The British Crown is a useless anachronism.

Why do you care anyway? They're not taking American taxpayer's money.

Boy, as an 'Merican I couldn't agree more. However, it's certainly not up to us, by any means. I also see the passion and pride that many Brits take from their presence. not to mention how it brings them a ton of revenue. Personally I'd love to see them have a big auction and put on Sotheby's just all their invaluable artwork, the jewels and crowns they own and help all the poor of the UK.

As far as the Royals being a part of the UK gov't, they're figureheads and basically international diplomats. They serve the UK well providing good-will and excellent service there. Don't think the PM office and 10 Downing St. is set up to handle that. B'sides old Liz loves the job and would be grief-stricken if she was given the sack!

They sure know how to throw a good bash for the hoi-polloi and have the best caterers in the world. No one walks away hungry.

It's their money, if they want to throw down that hole, how is that any business of yours? Do you feel the same way about Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland and Spain? How about Nepal and Thailand?

Monarchs are the source of all honors in monarchical societies, and they are an unchaning head of state, heads of state who are, at least ostensibly, above partisan politics. They serve useful purposes in those societies which have them and want them.

Personally, I think they should abolish parliment and keep the royals.

Get rid of the Queen???????

It is my understanding that the royal family, in fact, has no presence in the British government. Neither the Queen nor any other royal has anything to say about what the Parliament and the Prime Minister do in running the government. Her Majesty is obliged to address Parliament once a year and the speech she gives is written for her and she has no option to deviate from it in any way whatever. It's all for show, is all.

All said and done I'm pretty ambivalent about the Queen. The a real anachronism are the foreign military bases on British soil. This is a hangover from the Cold War. Given that these foreign bases have been used for illegal acts like extraordinary rendition, and have been used to intimidate democratically elected governments, Harold Wilson's premiership being a prime example, they are harmful to Britain's international reputation, and a threat to democracy. They should be dismantled without further delay.

They're spending money that could be sent willy nilly to random US citizens like me. I object to not getting that hypothetical free money!

There's at least a dozen more plus a couple of Commonwealth countries.

Personally, I don't know how I would feel to have a foreign queen as head of state. Or even two foreign co-princes, like Andorra has got.

But since I'm originally from a formal dukedom (Westphalia), which had as head of state the Prince-Archbishop of Cologne, I'd prefer Elisabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha!

Are you asking on the usefulness of Royals at large or in the particular British case ? Why do you think Monarchy's have in general been so successful over the course of History ?...naturally you know why no pun intended...but is it not human nature that people love personified symbols of success ? ...be it the Olympics champions kings, be it Scholars and Intellectuals reigning over the crowd, be it the more achieved businessman's and the immediate power they represent...they all sell "identity" and "example"...the fact of the matter is that there are "Kings" and "Royals" everywhere, where tradition of course ends up as the natural gravitational centre of identity of any complete Nation on which "Royals" represent the living memory of who we are, or believe to be...not having it is like being administrated by the Internet, or taking a taxi driven by a computer program...sounds distant, makes poor advertisement and its bad for business...
...more then that, I pretty much am under the impression tax money for keeping "Royals" playing the show is a pretty damn good investment...of them all what would be of Britain without it, as in the eyes of the masses they are the Royals of royals ? ...very much like asking what would be of US economy without Hollywood...

I don't have a problem with reducing the amount of money they get. Charles' ownership of the Duchy of Cornwall alone is more than enough.

That's what I'm asking: what useful purposes?
Ragman says they act a diplomats, but they don't really. I mean, they can't negotiate treaties and agreements, right?
They do have excellent handshaking skills of the completely dead fish variety.


It was very nice of her majesty to wear Republican Green.

meh.

But, let me ask: couldn't anybody else in the British Government done the handshaking duties as well??(Herself didn't even speak.)

Time to move on in Western Civilization, folks.
We got rid of all the Kings or Ireland 300 years ago, time now for Britain.

Once they go, the other empty heads of State in Sweden, Spain etc will follow through the gates of history.

So, what do the Royals do that couldn't be done by someone else or, better, not done at all?

Joe(I'm seeking their necessity)Nation

The problem with replacing the Royal Family is the alternative. Nobody wants a presidential style head of state with full executive powers. The Blair premiership with its huge majority put pay to that. An non-executive president like Ireland has is even less appealing.

If we decide to get rid of the Royal Family it will be because we want to, not because we're told to do so by a foreign nation.

[quote]All said and done I'm pretty ambivalent about the Queen. The a real anachronism are the foreign military bases on British soil. This is a hangover from the Cold War. Given that these foreign bases have been used for illegal acts like extraordinary rendition, and have been used to intimidate democratically elected governments, Harold Wilson's premiership being a prime example, they are harmful to Britain's international reputation, and a threat to democracy. They should be dismantled without further delay.[/quote]

I.couldn't.agree.more.
Joe(let's turn them into spas)Nation

And while we're at it we can look at the extradition treaty. People like Gary McKinnon and Richard 'O Dwyer should stay in the UK.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/25/decision-uk-extradition-treaties

Interestingly, one report suggested that if the Queen hypothetically stood for the U.S.presidency she would win by a landslide !
I am no royalist, but there is something in the "continuity factor" which presidency seems to lack. As for the "privilege angle" who in their right mind would want the job ?

I would never tell the British people to get rid of their monarchy. They seem to like it. It was the British people who, after the death of the Princess Diana, had to remind the Royals of how much the Royals meant to them.

The Royals themselves couldn't have cared less about either the dead Princess or the British People.

"What?" said the Queen, "Oh, bother."

Maybe the country should as a whole go into therapy, there is some dysfunction there. (Hmmm. a bad movie script~ uncaring parents are forced to deal with children desperate for love and affection.)

~
Lookit, I understand. England is the most boring country in the world and without the Royals would start to claim "most boring country on this and several distant planets", but you should try to make it without them.

Develop something else of interest, throw a sporting event, hey?

Joe(wasn't I reading about something going on there next week?)Nation

wishful thinking...

If Britain is the most 'boring country in the world,' why are you bothered about it?