Why does the UK have royalty?

[Smoke]

I think the Queen herself is kind of a pleasing anachronism. Since the death of Pope Paul VI in 1978, the Queen and King Mihai of Romania have been the only two crowned and anointed monarchs in Europe -- and King Mihai was deposed in 1947. She's performed her duties admirably and conscientiously, and I think it would be a shame to dismantle the monarchy in her lifetime.

After she goes, though, that would be a good opportunity for a thorough overhaul. End the sovereign's position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, end the practice of anointing and coronation, and slash costs. Other countries maintain their monarchies at a fraction of the cost of the British monarchy. Put Charles and Camilla, William and Harry, on bicycles. According to Wikipedia, the public expense of the British royal family is five time the public expense of the Spanish royal family, and one doesn't see Queen Sofia buying tube socks at the flea market. I'm sure the uninspiring heirs of Queen Elizabeth II could manage to scrape by on a similar amount.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic
The best reason for maintaining the monarchy is the alternative... we might have to have a president.
That's not the only alternative.

For instance, imagine an office like that of Governor-General with a fixed term, only appointed by Parliament. He or she could fulfil the governmental functions currently performed by the monarch.

The obvious advantage to this system is that you would then only be paying for one individual rather than a whole host of assorted relatives as well.
We pay for very few in fact. Prince charles and his tribe pay for them selves.
The queen pays for the minor Royals… the only ones we contribute to are the ones who act for the Queen and represent the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic
In terms of wealth ... The royal family gave up a large majority of their lands, possessions and wealth and freedom from taxes, in exchange for an annual income. Had they kept them, they would be amongst the wealthiest families in the world.
Yes... the royal family has grown fat off the people for a long, long time. Should we be happy with the fact that they chose not to grow as fat as they could have done?
Not so she is always paid less than the costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic
Even then they are far cheaper as an option than a President.
How do you figure? Are you talking about real monetary cost, or are you referring to some more nebulous cost to society of losing the "value" of a monarchy?
More is spent on the American President and white house presedential staff than the Royal family by a wide margine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic
As head of state of 16 countries the queen still has a number of powers, she is the final court of appeal for many of them, though rarely is called upon.
Though shouldn't those countries' governance be their own concern? If, say, Australia decides to become a republic, this doesn't mean that the UK must as well, or vice versa. Even if Britain decides to no longer be a monarchy, the other countries are still within their rights to consider Elizabeth their queen if they so choose.
They do decide for them selves … some have handed the role to the Queen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic
she is head of the Church of England and also head of the armed forces and the Government. civil service and Law offices.
And in her position as head of the Church of England, she is in a direct conflict of interest with her role as head of the armed forces and the government.

Not at all… The Church of England operates under acts of Parliament who control all major decisions of the synod. The Church of England is an Established Church ( The official church of the land and subject to its laws. The Prime minister appoints all Bishops.)
The church is not separate from the state. It is in fact part of Government. (Bishops sit in the House of Lords] as do some other heads of religions.

There is no conflict of interest.

As Queen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic
She is still consulted weekly on government business by the prime minister in person. Se meets with the privy council on all matters of state. She has residual powers over all these offices.

In Practise she appoints Prime ministers gives and receives advice, but never takes an active part in "politics"
Wait... it seems like you're arguing two contrary positions:

- the Queen is an important part of the government, so government would be worse off without her.
- the Queen has no real power, so getting rid of the monarchy would be a lot of bother for negligible benefit.

Which is it?

Neither… The queen has powers … no bill can be passed with out her signature nor government formed. It would cause chaos is she with held her permission so it probably has not been done. The details of her meetings are never published, so we can not be sure.
As head of the Armed forces every one swears allegiance to her not the Government. If shove came to push the forces would support her to a man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic
She subsidises the cost of running the households and her official functions out of her own wealth.
I "subsidize" the cost of my house and parties from my own wealth, too. I've even supplied the food when my non-profit board has met at my house in the past. Does that make me equally worthy of praise?
She does it because the public funds allocated are insufficient.
It would be very strange if your president came on a state visit and she refused him dinner because she was not given the few hundred thousands to pay for it. So she digs out her own purse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic
Perhaps the royal family should have hung on to their lands and wealth and abdicated, they would be much better off today.
Ah... but the question is whether they had a right to those lands and wealth in the first place.
__________________
Who'd have thought this frank talk about religion would result in heated debate?

The same rights as you have to own your own property.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think the Queen herself is kind of a pleasing anachronism. Since the death of Pope Paul VI in 1978, the Queen and King Mihai of Romania have been the only two crowned and anointed monarchs in Europe -- and King Mihai was deposed in 1947. She's performed her duties admirably and conscientiously, and I think it would be a shame to dismantle the monarchy in her lifetime.

After she goes, though, that would be a good opportunity for a thorough overhaul. End the sovereign's position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, end the practice of anointing and coronation, and slash costs. Other countries maintain their monarchies at a fraction of the cost of the British monarchy. Put Charles and Camilla, William and Harry, on bicycles. According to Wikipedia, the public expense of the British royal family is five time the public expense of the Spanish royal family, and one doesn't see Queen Sofia buying tube socks at the flea market. I'm sure the uninspiring heirs of Queen Elizabeth II could manage to scrape by on a similar amount.

Prince charles and his tribe get no money from the state William an Harry get an allowence when they represent the queen. Charles does not.

 

[Panda]

I think the Queen herself is kind of a pleasing anachronism. Since the death of Pope Paul VI in 1978, the Queen and King Mihai of Romania have been the only two crowned and anointed monarchs in Europe -- and King Mihai was deposed in 1947. She's performed her duties admirably and conscientiously, and I think it would be a shame to dismantle the monarchy in her lifetime.

After she goes, though, that would be a good opportunity for a thorough overhaul. End the sovereign's position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, end the practice of anointing and coronation, and slash costs. Other countries maintain their monarchies at a fraction of the cost of the British monarchy. Put Charles and Camilla, William and Harry, on bicycles. According to Wikipedia, the public expense of the British royal family is five time the public expense of the Spanish royal family, and one doesn't see Queen Sofia buying tube socks at the flea market. I'm sure the uninspiring heirs of Queen Elizabeth II could manage to scrape by on a similar amount.

I don't see why bother taking away her powers as they only exist on paper anyway she has no real power. I am sure if she actually tried to use her power she would be deposed within the week. Though I don't think any monarch would be stupid enough to try to do anything. I would say the influence she has comes from her actions and deeds in her long reign and not from her title.

 

[Smoke]

Prince charles and his tribe get no money from the state William an Harry get an allowence when they represent the queen. Charles does not.

Charles doesn't get a salary from the state, but he gets travel, security, a very nice income from a royal duchy he holds, and residence in Clarence House. Other unsalaried members of the royal family get similar benefits (except for the Duchy of Cornwall) and all that adds up.

 

[Smoke]

I don't see why bother taking away her powers as they only exist on paper anyway she has no real power. I am sure if she actually tried to use her power she would be deposed within the week. Though I don't think any monarch would be stupid enough to try to do anything. I would say the influence she has comes from her actions and deeds in her long reign and not from her title.

To me, it's not a question of power. To me, it's more a question of whether you're getting value for your money. Queen Beatrix, for example, is paid less than a tenth what Queen Elizabeth is paid.

I think you could retain the monarchy but cut a significantly better deal with the next monarch.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The queen pays for the minor Royals… the only ones we contribute to are the ones who act for the Queen and represent the country.

Not so. For instance, Prince Charles got 17 million pounds last year on the strength of his holding the title of Duke of Cornwall.

Not so she is always paid less than the costs.

I'm not just talking about the current monarch; I'm talking about the monarchy in general. The queen is able to afford this largesse because of the vast wealth that she inherited, no? Where did it come from?

More is spent on the American President and white house presedential staff than the Royal family by a wide margine.

Apples to oranges. The White House is a functioning element of the Executive branch of the American government. The US President is not just a figurehead; he has actual duties, and his staff are instrumental in carrying out those duties.

For an analogy with British politics, the American President would be equivalent to the Monarch plus a bit of the roles of Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary.

They do decide for them selves … some have handed the role to the Queen.

And, as I pointed out, they'd be free to do that even if Britain or any other Commonweath nation individually decided to become a republic. The fact that the Queen is the monarch of other realms is a red herring in the discussion of whether she should continue to be monarch of one of those realms.

Not at all… The Church of England operates under acts of Parliament who control all major decisions of the synod. The Church of England is an Established Church ( The official church of the land and subject to its laws. The Prime minister appoints all Bishops.)
The church is not separate from the state. It is in fact part of Government. (Bishops sit in the House of Lords] as do some other heads of religions.

There is no conflict of interest.

Any violation of the separation of church and state is a conflict of interest for the governmental representatives involved.

Neither… The queen has powers … no bill can be passed with out her signature nor government formed. It would cause chaos is she with held her permission so it probably has not been done. The details of her meetings are never published, so we can not be sure.

So, conceivably, those in favour of increased democracy could very well get more of it by eliminating her role in government.

As head of the Armed forces every one swears allegiance to her not the Government. If shove came to push the forces would support her to a man.

To a man, hmm?

She does it because the public funds allocated are insufficient.
It would be very strange if your president came on a state visit and she refused him dinner because she was not given the few hundred thousands to pay for it. So she digs out her own purse.

Her purse that is filled by grace of the interest on generations upon generations of public funds and rent paid on public lands?

The same rights as you have to own your own property.

Really? I'll have to remember to tell the police that the next time I loot a monastery.

The right I have to my property is nothing if there is not an unbroken chain of legitimate transfer of ownership stretching all the way back to the property's original owner; is this the case for the Queen?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

They would probably sell their estates and posessions and move to America where what is your is yours.

 

[Aquitaine]

It's also a huge part of England's history, culture and identity. Not something too easy to discard.

I disagree

I'm English, and I wouldn't mind seeing the entire Monarchy and all it's members disbanded. I also don't believe and entire nation's "culture" is dependent on them.

 

[Panda]

To me, it's not a question of power. To me, it's more a question of whether you're getting value for your money. Queen Beatrix, for example, is paid less than a tenth what Queen Elizabeth is paid.

I think you could retain the monarchy but cut a significantly better deal with the next monarch.

Ahh yes I think it was revealed the other day that the monarchy costs 62p per person per year in the UK. That was a decrease of 7p per person from the year before. I think it was a drop of £3.2million over all with her now costing £38.2million.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ahh yes I think it was revealed the other day that the monarchy costs 62p per person per year in the UK. That was a decrease of 7p per person from the year before. I think it was a drop of £3.2million over all with her now costing £38.2million.

For a difference in perspective on that cost, on an ongoing basis, that amount of money could allow approximately 400,000 schools or villages to have a reliable clean water supply.



(based on numbers here: cost per well of $3000 US with a service life of 20 years, for an amortized cost of $150 per year per well)

 

[Kathryn]

First of all, let me say that I am an unabashed Anglophile - I love British comedy, British history, British literature, etc. I have a lot of respect for the British people in general.

That being said, I just can't get my head around this royalty thing. Why - WHY WHY WHY - is Prince Charles or his offspring automatically king or queen of an entire country? What on earth makes them more "special" than anyone else? Why on earth would these people, just by virtue of their birth, be entitled to be subsidized and idolized by an entire nation of otherwise fairly sane people?

And don't try to compare them to celebrities or even politicians. There's no comparison. If I don't want to support a particular celebrity, I don't buy any of their products. Enough people can vote a politician right out of office. But these royal families seem to be able to hang on quite tenaciously - and I simply can't see what use they are, or why they are, by virtue of birth, so special and so honored.

 

[Kathryn]

And don't even get me started on the whole "Church of England" fiasco.

 

[dust1n]

In terms of wealth ... The royal family gave up a large majority of their lands, possessions and wealth and freedom from taxes, in exchange for an annual income. Had they kept them, they would be amongst the wealthiest families in the world.

Well, she had to do something before people caught on..

 

[Smoke]

That being said, I just can't get my head around this royalty thing. Why - WHY WHY WHY - is Prince Charles or his offspring automatically king or queen of an entire country? What on earth makes them more "special" than anyone else? Why on earth would these people, just by virtue of their birth, be entitled to be subsidized and idolized by an entire nation of otherwise fairly sane people?

The old Anglo-Saxon system, where the king was elected by the witanagemot, makes more sense to me. But then, that's more or less the system now used to choose the Prime Minister, and it's not entirely clear that either primogeniture or democracy yields better results than a lottery would.

 

[Kathryn]

I just think that, at best, "royal families" are superfluous in this day and age. If they HAVE power, they haven't earned it or been voted in to serve, and if they DON'T have power, they're basically a waste of public funds and money from property they never bought.

That's just my American opinion though.

 

[xkatz]

The monarchy is an anachronism. Elizabeth herself seems like a nice enough person, but when she finally passes on, so should her office.

I concur. The princes seem... lacking and inadequate; not to mention the fact that the monarchy serves little purpose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I concur. The princes seem... lacking and inadequate; not to mention the fact that the monarchy serves little purpose.

I've got some sympathy for the Queen: I don't like the idea of forcing an elderly woman to make an abrupt career change (though I suppose there's some appeal in the idea of retiring her with thanks and giving her a decent pension).

However, I don't think Charles would ever be hurting for cash if he didn't become king, and William and Harry seem handy enough with helicopters and tanks that they can probably find gainful employment elsewhere.

 

[Kathryn]

Hear, hear.

 

[kai]

we don't need a Monarchy , we choose to have one./ we have what a lot of countries don't have and that's a History rich with tradition. To me the Queen personifies England and Britain. She is a figurehead for the nation and having a monarch gives me a sense of pride in my countries history .Financially i am not sure if it all even out what with tourism, trade deals etc etc.

at the end of the day we have a monarchy because we want one.