by Celia Craske

Created on: June 01, 2006   Last Updated: April 19, 2007

Something should only be abolished if it is in the interest of the majority to do so, and if the alternative offers any real advantages.

Before we abolish the British monarchy, we need to examine the alternative and decide whether it really would be to our advantage.

Since the English Civil War the monarchy has acted as a figurehead only, with all real power vested in parliament. There are undoubtably ways in which the monarchy could be reformed such as the right of lesser members of the family to receive income from the public purse but this could be done by Act of Parliament.

Being hereditary has given a feeling of continuity. Regardless of how many times control of the government changes from one party to another, the monarch remains the same.

If the monarchy were abolished and replaced by a republic, the president unlike the monarch would have political power - this raises the question of how this would affect the position of the British Prime Minister who at present takes on the role of head of government at all but ceremonial occasions.

Unfortunately having a president is not a guarantee that the most able person will be selected. We live in a world where money rules. Although other countries may not have a monarchy, many have political dynasties - the Bush's and Kennedy's in USA, the Gandhi's in India.

Any head of state will cost the state money, the advantage to the British Government is that they alone have the power to decide how much.

Is there really any advantage in abolition?

Learn more about this author, Celia Craske.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.