This is a short article that will explain why the monarchy is the enemy of the state.
Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom has a personal net worth of £310 million ($500m) as of April 2012, according to Sunday Times Rich List. Which is double the cost of the Dutch monarchy making it the most expensive monarchy in Europe, 112 times more expensive than the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi presidential system. The queen’s wealth comes from property holdings including Balmoral Castle in the Scottish Highlands, stud farms, a fruit farm and marine land throughout the U.K.; extensive art and fine jewelry; and one of the world’s largest stamp collections built by her grandfather. Not included are those assets belonging to the Crown Estate, which she gets to enjoy as Queen, such as $10 billion worth of real estate, Buckingham Palace (estimated to be worth another $5 billion), the Royal Art collection, and unmarked swans on stretches of the Thames. The Crown has claimed ownership of these birds since the 12th century when swan meat was considered a delicacy; they are no longer eaten. The Queen also receives an annual government stipend of $12.9 million. (source: The rich list)
So do you think the Queen is worth all this money? She is born into a role without any thought of merit, but just because of who her parents were. Does this even make sense?
Monarchy denies the people a basic right
We believe that it should be a fundamental right of the people of any nation to elect their head of state and for every citizen to be eligible to hold that office. It is argued such a head of state is more accountable to the people, and that such accountability to the people creates a better nation.
Monarchy devalues a parliamentary system
Monarchical prerogative powers can be used to circumvent normal democratic process with no accountability, and such processes are more desirable than not for any given nation-state.
A monarchy demands deference
We believe that the way citizens are expected to address members, however junior, of the royal family is part of an attempt to keep subjects 'in their place'.
The monarchy makes the UK seem Backward
We argue that the monarchy is to be considered embarrassing: as a concept it is archaic, too reminiscent of medieval feudalism, and while the UK has a hereditary head of state it cannot claim to be a modern nation.
It is the enemy of merit and aspiration
The order of succession in a monarchy specifies a person who will become head of state, regardless of qualifications. The highest titular office in the land is not open to "free and fair competition". Also it means that merit is pointless as no matter what someone does, the next in line will become head of state regardless of merit. Some say prime minster is the real position of power and can be aspired to but at the end of the day the prime minster still answers to the Queen. Further more it devalues intellect as many monarchs have symbols of achievement which despite having no experience still hold (e.g. The Queen is a colonel in chief despite a distinct lack in military achievement or experience).
Debunking of Arguments For
A British Republic has already been tested and failed
This is simply because back then society was not ready for a republic and now society, people and technology has changed. This means we are now able to bring about a republic. Also what must not be forgotten is the meritocracy element of our republic which is aimed to iron out the creases left in a republic.
Monarchy can be complementary to rather than a replacement for democracy
Democracy is "by the people, for the people" as it would seem the Queen is not the people she is above the people as she refers to us as "subjects" and is not voted into her position.
Provides a focal point for unity and tradition
With the ever growing multiculturalism of Britain a christian head of state simply does not make sense. Even if you argue that they are foreigners the number of young people, born into a science and technology age, converting to atheism is huge, but clearly the census has not picked up on this.
Can be a safeguard
First many say that it's a safeguard to prevent instability and breach of constitutional rights however with the Reset team plus abolishment of party politics this is no longer a problem for a Meritocracy.
Costs will stay at the same level anyway
Some say costs will remain the same however with social capitalism in place, plus the fact the bill is in fact a lot larger than the state says it is, then costs will definitely be reduced.
War and The Horrible History
To prevent boring you with war and history I will make it simple. The crown, during over 1000 years of the united land we call england, has led the people of this country into many wars and conquests wasting plenty of lives. This includes the crusades, the 100 years war and, most notably, the rise of the british empire that also enslaved millions of people.