UK: Do we even need a Royal family?

[Thermal]

I think the royal family are pointless really, all there good for is getting in the media through pestering paparazzi and occasionally attend events around the country, the Queen can be seen as an ambassador for the country i guess, generally speaking though i'd hate all the cameras, all they are is a group of posh people who to me make no difference or evoke any patriotism at all, any of the Brit's here think the royal family is necessary?

[LittleGrizzly]

Im unsure ion this issue tbh....

As a youngster i would have happily removed them in a heartbeat, but as i get older my view towards them mellows..

a few advantadges...

head of state who isn't a politician, Queen E may not be all that but at least she isn't Blair or Thatcher
tourism, im not sure how much the royal family attracts alone (it could be argued they come for the fancy royal buildings but im sure the royals help)
Queen E, i think she ain't half bad, almost any royal would be disliked by me because of thier position, but she does her duty and stays out of politics entirely, my view could (probably will) change after E goes....

and now the disadvantadges

Waste of money
unelected head of state, so you could end up with any old nutter
not a true democracy...

In the end i think i will support the abolishment of the monarchy after E goes but whilst she's there she's doing a good enough job to keep me relatively happy....

[tibilicus]

I don't think it makes a real difference in this day and age. perhaps an advantage can bee seen that the Queen is the head of the commonwealth and is still monarch over a couple of nations including Canada and Australia and this in some way does untie us and bring about a much better friendship with those country's.

On the other hand the royal family is that much of a joke these days that it probably wont be around to much longer anyway. Must be pretty depressing being a Windsor knowing less than 100 years ago your mother and father would of ruled over a quarter of the world whilst you are seen now simply as a paparazzi prize.

I still don't see why all those die hard people in favour of a British republic hate them so much though. It isn't like the queen has any legislative power. Yes I know she could technically disband parliament but that really is never going to happen is it.

[HoreTore]

Nobody needs a royal family.

Basically, we use ours as a marketing tool. King and Queen goes on a trip with powerpoint slides, while our merchants wait in the backroom ready to pounce on the dazzled foreigners.

But I really doubt our country would fall apart or even notice it if we turned republic.

[Fragony]

Nobody needs a royal family.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Need? Of course not. Many countries function well without royals, even -- at least arguably -- the USA.

Do they generate more value (sense of traditions, identity, tourism, ceremonial executive function) then they cost? If so, not a bad deal.

[rory_20_uk]

Expensive? I doubt they cost more than most Presidents do. And as they're not there for a few years the need to act like grasping ***** isn't present.

Not a true democracy? Currently the PM is Brown. He wasn't elected for the job. We therefore don't have a "proper" democracy. Nor do we ever, as having the option to vote for under 10 persons for a arbitrary area of the UK isn't democratic.

I don't think that the monarch should be completely out of all politics. Doing so leaves the floor open to the current incumbents who are only interested in getting power in the next election, and then ensuring that their own "retirement" will be as full of as many cushy jobs as they can.

Personally I like the Royals. I've certainly not seen a system that functions better than they do, and many that are a lot worse.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

1) You are neither more or less free with or without a monarch alongside an elected body. In Germany, for example, we do not even vote for our President.
2) Cost is irrelevant. We spend a fortune on our President here, whereas I believe our royals are both wealthy and self-sufficient.
3) A monarch lends an important sense of tradition and dignity to a country.
4) A monarch is an important symbol of the nation.
5) A monarch is, at least in theory, non-partisan.
6) A monarch can be an important safeguard of a constitution or democracy.
7) A monarch is raised from birth for their job. A President has other training instead.
8) A monarch is a perfect diplomatic representative.

[Lemur]

Once nice thing about having royals, however useless they might be: It prevents the President/Prime Minister from attempting to embody the state. 'Cause the job is already taken by them royal peoples.

I'm trying to think of a quick, pithy way to explain what I mean by "embody the state," and I'm coming up blank. If you don't understand what I mean, just move on to the next post and pretend you saw nothing at all here.

[tibilicus]

I'm pretty sure the whole cost issue really isn't real.

I'm not 100% sure as I'm not Australian but isn't one of the reasons why Australians voted to keep the queen as head of state because of the cost of switching to a presidential system and after that the upkeep of a president would be even higher?

Might not be right though but that's what I gathered.

[Productivity]

I'm not 100% sure as I'm not Australian but isn't one of the reasons why Australians voted to keep the queen as head of state because of the cost of switching to a presidential system and after that the upkeep of a president would be even higher?

Might not be right though but that's what I gathered.

The reason Australia voted to keep the monarchy is because the referendum and public debate was hijacked by a devoted monarchist and put a flawed question to the people, splitting the republican vote.

Rather than doing the sensible thing of running a series of plebiscites, first asking do you want a republic (for which there is over 50% support), then sorting out the implications that would have on the constitution/government forms, the monarchist movement managed to get just a single question, asking do you want a republic with form x. This split the republican vote allowing the monarchists to win the referendum.

Cost is not a serious impost - everything costs money, contextually the cost of having a president vs. having a monarchy is souch small change that it may as well be a non-event.

[CountArach]

The reason Australia voted to keep the monarchy is because the referendum and public debate was hijacked by a devoted monarchist and put a flawed question to the people, splitting the republican vote.

Gah! Beaten to it again!

Rather than doing the sensible thing of running a series of plebiscites, first asking do you want a republic (for which there is over 50% support)

55% support was the latest poll IIRC.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wow, that's really Mediaeval, Lemur. Kings and queens stopped truely being embodiments of the state at the end of the Renaissance.

Personally, I'm a monarchist and I don't like the idea of a Republic, it feels somehow hollow. I can't justify that at all.

[Lemur]

Phillipvs, is it so very medieval? I live in the U.S., where the spirit of America is embodied by Tom Cruise and Mickey Mouse. And maybe Ronald McDonald. That's our royalty. Is it so very wrong to gaze wistfully on the fusty, musty House of Windsor and wish we could buy laminated tea sets instead of Entertainment Weekly? Is that so wrong?!?!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Phillipvs, is it so very medieval? I live in the U.S., where the spirit of America is embodied by Tom Cruise and Mickey Mouse. And maybe Ronald McDonald. That's our royalty. Is it so very wrong to gaze wistfully on the fusty, musty House of Windsor and wish we could buy laminated tea sets instead of Entertainment Weekly? Is that so wrong?!?!

Yes, absolutely.

[Che Roriniho]

Certainly not needed, but it's nice to have them. It's good to think that whilst having all these idiots like Blair, Brown and Thatcher in government, we still have Queen Lizzy to tell themall to calm down. Plus, they have no real power and cost the taxpayer basically nothing (Less than 1p from every £10) So I can't see any reason to get rid of them and destroy a 1,500 year old tradition.