Is the royal family worth keeping?

Last year should have been a good year for the Monarchy. It was the Queen's Golden Jubilee. Just think of it, 50 years on the throne. Life is always made up of highs and lows and it is no different for queens.

Princess Margaret died and so did the Queen Mother. She reached the grand age of 101 but still managed to perform most of her public duties until the end.

Our Queen went into the Jubilee celebrations without her two closest relations.

She still had the Duke but there must have been times she looked for those two dear faces in the crowds.

This is what monarchy is all about. Service for your country: the country always comes first.

Your whole life must be lived out in the glare of the media.

It is not like living in the Big Brother house for a few weeks: it's for keeps. It's a wonder anyone would take this on.

The Queen's Jubilee was a triumph enjoyed by millions nation-wide and world-wide.

The popularity of the monarchy was at its height.

Then we had the Paul Burrell affair and allegations of male rape within Prince Charles' household.

More heartache for the Queen yet she faces all this with courage and quiet dignity.

Her mother trained her well.

Political leaders have spin-doctors and image-makers, but usually what you see isn't what you get.

The Queen is just the person that she is. Most people who have met her say she comes over exactly as she appears on the television.

Now it's 2003 and our country is at war. The Queen will carry on for as long as as her health permits.

Let us hope she takes after her mother.

Charles is next in line and has two sons, William and Harry.

I should like to think that the future of the Monarchy is assured. Governments come and go, but we need the stability of our monarchy.

The royals make mistakes because they are human, not machines. In the case of Charles, he has perhaps been ill-advised.

But if the Queen is replaced with a political leader they in turn will make mistakes.

The cost of keeping the royals will still apply to a political leader.

Our Monarchy has served us well.

The Queen is able to be above political in-fighting, which is what gives this nation its stability.

To those who would abolish the monarchy, I say we have tried it It was an experiment that failed.

Remember Oliver Cromwell?

After his death the monarchy was restored in the form of Charles II.

We fail to learn the lessons of history at our peril.

For more than 50 glorious years, we thank you Ma'am.

That is why I say God Bless the Queen.

No... says Dr Simon Parker, Lecturer in Politics at the University of York

One year on from the Queen Mother's death, the House of Windsor should be basking in the warm glow of a successful golden jubilee. Yet the collapse of the expensive and politically-damaging Paul Burrell trial, allegations of male rape and the sale of gifts by members of Prince Charles' staff have cast a dark shadow over the royal household.

What the Burrell trial and even the recent Peat Report reveal is the monarchy cannot be an open, relevant, and 'modern' institution while behaving as if different rules and codes of conduct apply to its members and household.

The life and death of Princess Diana has made it impossible for the House of Windsor to escape the glare of publicity, and it has become increasingly obvious that it is the Queen's professional and determined leadership, rather than the institution itself, that has kept The Firm in business for more than half a century.

This is demonstrated by the fact that, given the choice, the British would overwhelmingly prefer Prince William, rather than his father, to be the next king. But if the monarchy is to mean anything, it must be based on a common consensus of the value of the institution, not the popularity of the present, or future, incumbent of the throne.

The issue for many who disagree with the monarchy is not one of royal personalities, but one of democracy and citizenship.

To be a British subject, rather than a British citizen, implies a hierarchy of social relations and political power which undermines the principles of an inclusive, democratic society.

In France, Germany and the US 'the people' are sovereign in their national assemblies, in their courts and their relations with other heads of state.

In Britain we defer to an unaccountable, wealthy dynasty which combines the roles of head of state with the leadership of an established Protestant church. The patronage and the distribution of honours which flow from the royal prerogative does not democratise the political process, but negates it by encouraging political favouritism and cronyism.

Prince Charles may say he is the 'defender of faiths' but the Act of Settlement prevents him, or his eldest son, from ever marrying a Catholic in open contravention of the Human Rights Act signed by his own mother!

The age of deference, which lent such important support to the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, is at an end.

Instead, financial greed, public prurience and the complicity of some members of the royal family have turned the House of Windsor into a tabloid spectacle. Disestablishing the monarchy would give legitimacy to an elected head of state around whom a genuinely democratic parliament and nation can be constructed in which the equal rights of all British citizens can be loudly proclaimed. I hope we can celebrate the retirement of our monarch as an affectionate finale to a world we have left behind.

Updated: 10:26 Friday, March 28, 2003