will never quit his party and will never put the interest of the people in front of the interest of his party…
Allan
No,No, a thousand times NO!
Николай
Yes to live on the back of the labor class
Sheila
And all the money they bring in from tourism. Get a life !
Николай
Rofl
Любомир
Because political parties and Presidents don’t live on the backs of taxpayers and the working class…
Николай
They are, but not for hundreds of years. Check the annual keep of any of the royals. God damn iliterarats
Paul
Since when was it obligatory for everything to have a purpose ?
Ludwig
The cost more than a football team.
Marco
Yes! One of the cornerstones to a common history and identity. Plus the royal tourism-led dollars are surely a plus.
Max
Thought that Portugal was a republic.
Marco
You are correct Max 👍🏻
Kat
I’d like to propose that tourism-led income isn’t actually as sustainable argument as many monarchists like to believe. In fact, VisitBritain.org (the UK’s national tourist agency) fails to come up with any figures to support the claim that the British Monarchy brings in money from tourists. That is, of course, to the best of my research, which could very well be countered. Would love to hear what your thoughts are! Cheers
Dennis
NO. Monarchs have no place in democracy.
Matthias
Short answer: NO!
Sárdi
Nope. Move them to the museum.
Dan
They have a purpose: leech off the population of the country in wich they claim God said they are royalty. It’s a horrible purpose, but a purpose nontheless.
Olivier
Mind your business it s not a European issue…
Debating Europe
Thanks for your comment. We launch debates on a whole range of issues which are of interest to our audience. Monarchies being one of them. Keep debating!
Irene
How rude!
Любомир
It’s not rude. How the European nations govern their own countries isn’t and shouldn’t be EU’s business. It’s entirely the business of the citizens of each country and it should be up to them, no one else.
Olivier
Debating Europe I don t Thi k that Europe should interfere in every topic… EU is not able to rules major topics such as schengen social and tax policy Gafa taxation… Foreign policy why should it interfere in national subjects. Recent election showed that many Europeans are still attached to nation
Debating Europe
Olivier, you do know we’re not the EU, right?
Olivier
well I guess you are an EU agency
Debating Europe
Olivier, nope. Sorry to disappoint.
Irene
The members of the European parliament are elected by the citizens. The European council is constituted by the prime ministers of the member states which are elected by the citizens of the countries. The leaders of each organ are also chosen by the member states’ representatives and have to be approved by the members of the European parliament.
I see elected members of parliament debating and deciding. I see elected ministers of the member states meeting and making decisions.
Olivier
Monarchy is the best symbol of people unity.. And monarchs do care about the national interest… And they are not bound by short term interest….
Filipe
The most important aspect of a political system is not whether it’s a monarchy or a republic. It’s whether it’s a democracy or a dictatorship. There are monarchies and republics of both kinds. I live in a republic and I prefer it, but I wouldn’t mind to live in a constitutional and democratic monarchy.
Helena
Entertainment and gossip?
Max
Dual citizen here. IDGAF. One of my passports is to a monarchy. The other is to a republic. That distinction makes almost zero impact on the quality of life or efficiency of government in either country or in the quality of life the everyday citizens experience.
Aaron
Definitely no!
Marc
No. We have movie stars now.
Manuel
Yes, to sell popular magazines !
Mathias
No
Luigi
Maybe not, but organized crime does, and it doesn’t seem to be much of an issue.
catherine benning
Do European monarchies still have a purpose?
It appears DE has a reluctance to discuss the full aspect of their question here regarding ‘purpose’ of such firms as monarchies.
As we move into a modern age, in a society of scientific verification, I feel it is imperative those who claim ‘special and unequal rights of birth, such as Royalty, to claim rights to millions a year from tax payers to subsidise their phenomenal wealth. Surely, they must be willing and ready to have DNA tests in order to verify their claims. A lifelong stipend of millions of pounds, annually, should be, at very least, scrutinised by those paying the bill for pretenders.
Definitely no. While I can, to some extent, sympathize with the idea of national unity in certain countries, there are also abundant examples of countries where this does not play a role. Expenses aside, this idea that someone is born into a certain role accompanied with lifelong privileges goes very much against the principle of equality. Some might argue that the role comes with duties too, but even if one would assume these duties make any sense, what makes these people best fitted for those duties? I find this idea that someone is born into something very strange in our current European context and it goes very much against the value of equal opportunities.
Rupert Strachwitz
As a died-in-the-wool democrat, I would like to point out that democracy is not the only basic principle on which modern liberal societies are built. The rule of law, human and civil rights, and our cultural traditions are the others of equal rank – as laid down many times in formal world-wide and European declarations. Since democracy does not always do as well as one might hope they do, it is highly important to uphold the others. To this end, non-elected institutions with well-defined limited powers and an imbued sense of responsibility have an important role to play as guardians and watchdogs; by and large, modern monarchies have lived up to that expectation. Also, cultural traditions are important in keeping society together in the face of a whole range of modern trends, which, not to be misunderstood, I do not deplore and would not like to see reversed. In this respect, we might learn from African kings and chieftains, who no longer enjoy any constitutional position whatsoever and are yet highly relevant for the citizens by whom they are well respected. Or look at the Tenno in Japan, whose position as a ruling monarch is arguably the weakest of all, while being held in the highest possible esteem by the people of Japan.
So, with Europe growing together, with or without the United Kingdom, the constitutional position of national heads of state, monarchs and others, may change quite fundamentally, but their role in society, and particularly that of non-political monarchs, may continue to be an important one.
Chris
Some countries are not suitable for being republics.
Hicham
No ! Monarchies are just a waste of taxpayers Money
David
Sure they do to eat tax payers Money and to deviate the people´s attentions so the corrupt polititions can get their way.
Pietro
no
Steffan
You think we are asked or allowed to vote on this? If that wasn’t enough they are excempt from justies and the rule of the country in many ways, and above the commen law. We have no ideer what they are doing and with whom, cause there is a weil around them both of regulation and of royalty. We had a saying. No one is better then other off of birth, but still we idolize our oppressors of the past.
Marco
Yes yes and yes!
Liz
For who?! For their homeless people in the front of parliament?
Любомир
This is a question that the Europeans living under monarchy are to decide for themselves. Who are we to tell them?
Steffan
You think we are asked or allowed to vote on this? If that wasn’t enough they are excempt from justies and the rule of the country in many ways, and above the commen law. We have no ideer what they are doing and with whom, cause there is a weil around them both of regulation and of royalty. We had a saying. No one is better then other off of birth, but still we idolize our oppressors of the past.
Любомир
I literally didn’t understand anything from your comment. What are you talking about?
Alfredo
More than many Presidential Republics
HJo
I think the Royals are kind of living Museum… People like to go to Museums and people like to care for the Royals.
Enric
Stability.
Anamaria
No
Sheila
Yes absolutely. Who wants a dictatorship ?
Love the Royal family .
Michael
That’s the face most of us have been making at the Bri’ish for quite awhile now. No matter how hard you stare at them, though, it never makes sense.
Miguel
short answer no (monarchy is a stupid concept since the French Revolution)
Paschalis
and presidential systems have been any better… Lol
Miguel
I prefer parlaments actualy
Marco
Monarchs serve as a symbol of national unity, of common values and history of a people. Plus, take the UK for an example, generate quite a fair amount of interest in the form of tourism
Miguel
yes… but in today day and age its a circus more than anything
Marco
that’s something you can’t control… it’s in the nature of tabloids to get as much drama as possible right?! I don’t think they would make much money otherwise.
Gabor
We need the Windsors! We need something for laugh and to have a level to know where is the bottom of everything. Every cent is worth for it.
Edgaras
There is only one monarch worthy of respect and that is Burger King
Andrea
I will quote you !
Tom
you deserve a crown for that, bro
Edgaras
@Tom I see what you did there :D
Irene
Knowing about the amount of money given to the members of the Royal family (who have no governing responsibilities as they used to have in the past) by the taxpayers and knowing about so many situations of poverty and lack of money for basic needs, I don’t understand the need of Royals with so many privileges in the 21st century.
Paul
People who think that having a predential/republic style head of state would save money are in for a rude awakening.
Macron costs the french state 3 times more (110million euros) than the civil list paid to the queen….incredibly the Italian presidency costs even more for a largely ceremonial role.
The rather more parsimonious germans spend about the same as uk (35 m)…..and as for the USA…dont even go there. ….
Bobbi
yes!!
Ilias
They are unfit for the 21st century.
Josipa
no
Dennis
No, they don’t. Monarchs consider themselves “Chosens by God”. In a democracy leader are chosen by the people, they are servants to their voters, no “chosen” or “superior” beings.
Laszlo
no
Pedro
NO
Tom
Paying taxes to keep the Royals is like paying for an opera ticket you really have no interest in attending. There’s more important issues in the world to focus upon than pampered princes and prima Donna princesses that think the world spins around their stupidities. First world problems
Nuno
Well put.
Tobias
What a stupid question! Of course not.
Gonçalo
In a democracy, where every citizen has the same rights, rich or poor, north or south, black or white, having a person that gets privileges because they come out of the right vagina is an aberration! Strip out all of the fancy rhetoric and all the pomp and pageantry, that’s what it boils down to: kings are just people that have more rights than you because they come out of the right vagina, and that should never be tolerated in a democracy.
Христо
Yes, if they are constitutional and liberal.
Dustin
No.
Γεώργιος
Τhey are secure guards of elite privileges
José
shure not
Nikolas
No, they are obsolete!
Yannick
The whole idea of entitlement via bloodline is archaic and fundamentally unfair, but they also represent a kind of historical tradition which conservatives like and it keeps the tabloid readers busy. I would prefer to do without, but it’s not the most urgent problem we have on this planet is it?
Filipe
I personally don’t like monarchies. But if the people of those countries are happy with it, that’s fine.
Pedro
It’s all about the principles: the idea of a God given right to power and wealth is anacronic since the French Revolution. Long live the Republic and it’s progressive drive.
Benny
Monarchy is the epitome of privilege and the root cause of racism because it exists on the principle that some people are born superior to others. Monarchy is anachronistic and abhorrent.
Imre
You can decide if you live in one of those countries.
Olivier
Republic is not perfect too.. And has no soul… I regret the monarchy time in France
Norm
Isn’t that a decision for the people in each country
Michael
They’re an embarrassment and sometimes lead to total constitutional incoherence. Take my country Spain as an example. The Spanish constitution literally proclaims that all Spaniards are equal before the law in one article, and in another stipulates that the position of head of state is hereditary, passing from the present holder to his first born son or, in the absence of a son, first born daughter, in perpetuity, and that the head of state has a series of special privileges and immunities before the law. This leads to the surreal spectacle of the King getting on national television and proclaiming from on high that all of us are equal before the law.
As a result of this absurd incoherence, people in Spain do not take rule of law seriously, do not take their constitution seriously, and do not take their institutions seriously. After all, if the constitution can literally contradict itself in the same breath and yet we still carry on, rule of law must not be that important to society.
So the primary purpose of the Spanish monarchy, at least, seems to be to debilitate public confidence in their institutions.
Olivier
There are the symbol of unity a cross the time and the political changes
Michael
Symbols are no substitute for good governance, solid institutions, and an educated electorate.
Chris
Get your hands off our queen.. Just need to keep trashy woke types like meghan out or it will be wrecked
Michael
Are you guys still here?
Take
The French Revolution is messed up.
Alice
Banish monarchs and their families from the European Union.
Chris
or ban the eu for the greater good
Rene
Yes, of course.. You also can ask, do Presidents have a purpose?? Every head of state has an purpose.
Andy
i am very intrested in the purpose of Donald Trump. Or is Being a clown also a purpose?
Rene
his purpose is fucking up the U. S., so yes.
Rutger
No. They are just costing us money!
Maria-Jose
No.
Stelios
No.
Javié
is very medieval, isn’t it? But of course, our king has a master in corruption
Cris
Amazing that there’s even a debate…
Stefano
The real question is ‘do the states have still a purpose’? and the answer is no! In Europe we need a common light ‘European state’ for Justice, Defence and Foreign Affairs and local communities (say Regions) connected in various ways and for various purposes.
Yannick
Yes to that: a Europe of regions is a great idea
Franco
I wonder if ” the EU have still a purpose ?
Alessandro
I didn’t know you were such a globalist!
Władysław
So you want a USSR? No thank you
René
No. We want USA.
Władysław
Europe will never be like USA. We are a product of history and cultures, USA is a product of philosophy. We are all different peoples and speak different languages, blending us under some 1 state will never work. Plus, EU doesn’t even have freedom of speech like USA does and is therefore totalitarian. We don’t want a multicultural sh*thole version of USSR, lol
Anne
Waste of space. A complete anachronism. I, for one, would not curtsy if I were introduced to a “royal”.
Meg
me too why bow and curtsy to another human being
Stuart
The French Monarchy had a Dolphin!
Rafael
at least they care about wildlife. That´s cool
Stuart
Dauphin? Porpoise? Purpose?..
Gerhard
Animal abuse isn’t “caring”.
Rafael
Well, if you ask me it was somehow quite equitative. The dolphin normally ended up crowned!
Richard
Well, I suppose that’s slightly better than having a randy Andy.
Tobias
Constitutional Monarchy > Republicanism
You can’t change my mind.
Anne
What happens if a royal inheritor turns out to be Trump lookalike
Tobias
We’ll have a Trump lookalike cutting some ribbons every now and then, instead of being the Commander in Chief of the entire army.
Simon
even if they don´t have an as clear purpose anymore, they are still an important cultural aspect of our nations. if anything, i think it is good to let them remain as designated caretakers of the historical buildings, archives, gear, etc, that they have amassed through the centuries.
let them remain as tax-based antiquarians
Ada
I like monarchy role now- they have to smile, they have to well look in pretty clothes, sometimes show solidarity with common citizens. And that’s all.
Good roles for people don’t like to show how smart are they. Good deal, for me.
Anne
that’s a lot of money for very little return!
Ada
citizens need that.
I’m common citizen, i like to see what happen with Kate Middleton for example.
That separate me from gray, sad citizen reality.
Alessandro
Yes….if the UK constitutional charters stay the same…
Mathias
2020! It’s time for a republic
Heinrich
Do president have a role? about 49% of the porpulation dislike the president after and election. In almost every democratic country that is the case. Thing about it, the leader of the state has almost half the porpulation aginst them, at any given time. Yet they shall stand as a leader for the entire porpulation in a crisis. They shal create a national unity. That is almost impossible if 49% of the porpulation dislike you. Eksemple that is the case in Denmark, were it is the attuide towards the prime minister. But the Queen has approval rating of 80% of the porpulation. In a monarchy you have the goverment to either be with or against. And you still have a Leader that are able to create national unity. Without being a dictatorship.
Janet
Yes absolutely. As one who benefited greatly from their worldwide popularity and ability to create employment I think they’re worth my £1.24 per year. I’d even pay quite a lot more.
Nadia
Ok, maybe make it optional then.
Vialard
No!
Stuart
Seriously, how can anyone in UK say they would prefer an elected head of state instead of the queen. Look at the type of people we elect.
Nadia
Lots of countries have Presidents. If they manage, what’s Britain’s problem? Mind you, there are other countries in Europe that also have monarchs…For now anyway!
Joel
Leave it to the member states, and minimise their political power. If a member state wishes to maintain a symbolic hereditary head of state, the European bubble messing with it will only fuel unneeded populism.
Kevin
Smash the monarchy. Ni Dieu, ni maître.
Wulf
Republic, republic.
Wilfried
Hereditary positions in a democracy?
Erwin
Monarchs – symbolic as they may be nowadays – still claim exclusive and unconditional sovereignty over “their” land, anointed by God himself.
This is incompatible with a secular, federal Europe. Such a system – whatever it may look like – would challenge that claim, because it needs to exercise power over all member States equally. Any federalist must therefore unambiguously oppose monarchy.
Helene
No!
Jànos
Outdated waste of money
Arno
In The Netherlands the taxpayers do not fund the monarch anymore.
Maybe UK could follow?
Arnout
that’s not rly true. You could say it made them richer as they now live in palaces payed and maintained by us. Previously they had to pay it themselves.
And sofar I know they still get money..
Arno
ik dacht dat hun uitkering stopgezet was? My bad…
Adeline
Yes!
Arnout
Nope, undemocratic.
Denis
Up. The. Republic.
Farah
They are simply pointless and expensive
Arnold
They stop some power hungry climber becoming head of state. Expensive bu t fairly harmelss
Stewart
Tourism?
Edward
They are propaganda for perpetuating inherited privilege. They should be abolished. Stewart no, France has more visitors than the UK (and all the tourist attractions would survive abolition, even the changing of the guard though why anyone wants to stand in the middle of a roundabout waiting to see some soldiers do drill in the distance beats me), people go to Spain for the weather not for its King, to Norway for the fjords, to Belgium for the beer and to the Netherlands for the canals and the tulips.
Baudouin
In Belgium, the monarchy is very cheap.
It represents the cement and a garantee of unity of a very divided nation, so without monarchy, most of the citizen have the feeling that this could be the end of the country.
I think that monarchies or republics are not a European affair.
We could have a sincere federalism without interfering in the local institutions.
David
The Danish monarchy is loved by the people of Denmark !
Kristina
For me a significant moment of devaluing and undermining the monarchy in the UK was when the Prime Minister decided to lie to the Queen in September 2019. Subsequently, he did apologise, however, She did not respond appropriately – any other PM would have been sacked. So, yes, for me monarchies (at least in the UK) have lost their ‘moral compass’ and hence have no purpose. Not even mentioning discredited Prince Andrew. Hope that makes sense.
By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.
177 comments Post a commentcomment
Yes
and which? tabloid employment?
Of course they have. Some of the European monarchies are among the most democratic and civilized countries in the world. Do democracy, prosperity and civilization still have a purpose? What do you think?
Of course democracy, prosperity and civilization still have a purpose. In my view, monarch does not. I would not say that these European monarchies are democratic because of them being monarchies, so your argument does not hold. Take for example Sweden, in what way would it impact democracy if there would be no royal family? I would say, if anything, positively.
No
Yes , the monarchies look more for the people and country , and the political parties care more the corporations and themself.
No
Yes
Yes, to spend taxpayers money.
I strongly disagree with monarchy and nobilty. the idea that a person has a specific role or dignity based on his/her ancestry is clearly contrary to the basic principle of equality among humans. Of course EU monarchies and nobilties respect the rules of democray, but it is a matter of principle. Noone should be considered more or less important because of his/her surname.
I fully agree with this, it preempts the comment I was planning to make. And it is indeed this principle of equality, much more than the costs, that bothers me.
Absolutely right. There is nothing to add or argue about. All other considerations are secondary and cannot outweigh such fundamental principle.
In some countries – e.g. Belgium – the monarchy is one of the few building blocks that keep a divided country together, so yes they do.
It wouldn’t be a huge loss if the frail state of BE would collapse.
Yes absolutely . And proud . Better than any country with a dictator in charge.
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, and I believe you wouldn’t like to live there.
no i wouldn’t . But that’s a dictatorship in disguise.
A King or Queen can be outside the political games, a President is still – in the first place – a politician… He will never quit his party and will never put the interest of the people in front of the interest of his party…
No l disagree
No
Well, I think the question of whether or not they serve a purpose seems to be under discussed in the two point above. Their purpose is named in a few throwaway lines, and most of the discussion is about what they cost.
And yes, they cost a lot, but there are ways to mitigate that. But they bring something that is not easy to quantify, making it much harder to say weather or not they are ‘worth’ it.
I think certain parts can be updated, but I also see a lot of royal families are indeed modernizing, especially in Europe. Monarchies in Asia and Arabia tend to be more ‘powerful’ and conservative.
A King or Queen can be outside the political games, a President is still – in the first place – a politician… He will never quit his party and will never put the interest of the people in front of the interest of his party…
No,No, a thousand times NO!
Yes to live on the back of the labor class
And all the money they bring in from tourism. Get a life !
Rofl
Because political parties and Presidents don’t live on the backs of taxpayers and the working class…
They are, but not for hundreds of years. Check the annual keep of any of the royals. God damn iliterarats
Since when was it obligatory for everything to have a purpose ?
The cost more than a football team.
Yes! One of the cornerstones to a common history and identity. Plus the royal tourism-led dollars are surely a plus.
Thought that Portugal was a republic.
You are correct Max 👍🏻
I’d like to propose that tourism-led income isn’t actually as sustainable argument as many monarchists like to believe. In fact, VisitBritain.org (the UK’s national tourist agency) fails to come up with any figures to support the claim that the British Monarchy brings in money from tourists. That is, of course, to the best of my research, which could very well be countered. Would love to hear what your thoughts are! Cheers
NO. Monarchs have no place in democracy.
Short answer: NO!
Nope. Move them to the museum.
They have a purpose: leech off the population of the country in wich they claim God said they are royalty. It’s a horrible purpose, but a purpose nontheless.
Mind your business it s not a European issue…
Thanks for your comment. We launch debates on a whole range of issues which are of interest to our audience. Monarchies being one of them. Keep debating!
How rude!
It’s not rude. How the European nations govern their own countries isn’t and shouldn’t be EU’s business. It’s entirely the business of the citizens of each country and it should be up to them, no one else.
Debating Europe I don t Thi k that Europe should interfere in every topic… EU is not able to rules major topics such as schengen social and tax policy Gafa taxation… Foreign policy why should it interfere in national subjects. Recent election showed that many Europeans are still attached to nation
Olivier, you do know we’re not the EU, right?
well I guess you are an EU agency
Olivier, nope. Sorry to disappoint.
The members of the European parliament are elected by the citizens. The European council is constituted by the prime ministers of the member states which are elected by the citizens of the countries. The leaders of each organ are also chosen by the member states’ representatives and have to be approved by the members of the European parliament.
I see elected members of parliament debating and deciding. I see elected ministers of the member states meeting and making decisions.
Monarchy is the best symbol of people unity.. And monarchs do care about the national interest… And they are not bound by short term interest….
The most important aspect of a political system is not whether it’s a monarchy or a republic. It’s whether it’s a democracy or a dictatorship. There are monarchies and republics of both kinds. I live in a republic and I prefer it, but I wouldn’t mind to live in a constitutional and democratic monarchy.
Entertainment and gossip?
Dual citizen here. IDGAF. One of my passports is to a monarchy. The other is to a republic. That distinction makes almost zero impact on the quality of life or efficiency of government in either country or in the quality of life the everyday citizens experience.
Definitely no!
No. We have movie stars now.
Yes, to sell popular magazines !
No
Maybe not, but organized crime does, and it doesn’t seem to be much of an issue.
Do European monarchies still have a purpose?
It appears DE has a reluctance to discuss the full aspect of their question here regarding ‘purpose’ of such firms as monarchies.
As we move into a modern age, in a society of scientific verification, I feel it is imperative those who claim ‘special and unequal rights of birth, such as Royalty, to claim rights to millions a year from tax payers to subsidise their phenomenal wealth. Surely, they must be willing and ready to have DNA tests in order to verify their claims. A lifelong stipend of millions of pounds, annually, should be, at very least, scrutinised by those paying the bill for pretenders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=641Oyk3d5HM
none what so ever
Definitely no. While I can, to some extent, sympathize with the idea of national unity in certain countries, there are also abundant examples of countries where this does not play a role. Expenses aside, this idea that someone is born into a certain role accompanied with lifelong privileges goes very much against the principle of equality. Some might argue that the role comes with duties too, but even if one would assume these duties make any sense, what makes these people best fitted for those duties? I find this idea that someone is born into something very strange in our current European context and it goes very much against the value of equal opportunities.
As a died-in-the-wool democrat, I would like to point out that democracy is not the only basic principle on which modern liberal societies are built. The rule of law, human and civil rights, and our cultural traditions are the others of equal rank – as laid down many times in formal world-wide and European declarations. Since democracy does not always do as well as one might hope they do, it is highly important to uphold the others. To this end, non-elected institutions with well-defined limited powers and an imbued sense of responsibility have an important role to play as guardians and watchdogs; by and large, modern monarchies have lived up to that expectation. Also, cultural traditions are important in keeping society together in the face of a whole range of modern trends, which, not to be misunderstood, I do not deplore and would not like to see reversed. In this respect, we might learn from African kings and chieftains, who no longer enjoy any constitutional position whatsoever and are yet highly relevant for the citizens by whom they are well respected. Or look at the Tenno in Japan, whose position as a ruling monarch is arguably the weakest of all, while being held in the highest possible esteem by the people of Japan.
So, with Europe growing together, with or without the United Kingdom, the constitutional position of national heads of state, monarchs and others, may change quite fundamentally, but their role in society, and particularly that of non-political monarchs, may continue to be an important one.
Some countries are not suitable for being republics.
No ! Monarchies are just a waste of taxpayers Money
Sure they do to eat tax payers Money and to deviate the people´s attentions so the corrupt polititions can get their way.
no
You think we are asked or allowed to vote on this? If that wasn’t enough they are excempt from justies and the rule of the country in many ways, and above the commen law. We have no ideer what they are doing and with whom, cause there is a weil around them both of regulation and of royalty. We had a saying. No one is better then other off of birth, but still we idolize our oppressors of the past.
Yes yes and yes!
For who?! For their homeless people in the front of parliament?
This is a question that the Europeans living under monarchy are to decide for themselves. Who are we to tell them?
You think we are asked or allowed to vote on this? If that wasn’t enough they are excempt from justies and the rule of the country in many ways, and above the commen law. We have no ideer what they are doing and with whom, cause there is a weil around them both of regulation and of royalty. We had a saying. No one is better then other off of birth, but still we idolize our oppressors of the past.
I literally didn’t understand anything from your comment. What are you talking about?
More than many Presidential Republics
I think the Royals are kind of living Museum… People like to go to Museums and people like to care for the Royals.
Stability.
No
Yes absolutely. Who wants a dictatorship ?
Love the Royal family .
That’s the face most of us have been making at the Bri’ish for quite awhile now. No matter how hard you stare at them, though, it never makes sense.
short answer no (monarchy is a stupid concept since the French Revolution)
and presidential systems have been any better… Lol
I prefer parlaments actualy
Monarchs serve as a symbol of national unity, of common values and history of a people. Plus, take the UK for an example, generate quite a fair amount of interest in the form of tourism
yes… but in today day and age its a circus more than anything
that’s something you can’t control… it’s in the nature of tabloids to get as much drama as possible right?! I don’t think they would make much money otherwise.
We need the Windsors! We need something for laugh and to have a level to know where is the bottom of everything. Every cent is worth for it.
There is only one monarch worthy of respect and that is Burger King
I will quote you !
you deserve a crown for that, bro
@Tom I see what you did there :D
Knowing about the amount of money given to the members of the Royal family (who have no governing responsibilities as they used to have in the past) by the taxpayers and knowing about so many situations of poverty and lack of money for basic needs, I don’t understand the need of Royals with so many privileges in the 21st century.
People who think that having a predential/republic style head of state would save money are in for a rude awakening.
Macron costs the french state 3 times more (110million euros) than the civil list paid to the queen….incredibly the Italian presidency costs even more for a largely ceremonial role.
The rather more parsimonious germans spend about the same as uk (35 m)…..and as for the USA…dont even go there. ….
yes!!
They are unfit for the 21st century.
no
No, they don’t. Monarchs consider themselves “Chosens by God”. In a democracy leader are chosen by the people, they are servants to their voters, no “chosen” or “superior” beings.
no
NO
Paying taxes to keep the Royals is like paying for an opera ticket you really have no interest in attending. There’s more important issues in the world to focus upon than pampered princes and prima Donna princesses that think the world spins around their stupidities. First world problems
Well put.
What a stupid question! Of course not.
In a democracy, where every citizen has the same rights, rich or poor, north or south, black or white, having a person that gets privileges because they come out of the right vagina is an aberration! Strip out all of the fancy rhetoric and all the pomp and pageantry, that’s what it boils down to: kings are just people that have more rights than you because they come out of the right vagina, and that should never be tolerated in a democracy.
Yes, if they are constitutional and liberal.
No.
Τhey are secure guards of elite privileges
shure not
No, they are obsolete!
The whole idea of entitlement via bloodline is archaic and fundamentally unfair, but they also represent a kind of historical tradition which conservatives like and it keeps the tabloid readers busy. I would prefer to do without, but it’s not the most urgent problem we have on this planet is it?
I personally don’t like monarchies. But if the people of those countries are happy with it, that’s fine.
It’s all about the principles: the idea of a God given right to power and wealth is anacronic since the French Revolution. Long live the Republic and it’s progressive drive.
Monarchy is the epitome of privilege and the root cause of racism because it exists on the principle that some people are born superior to others. Monarchy is anachronistic and abhorrent.
You can decide if you live in one of those countries.
Republic is not perfect too.. And has no soul… I regret the monarchy time in France
Isn’t that a decision for the people in each country
They’re an embarrassment and sometimes lead to total constitutional incoherence. Take my country Spain as an example. The Spanish constitution literally proclaims that all Spaniards are equal before the law in one article, and in another stipulates that the position of head of state is hereditary, passing from the present holder to his first born son or, in the absence of a son, first born daughter, in perpetuity, and that the head of state has a series of special privileges and immunities before the law. This leads to the surreal spectacle of the King getting on national television and proclaiming from on high that all of us are equal before the law.
As a result of this absurd incoherence, people in Spain do not take rule of law seriously, do not take their constitution seriously, and do not take their institutions seriously. After all, if the constitution can literally contradict itself in the same breath and yet we still carry on, rule of law must not be that important to society.
So the primary purpose of the Spanish monarchy, at least, seems to be to debilitate public confidence in their institutions.
There are the symbol of unity a cross the time and the political changes
Symbols are no substitute for good governance, solid institutions, and an educated electorate.
Get your hands off our queen.. Just need to keep trashy woke types like meghan out or it will be wrecked
Are you guys still here?
The French Revolution is messed up.
Banish monarchs and their families from the European Union.
or ban the eu for the greater good
Yes, of course.. You also can ask, do Presidents have a purpose?? Every head of state has an purpose.
i am very intrested in the purpose of Donald Trump. Or is Being a clown also a purpose?
his purpose is fucking up the U. S., so yes.
No. They are just costing us money!
No.
No.
is very medieval, isn’t it? But of course, our king has a master in corruption
Amazing that there’s even a debate…
The real question is ‘do the states have still a purpose’? and the answer is no! In Europe we need a common light ‘European state’ for Justice, Defence and Foreign Affairs and local communities (say Regions) connected in various ways and for various purposes.
Yes to that: a Europe of regions is a great idea
I wonder if ” the EU have still a purpose ?
I didn’t know you were such a globalist!
So you want a USSR? No thank you
No. We want USA.
Europe will never be like USA. We are a product of history and cultures, USA is a product of philosophy. We are all different peoples and speak different languages, blending us under some 1 state will never work. Plus, EU doesn’t even have freedom of speech like USA does and is therefore totalitarian. We don’t want a multicultural sh*thole version of USSR, lol
Waste of space. A complete anachronism. I, for one, would not curtsy if I were introduced to a “royal”.
me too why bow and curtsy to another human being
The French Monarchy had a Dolphin!
at least they care about wildlife. That´s cool
Dauphin? Porpoise? Purpose?..
Animal abuse isn’t “caring”.
Well, if you ask me it was somehow quite equitative. The dolphin normally ended up crowned!
Well, I suppose that’s slightly better than having a randy Andy.
Constitutional Monarchy > Republicanism
You can’t change my mind.
What happens if a royal inheritor turns out to be Trump lookalike
We’ll have a Trump lookalike cutting some ribbons every now and then, instead of being the Commander in Chief of the entire army.
even if they don´t have an as clear purpose anymore, they are still an important cultural aspect of our nations. if anything, i think it is good to let them remain as designated caretakers of the historical buildings, archives, gear, etc, that they have amassed through the centuries.
let them remain as tax-based antiquarians
I like monarchy role now- they have to smile, they have to well look in pretty clothes, sometimes show solidarity with common citizens. And that’s all.
Good roles for people don’t like to show how smart are they. Good deal, for me.
that’s a lot of money for very little return!
citizens need that.
I’m common citizen, i like to see what happen with Kate Middleton for example.
That separate me from gray, sad citizen reality.
Yes….if the UK constitutional charters stay the same…
2020! It’s time for a republic
Do president have a role? about 49% of the porpulation dislike the president after and election. In almost every democratic country that is the case. Thing about it, the leader of the state has almost half the porpulation aginst them, at any given time. Yet they shall stand as a leader for the entire porpulation in a crisis. They shal create a national unity. That is almost impossible if 49% of the porpulation dislike you. Eksemple that is the case in Denmark, were it is the attuide towards the prime minister. But the Queen has approval rating of 80% of the porpulation. In a monarchy you have the goverment to either be with or against. And you still have a Leader that are able to create national unity. Without being a dictatorship.
Yes absolutely. As one who benefited greatly from their worldwide popularity and ability to create employment I think they’re worth my £1.24 per year. I’d even pay quite a lot more.
Ok, maybe make it optional then.
No!
Seriously, how can anyone in UK say they would prefer an elected head of state instead of the queen. Look at the type of people we elect.
Lots of countries have Presidents. If they manage, what’s Britain’s problem? Mind you, there are other countries in Europe that also have monarchs…For now anyway!
Leave it to the member states, and minimise their political power. If a member state wishes to maintain a symbolic hereditary head of state, the European bubble messing with it will only fuel unneeded populism.
Smash the monarchy. Ni Dieu, ni maître.
Republic, republic.
Hereditary positions in a democracy?
Monarchs – symbolic as they may be nowadays – still claim exclusive and unconditional sovereignty over “their” land, anointed by God himself.
This is incompatible with a secular, federal Europe. Such a system – whatever it may look like – would challenge that claim, because it needs to exercise power over all member States equally. Any federalist must therefore unambiguously oppose monarchy.
No!
Outdated waste of money
In The Netherlands the taxpayers do not fund the monarch anymore.
Maybe UK could follow?
that’s not rly true. You could say it made them richer as they now live in palaces payed and maintained by us. Previously they had to pay it themselves.
And sofar I know they still get money..
ik dacht dat hun uitkering stopgezet was? My bad…
Yes!
Nope, undemocratic.
Up. The. Republic.
They are simply pointless and expensive
They stop some power hungry climber becoming head of state. Expensive bu t fairly harmelss
Tourism?
They are propaganda for perpetuating inherited privilege. They should be abolished. Stewart no, France has more visitors than the UK (and all the tourist attractions would survive abolition, even the changing of the guard though why anyone wants to stand in the middle of a roundabout waiting to see some soldiers do drill in the distance beats me), people go to Spain for the weather not for its King, to Norway for the fjords, to Belgium for the beer and to the Netherlands for the canals and the tulips.
In Belgium, the monarchy is very cheap.
It represents the cement and a garantee of unity of a very divided nation, so without monarchy, most of the citizen have the feeling that this could be the end of the country.
I think that monarchies or republics are not a European affair.
We could have a sincere federalism without interfering in the local institutions.
The Danish monarchy is loved by the people of Denmark !
For me a significant moment of devaluing and undermining the monarchy in the UK was when the Prime Minister decided to lie to the Queen in September 2019. Subsequently, he did apologise, however, She did not respond appropriately – any other PM would have been sacked. So, yes, for me monarchies (at least in the UK) have lost their ‘moral compass’ and hence have no purpose. Not even mentioning discredited Prince Andrew. Hope that makes sense.