The Royal Family's Influence: A Critical Look at Monarchy and Modern Values

The recent hype about Megan Markle’s past association with Prince Andrew and the Soho club has become a global concern. The Royal family in fact has always managed to attract publicity both negatively and positively, but their influence remains global. 

Many of us question what makes these individuals unique or rather different to the rest of us and the truth holds, there is nothing other than their ability to access a privileged lifestyle, fame and association with the world’s global elite and leaders. 

People often follow their lifestyle, their public presentation and some question their value to society. It is only in recent years that the accountability and unaccountability of lifestyle expenses have become public knowledge.

We recently were privy of Prince Andrew being removed from the royal residence permanently but prior to that we were unaware of the exact cost of their lifestyles which they automatically have inherited by birth. 

This system is autonomous, undemocratic and exclusive. A system which perpetuates inequalities of colonial history, patriarchy, class divisions and a way of life that maintains hierarchical structures and regimes of the past. 

It is fascinating to note that the British Monarchy can hold their prominence and position in a world which is increasingly becoming expressive through the multiple social media platforms and traditional mass media platforms.

Young British choose not to support the Monarchy, and it has been recorded that the young 40-year-olds in Britain most likely do not support the Monarchy in Britain most likely does not support the Monarchy because they have personal values that are associated with equality and the development of an equal, accountable and transparent political structure. 

The recent coronation of Prince Charles was only watched by half of Britain’s population which indicates their declining popularity, yet globally people are concerned about the past lifestyle of Megan Markle, their daughter-in-law.

 The fact remains that the English masses are still powerless next to the monarchy. For decades there has been no equity, and their political structure has never been modified to accommodate a public participatory approach or a democratic one. 

The royals maintain significant amount of power and dictate regulations and solely make decisions exclusively without embracing the multiple perspectives and needs of the public. 

Members are never voted in by the public into their positions but are appointed there through birthplace and hereditary.

This hereditary monarchy erodes the development of a culture that encourages the upkeep of human rights for every human being. The unequal system is only continually perpetuated through multiple regulations often determined by the Royal family themselves. 

King Charles for instance is exempt from civil and criminal proceedings under the legality of an existing sovereign’s immunity. 

Police too are not permitted to enter private royal estates without the sovereign’s permission to investigate suspected crimes.

If the United Kingdom had to initiate an election, it is difficult to imagine how the royal family would campaign, after all they have positions that are unearned and attained through bloodlines.  

Prince Charles’ inheritance has exceeded the amount of 1.8 billion US dollars and nor does this pay have to pay inheritance tax like many other citizens. 

Other British citizens are required to pay the Royal family an annual sovereign grant which amounts to millions of pounds annually. 

Similarly, the House of Saud, the ruling dynasty in Saudi Arabia, is worth an estimated $1.4 trillion, and the King of Thailand holds wealth and assets worth an estimated $40 billion.

A human rights culture requires social progress, and it is obvious that there has been a systematic and detailed approach to hoarding the nature’s resources. 

This is wealth that can aid the development of the underprivileged and poor in Thailand and in Asia. These staggering amounts of wealth can impact the development of the poor by improving their living standards.

The Thai government can utilise these funds to invest in infrastructure that needs restoration and refurbishment as well as the development of resources. 

This can be easily identified as global hoarding and is in opposition to the values of human rights, collective growth of society and social mobility for all. More importantly, freedom of expression and assembly are central to the sustainable development of a human rights culture within a society.

The king's coronation attracted protestors who were man-handled by the police which is indicative of how fundamental rights are disrespected and not tolerated if they cause an inconvenience to the monarchy. 

The new Public Order Act, encompassing a controversial expansion of police powers to stamp out peaceful protest, was hastily passed into law just days before the coronation, despite the United Nations high commissioner for human rights and other prominent voices calling for it to be reversed.

The Monarchy of Great Britain threatens and stifles progress among 14 Commonwealth nations. It has been reported that many of these nations would prefer independence from Britain and the establishment of an elected head of state. At present, King Charles is the head of state. If this happens these nations will enjoy autonomy and self-determination in the future.

If the British monarchy dismantles it could then encourage the dismantling of other monarch states around the world which would encourage global development built on principles of equity and democracy. 

We have developed a thinking pattern that condoned this political structure, and the outcome has been a superficial perception that it is right and appreciated. 

In the 21st century, hereditary monarchies should not be perceived as right, elitist and superior. 

There basic functionality is a threat to the human rights of people globally. Should they continue to proceed as they are? 

*The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper.

DAILY NEWS