Should Britain Retain its Royal Family?

St. Patrick’s Comprehensive

-----"God save our gracious Queen, Long live our noble Queen, God Save the Queen, Send her victorious, Happy and glorious, Long to reign over us. God save the Queen"

That is the British national anthem and some Britons feel that those words ring true and proudly sing the words with the feeling that they are privileged to be ruled by a Royal Family. Others feel that the words are not true for them, and wish the monarchy would die out. An alarming question has been brought up in recent years:

"Should Britain Retain its Royal Family?"

Some say “Yes”, some say “No”. Both sides have very good reasons for choosing what they believe, but will getting rid of the monarchy actually help Britain on it\'s journey into the 21st century? I don’t agree with booting out the monarchy, but something needs to change in the Monarchy for it to survive and stay healthy for many years to come.

"Why the Monarchy Must go" was the title of an article in The Sun magazine, and it grasped my attention because I didn’t think there was much of an uproar and protest against the monarchy. Many Britons are feeling that the monarchy is not all that it\'s cracked up to be. The recent scandals’ involving the majority of the Queen’s children has really brought the monarchy to its lowest point. Carlton T.V commissioned an opinion poll for a televised debate where the topic was whether the monarchy should go or not. The poll showed the almost half of Britons believe that the Royal Family would be abolished and replaced with a republic within 50 years. Only 8% thought the Royals had high moral standards, and a third thought they were too extravagant. A quarter of the people polled didn’t think the royals did anything important, and a two-thirds wanted a referendum to decide what was going to happen to the monarchy. Deciding what to do with the Royal Family is a big question everybody’s asking in Britain.

One reason why some Britons want to throw away the monarchy is that they do not like the idea that their tax money is being used to support the tabloids\' newfound source of scandal in the form of a soap opera, the Royal Family. Donald Spoto wrote that the editor of “The Sunday Mirror” asked his readers, "What do we want, the monarchy or soap opera?" Spoto added the comment, "His readers were getting both." The trouble is that that monarchy is no longer a national symbol. Letting journalists come into the Royal Family, and take a look around has not been such a good thing for the Windsor’s. The trouble started when the Queen first gave the O.K for a BBC documentary called "Royal Family". Little did she know the trouble she was getting her family into. She justified it by thinking that is would raise their PR. It did raise their PR, but in many ways they did not want. The soap opera cycle had begun, and opening the palace walls was like prying Pandora’s box open. The journalist and reporters took action like that saying, "Give \'em an inch and they\'ll take a mile." Reporters would then ask about rumours, and then the Royals would decline to comment. This, of course, left the public to believe whatever they wanted, and they could even add more rumours because no one really knew the truth, and the Royals. As always, would still look bad in the end. Although the tabloids did not start the royal family difficulties, they intensified the fire, and there were even reports that Diana and Charles fed tabloids their own views of the failing marriage. As long as reporters are allowed to keep digging into the Royal Family’s lives and reporting about it, like they do, the Queen will fight a losing battle in trying to restore her family’s image. Encarta reports that, "Since the 1980s the public has become much more informed about the lives of the royal family due to in-depth press coverage. Two of the Queen‘s sons, Prince Charles and Prince Andrew, separated from their wives in 1992; both separations occurred amid a flurry of international press coverage. These separations were surrounded by accusations of