Although the U.K. has perhaps the best-known monarchy in the world, it is far from unique. Within Europe, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain also function as constitutional monarchies, as do Japan and Thailand within Asia. Hereditary rulers in Africa and the Middle East (e.g. Morocco, Lesotho, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) still retain a great deal of real power. Are these Heads of State anachronisms who should be swept away in the spirit of true democracy, or do they have much to commend them at a time when the leaders of many new republics still struggle to find popular legitimacy?

So what do we think ??

__________________

NO

__________________

The concept of monarchy is undemocratic. If the monarch retains any significant political powers (as they do in Belgium and the U.K. for example) these are unjustifiable. Why should the opinion of just one person, in office purely by accident of birth, be able to influence the outcome of elections (e.g. in the U.K. if no party has an overall majority in parliament) or of political decision-making (e.g. the U.K. and Belgium again, where the monarch has to sign legislation before it becomes law)? Monarchy may also be used to prop up other unjustifiable elements within the constitution, e.g. the House of Lords in the U.K.

__________________

Still No

but they need telling about how much public money they spend esp Prince Andrew and his helicopter. Why cant he get on a train.

__________________

YES!!!

yeah cant the point of it anymore.

__________________

yes

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS

NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooo...................................... ..................