Why The Monarchy Has No Place in Today's Britain

This old chestnut.

For years, citizens of the UK (and in fact other parts of the world) have debated about the position of the UK's monarchy, arguably the most famous monarchy to ever exist. Today, this debate has started again after Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, said that if her party had the power, they would scrap the monarchy and build more council houses. She then joked that she would even give the Queen one if it was necessary.

Natalie Bennett's joke was portrayed wrong in the media.

This joke has sparked discussion between those who are pro and anti-Royal. On the pro side people argue that the Royal Family brings in more money than is spent. On the anti-Royal side, they argue that this figure is actually false and costs the taxpayer more than they get back. They also state that it makes the system undemocratic - if it wasn't already.

If we look at it on a personal level, I think the Queen seems like a lovely old lady, William and Kate look great together and are great role models for the Royal Family. Harry is polite enough and down to earth and Philip - well, Philip's a character to say the least. They are fairly interesting people and even if she is a millionaire, you'd feel bad kicking little old Liz out of her house.

She's adorable, but she's costing too much. 

However, the monarchy is an outdated part of our country. We may love it when the Queen visits our town - to this day I can't believe that the Queen came to Greenock - but step back a minute. Forget that she is the Queen and think of what she is: a posh pensioner who gets top security and free holidays because she was born to the right family. It's hard to believe that we respect a woman who was lucky to be born into the most untouchable family in the world. It shows that the title of King or Queen gives you an untouchable reputation for doing nothing. Without going into whether or not that is good role-modelling, let's look at what the monarchy used to mean.

The monarchy was until the 1600s, the ruling body of England. Scotland had its own monarchy too and it was only until James VI of Scotland became King James I of England that England and Scotland had some unity (which would later be part of the creation of the British Parliament). So they used to have some power. The Kings and Queens of England and Scotland for many years were those who won the battles and won the land, therefore Kings and Queens were the best in the land and although I am anti-war that at least justifies why they ran the country. Nowadays the monarchy is pretty much ceremonial and has been since the late 17th century. Therefore, the Royal Family can't even justify their place in the palace. It's the equivalent of being rich and of a higher order because your great great grandfather was a famous footballer. It's ludicrous to think that it's acceptable to ride on the back of your ancestors' achievements.

Some would say that the Queen can veto legislation, but let's be honest, the Royal Family are supposed to be politically neutral or else it can cause controversy. So, even abhorrent bills pushed through by a majority party will get the consent of the Queen. However, I'd like to see whether or not a bill to abolish the monarchy would be approved by the Queen.

The main argument is whether or not the Royal Family makes or wastes our money. Monarchists believe that the reputation of the Royal Family and their fame contributes massively to the tourist industry in the UK. Republicans (not mad 'Muricans, but those who believe in anti-monarchism) believe that it's an outdated system which gives the Royal Family freebies without contributing enough to the country.

We know of the Queen's official expenditure for 2013-14 from the Sovereign Grant who said that the taxpayers paid 56p each a year for the upkeep of the Family - the equivalent of £35.7m. These include approximately £15m spent on wages and £246,160 spent on the Prince of Wales to attend the funeral of Nelson Mandela according to The Guardian. Discovery Finance reported that Prince Charles makes his money from the Duchy of Cornwall (despite it being owned by the state), which are currently $28m a year. The Queen's net worth is more than $500m a year. They are constantly making money and will no doubt continue to have money even if the monarchy is abolished.

Republic, the anti-monarchy website, posted a report that suggests that costs could cost as much as £299m which you can find here. This includes over a third being spent on security from the state (£102m), lost profits (not the band) on Duchies that are owned by the state, but given to monarchs (£90m) and how they live rent-free (£30) or as some call it, living in a fancy council house.

All those fences add up

These costs add up and in fact cost us more than it's worth. Let's say that we even take the extreme articles of Tory papers like The Telegraph who really support the monarchy. They say that the monarchy brings in £500m a year from overseas tourists as they visit the likes of The Tower of London and St Paul's Cathedral because they are linked with the Royal Family. To think that people go to these places because there is currently a monarchy is stupid. Someone tweeted today regarding the abolition of the monarchy saying: "You wouldn't stand atop the Eiffel Tower and think 'Paris would be so much better if it had a monarchy'". Therefore, why do we focus on tourism to keep them? The Palace of Versailles is the third largest tourist attraction in France behind the Louvre Museum and the Eiffel Tower yet France hasn't had a King since the 1840s. I don't see anyone boycotting India despite the fact that they have no monarchy. Especially because the Taj Mahal is one of the most famous buildings in the world. America is known for Hollywood, celebrities and the President. I wouldn't go to America in hope of meeting Obama or bumping into KimYe at a restaurant. Get real.

"What do you mean nobody lives here?" - Palace of Versailles

So as I've said, if it doesn't even make financial sense to you, at least think that tourism will not be affected as part of abolishment of the monarchy. People visit countries for their landmarks, their history, their culture, their natural beauty. People don't go to the Louvre to see the artists who made the art, but the art itself and the history of it. Therefore, tourism will not suffer through the abolishment of the monarchy, it will only encourage those to come and see the history and the wonders of the once forbidden spots in the UK.

If this still doesn't convince you, just think for a second why you think the Queen is a better person than you. The Queen is no different from any of us, she was just lucky to come from the untouchable family.

How The Oscars Got It Wrong With American Sniper

So this week we have seen the release of the Oscar nominations and the film American Sniper. The Oscar nominations were as controversial as usual. They were viewed by many as the "white Oscars" for their lack of diversity - not only in ethnic minorities, but also in women.

The films up for Best Picture are male dominated and so is the Director's award. You look at the films that are featured in the Best Actress award: Wild, Gone Girl, The Theory of Everything, Still Alice and Two Days, One Night. With the exception of The Theory of Everything, these films have been snubbed in every other category.

But I'll give the Oscars the benefit of the doubt on this one, you get years where the good films are dominated by straight white males. Birdman and The Grand Budapest Hotel dominate the nominations and both films have been given very positive reviews. If anything, 2014-early 2015 has been a great period for good films with as many as 20 real contenders for Best Picture, but the Oscars, as ever, have managed to get at least one wrong.

Birdman and The Grand Budapest Hotel reflect some of the best films of the year

The inclusion of American Sniper.

The Clint Eastwood-directed film focuses on Chris Kyle, a US Navy SEAL who is believed to be the most lethal sniper in the US military's history with 160 confirmed kills. The film focuses on his life in the Iraq War and in between when he returns from tours. It is basically your run-of-the-mill war film that is almost ever-present at the Oscars.

The thing is, 2014-15 has been a great year for unique and boundary-pushing films. Fair enough we have the war film in American Sniper, the "boring" film in The Imitation Game, but we also had a comedy as one of the best films of the year - The Grand Budapest Hotel. Blockbusters like Interstellar and Gone Girl have been forgotten about despite their quality. This is because we have films like Birdman and Nightcrawler taking cinema into a different dimension. You had dark films like Foxcatcher keeping people intrigued. You had low-budget wonders like Boyhood and Whiplash giving us different stories and making potentially boring film ideas come to life. These are examples of just some of the great films that have came about in the past year.

Cooper is a convincing Kyle, but the film is flawed

American Sniper looks weak in comparison.

Don't get me wrong, American Sniper isn't a bad film, but it's a little average. In my humble opinion, a 6 or 7 out of 10. Bradley Cooper plays Chris Kyle well, but not enough to stop Jake Gyllenhaal from getting a nomination for his great performance in Nightcrawler. Even if we put to the side that this film isn't even in the top 10 films of the year, there are other reasons why it shouldn't have so many Oscar nominations.

Gyllenhaal was excellent as the mysterious Lou Bloom

One blatantly obvious observation is how 'Murican this film is. When I was in the cinema watching Unbroken, American Sniper came up in a preview. The first thing I said to my friends was "How can they make a film about an illegal war seem so good?" I noticed these Inglorious Basterds comparison even before Seth Rogen announced his opinion. Now that I have seen it, it makes sense. This is a propaganda film created by a Republican director (despite my hatred for Republican policies, I still find Eastwood great) who is trying to mask the illegal war through the memoirs of a biased soldier. This film seems less real and more patriotic propaganda when you read Chris Kyle's memoirs. He called the Iraqis "savages". Ok, fair enough that's an opinion of his opponents I could give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

But he also lied about punching former wrestler Jesse Ventura claiming that he said that the SEALs deserved to "lose some". Ventura won a court case stating that he had never met Kyle. Kyle also claimed that he stood atop of the Superdome - home to the New Orlean Saints - after Hurricane Katrina and killed 30 armed civilians that he thought were causing trouble. There were no reports of these deaths. He also claimed to kill two people who tried to carjack him. Unsurprisingly this case also didn't exist.

A mix of lies from Kyle, political bias from Eastwood and a general lack of excitement in American Sniper really made it a flawed film trying to make a man who killed people look like a hero. You can make some people look like heroes in a war film, but you just can't see Kyle as a hero in this. He fought for the bad guys in the Iraq War just like Fredrick Zoller did for the Nazis in Inglorious Basterds. He was glorified as a hero for killing the enemy. He was doing his job. That makes him neither a villain or a hero, he just followed orders.

Uncanny (not that I thought Clint Eastwood would take ideas from a fictional Joseph Goebbels)

If we had made a film called "Iraqi Sniper" it would be too controversial. So why do we find it celebratory to applaud a man - who was on the wrong side of the conflict - for killing people defending their country? The media seems to work its magic sometimes.

All of the above shows why The Oscars aren't perfect. American Sniper looks shoddy next to Saving Private Ryan or Apocalypse Now. I mean, it's not even the best war film of the best year. That award goes to the far more intriguing Fury - a film that was actually realistic and not polished in patriotism.

So overall, I believe that it doesn't deserve any Oscars because it was a film with a total lack of ambition, lack of truth, lack of entertainment and taken from the wrong angle. Personally, if they had made the story more focused on his family, it could have been a hit - but it all seemed to either bore or frustrate me.

Chris Kyle was probably not a bad man, but it's very hard to believe that a pathological liar does not have flaws. American Sniper seems to make him Lincoln-esque, when really he was just like one of us with blood on his hands.