Question:
British people, why do you keep your royals around?
when_it_happens
2006-12-19 18:09:16 UTC
I hope I'm not offending you (I'm from the U.S. so I know it's not really any of my business), but why do you keep your royals around? They are an unelected head of state, and every year British citizens have to pay millions of tax dollars whether they like it or not to keep them around and their stupid Twizzlers. And I know they're just figureheads, but that seems all the more infuriating to me. What are your feelings about your royals, and do you want to get rid of them?
48 answers:
2006-12-20 12:24:49 UTC
Sorry you've been getting so much flak babe! If it's any help, I'm English and an ardent anti-royalist, I agree with everything you said. How can we call this country a democracy when our head of state is born, not elected? Why the Hell does anyone support a system that dictates people are better than you just by virtue of the surname they were born to? It's ridiculous. Elizabeth the last, I say.



Do you see how everyone who has said they disagree with monarchy has like 10 thumbs down? I haven't given the royalists thumbs down because they're entitled to their opinion, I wonder why they don't grant us the same courtesy? All of you, and you know who you are, GROW UP.
rage997
2006-12-19 19:09:17 UTC
Fast-forward to the end, if you're impatient, to see quotes which should make you see the Queen in a different light.



Britain is an old country - one of the few real old countries in the world. (France has had a monarchy and 5 different republics in the last, mere, 200 years; Italy - monarchy, fascism, republic; Spain - monarchy, running alongside fascism; Germany - didn't even exist as one country 200 years ago...separate states, subjugated by Napoleon, then Empire, democracy, dictatorship...anyway you get the idea: other countries have changed a lot and Britain hasn't.) If you did some research into how this country which hasn't changed much since 1066 AD (our last foreign invasion) works, you would be astounded at how critical the monarchy is. By that, I mean it's a cornerstone: just take it out and the whole lot comes crashing down. You could turn Britain into a republic, but you would have to change it gradually and fundamentally. Look at Russia when they tried to jump straight from communism to capitalism.



The Lord Chancellor, a role older than Prime Minister (PM), is the head of the judiciary and one of the most important leaders of the House of Lords (an unelected political chamber filled with wise old dudes and dudettes - including the top judges). The PM recently, selfishly, felt it would be better to scrap the position of Lord Chancellor. So he did, practically overnight. It was a disaster - for the main reason I outlive above: you do not take away a cornerstone suddenly. The position was resurrected. Gradually, now, it is being phased out.



One other point. Historians now consider monarchies as stable or more stable than republics. Why? Because a monarch's time-horizon tends to be far longer than an elected politician's (who is only looking 4-10 years ahead, when his re-election is due!). Of course, you can have a bad monarch on the throne, but you can also have a bad President (Nixon anyone?). The Harvard historian, Niall Ferguson, admittedly British, is of the opinion that the US is the only republic in the world where the 2000 presidential stalemate could have occurred without a single shot being fired.



A monarch with some powers, who has a 100-year time horizon, and a Prime Minister who has, say, 10-yearly ones (two elections' worth) is what we have in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and it works pretty well.



You say: "British citizens have to pay millions of tax dollars whether they like it or not to keep them around".



The entire British monarchy costs less than the US President's Air Force One, alone. Also, the monarchy is a huge tourist attraction and earns the UK a lot more money than they cost. How many tourist bucks does the US President tend to earn his country? A negative amount, probably; but, to be fair, he saves them a lot through cheaper oil.



They're not just figureheads. Take the Queen. Elizabeth II is Queen of sixteen sovereign states, holding each crown and title equally. However, she is more directly involved with the United Kingdom, where the Royal Family resides, and the Monarchy is historically indigenous. She is Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Bermuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, where she is represented by Governors-General. The sixteen countries of which she is Queen are known as Commonwealth Realms, and their combined population is 128 million.



=================



Some quotes of hers:



* "Grief is the price we pay for love."



In a letter read at the memorial for British victims of the 9/11 attacks held in New York.



====================



* "I do hope you can see me today."



Opening a speech to the U.S Congress on May 16, 1991, the day after giving a speech where the podium was too high for her to see over. This comment generated gales of laughter and a standing ovation.

====================

While being shown around an artificial insemination unit of the Milk Marketing Board



"What's that?"



"It's a cow's vagina, ma'am"



"Ask a silly question!"

=====================

In reply to a shopkeeper who said, "You look awfully like the Queen"



* "How very assuring!"



=====================

And finally:



Said to a young lady (who was invited to have tea with her) when the young lady's mobile phone rang during their talk:



"You'd better answer that. It might be someone important."
?
2006-12-21 09:34:58 UTC
The Royals bring in LOTS of tourism money and lots of good PR; they also bring lots of intl journalists & politicians to the UK which makes us money - and the best part is that the huge majority of money our royal family spends is actually not tax money at all but from land they rent out.



I don't think we should stay the United "Kingdom" - the British Republic would be nicer, ideals-wise, or perhaps an election whereby the voters get to give the top 10 heirs to the throne including the monarch numbers and the median number wins for each person (thus allowing people to be elected king/queen or next in line to-s) and the one finishing 10th falls off the list altogether, replaced by the 'other person' who had the most votes... - what an idea, I think I'll put a question on now.
willowGSD
2006-12-19 19:01:15 UTC
We already have an elected head of state but he goes under the title Prime-Minister and is about as hated as Bush! Our Queen is a figure-head as you say but You are out of date on what keeping them does cost the tax payers. Far more Revenue goes back into the treasury. All the Royals DO pay Tax and more than I'll ever earn I'd bet. All the tourists come to see our Royalty and the homes of the aristocracy especially you Americans!! I dont recall many Americans calling Dianna a stupid Twizzler either!

The Royal Family are the best Ambassadors for us and many Countries refuse to become a Republic and give up their Commonwealth Status when asked so they must be doing something right. You forget the Queens full status by thinking her just the figure-head of Britain, She is Queen of ALL the commonwealth including Canada, and Australia (who held referendums)

To the Brits who think the US is so Great, Why are you still here?



We do actually have a choice but Republican Political Parties never get far! We didn't seem to be better off when we were one under the Cromwells either!
mabit18
2006-12-19 18:22:29 UTC
Its part of tradition and heritage. And the one of the oldest type of celebrity.



If you have ever seen what happens to a town/city/village when there is a Royal Visit you would understand.



If we did get rid of the Royals then we would have to change our whole parlamentray system and go from a Prime Minister to a President. And no offence but the UK is fast becoming a mini US lets not go the whole way.



We do pay for the queen but every year its getting less. They now have so fund themselves partially. And if we took away the royal family how many tourists would we loose. The amount made by tourists coming to visit just for the royals is enough to support them.



If you can at 3pm (GMT) look at the BBC website and hear the queens speach to the nation. Give you a bit of an insight.



P.S Excuse the bad spelling.
wild_eep
2006-12-19 18:31:48 UTC
ah, it's a debate that never seems to reach a conclusion.



Some people argue about money - do they cost money to keep, or do they earn? Why would American tourists visit if there were no royals, say some? Why must we live in a theme park, say others?



Others argue about whether the alternative is really so great. You need a head of state in any state - so with no monarch, must we then have a president? When I was a kid a royalist could win that argument with the words "Ronald" and "Reagan". Not much has changed there.



Personally? I would like us to have a written constitution. We don't even have THAT. It would have to settle the question of royalty for one, and then deal with more interesting matters. Americans, the French, and many others, are way ahead of us there.



(PS as you are an American, may I request that you remind your friends and neighbours where they got their freedom and democracy from? Not from here, of course. It was France. Apparently they also gave you a big statue to symbolise it - do you still have it?)
jack lewis
2006-12-20 07:31:26 UTC
Because Constitutional Monarchy works it represents the country as a whole not just a particular political party . The issue of cost is also misleading the Republicans are always exaggerating this its about 67p per person per week . Also the Monarchy brings more money into the country then takes out. Also it is just more colourful and its just British while a republic in my opinion would be bureaucratic with a low voter turn out every say five years and a huge cost to the taxpayer . My last point is President Blair and of course you have Bush what else can i say.
Danielle P
2006-12-20 00:38:48 UTC
As an American royalist, I agree on all accounts. The Royals bring in tourist

pounds, there is over 1,000 years of history connected with British royalty and that there are so few old monarchies in the world. I love the British Monarchy, I read and watch everything I can on them.

While the royals are figureheads, they are also living history. I can't imagine

the UK without a royal house. One of the many things my mother and I have in common is that Queen Elizabeth has been monarch during both of our lifetimes. She ascended the throne when my mom was a child, and she has been on the throne through 4 presidencies in my lifetime. I am such an Anglophile, that I have the national Anthem programed as a ringtone on my cell and the Union Jack as a wallpaper on it to.
j_emmans
2006-12-19 19:27:33 UTC
The royal family are a family with great history and like the church also we love to respect history, they were killed in a single day in russia which was such a sad thing. The royal family will eventually go with time and the british don't want too rush the process. I think the royals are value for money, why should people like michael jackson live like they do in their palaces and pomp!. the british have a high tax economy so the royals are a very small price to pay for us. hope this makes sense!
massadaman
2006-12-19 18:37:32 UTC
I'm a monarchist. Only because if we didn't have a monarch as head of state we would have some crooked politician or one of their friends doing the job. Basically, the royals are just very well paid ambassadors. I think our current queen does an excellent job and Prince William will be a great king. That's if his father doesn't do anything too silly while he keeps the throne warm.

Good question by the way. I doubt any British people would be offended by it.
2006-12-20 01:32:24 UTC
Well it's a big part of our history and to eliminate that just gets rid of the very core of our Britishness.



Yes we pay millions to keep them but in the 90's The Queen made her own decision to pay tax. Compared to 10 years ago I think the monarchy has come a long way lately. I think that the Queen is a very weak figure head but I think Charles show's promise.



The line that gave rise to Elizabeth has been with us for 1000 years and even before that there was royalty in the UK. It's all soemthing we've been brought up with.
Dragon
2006-12-19 18:29:41 UTC
We keep the Royals because you lot in the USA love to come over here to look at them and when you do, you end up spending lots and lots of money into our tourist coffers.

I personally am not a Royalist the only Queen I Like is the group QUEEN as there music is the greatest.
2006-12-20 15:05:10 UTC
Theres not many countrys in the world left with a royal family, they cost us money but they also bring a lot of tourist to the uk and attract people from all over the world and thats big bucks 2.
Our Man In Bananas
2006-12-20 07:33:47 UTC
Well, you have to pay millions of dollars every year for your head of state in the US don't you.



Also, in fact the Queen pays back more from the Crown Estates and investments into the British Treasure than she and her family receive. You can look in my source links below to see the vast difference in the amount surrendured by the Queen to the Treasure and the amount she receives (In 2003 the amount surrendered was £176.9 million, and the Head of State received £36 million!)



So, it really doesn't cost us anything, in fact we get money from them...and they have to be polite to other heads of state.



Now, as to the question of them being unelected, well in recent years we have seen the trouble that an elected head of state can cause (hmmm, take the President of the United States or France for example) so having an elected Head of State doesn't really matter much as for us it's primarily a ceremonial role...The Government is elected every 4 years or so and they're the ones who make any crucial decisions that really affect us.



Now as for the fact that it's a hereditary position, passed down from generation to generation along with fabulous wealth, comfort etc, well, I'm not a communist, so for me it's no different to Bill Gates passing on his wealth and the source of his material comfort and security to his children.



In answer to you question, considering the alternative (look at elected heads of state like Bush and Chirac, Putin and they're the better ones!) I'd like to hang onto them for another generation or two...
2006-12-20 12:07:15 UTC
So when the Revolt begins, someone will be there to help restore order and bring England back to the true English. Think of it as a anti boston tea party (the b in boston is left lower case on purpose!) England is sovereign and shall not turn into a 51st state! nor a State of the EU!
Tabbyfur aka patchy puss
2006-12-20 02:11:15 UTC
The Queen is our head of state and ordained by God. It' only the Americans who elect their president and what a big mistake you all made with Mr Bush. If America smells oil then you start a war and try to take over the country.



The Queen & the royals are worth a small fortune to this country as stupid americans come to London (remember that most americans think that London is the only place in the UK) as tourists hoping to see the Queen.
2006-12-19 18:12:59 UTC
firstly, i am NOT a royalist, but Im English. do you guys salute the president, or the flag? the man or the office?



we have had a monarch sit on the throne for over a thousand years. and i'm sure we;d rather have a lineated royal family than take teh chance on someone like george getting into office.



the Queen is a figurehead of the most powerful nation these times have ever known. for the last 1000 years or so, weve been at the top of the pile... we love the sound of the natives saying the english are coming...RUN... run for your lives. by the time Elizabeth was on the throne, our time at the top was slipping, but still thru the 50's to today, we are still a world power, ok so weve slipped to 4th... but we are still represented by sovereign status.



and if we had no sovereign, then what an elected president... wheres the continuity in that... for King and country, for England and St George... thats the perspective history gives one. where else could such a small insignificant island in teh atlantic ocean, become so powerful that it subjugated the largest land masses known to man, with the exception of russia and china... though we beat the chinese back in the 1800s known as the opium wars, and we took on russia in the crimea... and we didnt do so well... but we did africa, and australia, america, we put france in its place so many times..and germany, aden, egypt spain, north africa, in fact our influence as a sovereign nation is felt around the world.. we are respected, we are honourable. we fight with courage, and we know how to party afterwards... and whilst im feeling all jingoistic, we, my city Coventry... we gave you the bicycle, (richard starley) we gave you the technology to make teh biggest guns in the world... we gave you major developments in the internal combustion engine, and of course we gave the world the jet engine, and of course the only jet engined supersonic commercial jet.. and the harrier...(my dad worked on teh engine protoypes for both the harrier and Concord... and my grandfather worked on the engine of the Queen Mary back in the 1920's



in truth, we may ***** and whinge about the royals, but we have them, and no one else does... *(well they do, but not on this level)

and when the queen says something, teh world listens... and thats enough for me...
dinaro5
2006-12-19 19:28:48 UTC
It may be OK that all your taxes are (not) paid to U.S lol, spent wisely? HRH is so wealthy a few pounds from all of her subjects is the least we can do to say thanks for the House of Windsor with respect to the most famous Royal Dynasty still living and I think they are as big a player in any event in the world that is on par with any nation, they are not as you perceive figureheads.
bilbotheman
2006-12-19 22:17:21 UTC
Having read the answers from my fellow su bjects, I concur with most of them. I would rather live in a country with an ultimate ruler that has roots going back hundreds of years than a country with self-serving presidents who come and go. The US may be a republic but where does your legal system originate? What language do you speak? They come from a country who sent out explorers and ambassadors in the name of KING and Country. Our Queen can trace her ancestors to those same monarchs. I dont actually know where George W's ancestors originate from but I suspect it was from the British Isles.



Instead of critisising our system of Monarchy the yanks should learn from it and be grateful that their system derives from one of greatest nations on Earth, not in size but in Culture and intelligence.



Having spoken to Americans I know that most have been brainwashed by their education system and studied the war of independence in depth. This is because the majority of their History began then. We have a Social history going back thousands of years and know when enough is enough .



But put our backs to the wall and you will be surprised ,Hitler thought we would be a walkover, the modern terrorists think we can be intimidated - they are wrong. and it's having the figurehead of a royal family that gives us a focus.
angus1745
2006-12-19 21:41:16 UTC
Simply because they out rank the prime-minister. The queen has the final say in all things political. They exist to protect us from the politicaians that come and go. Parliamant can invent as many daft rulings and laws that it likes but if the Queen says no they go in the bin. Speaking as a UK citizen I feel safer knowing they are there.
2006-12-19 18:18:50 UTC
Because we do'nt want it just to be Blair that represents this country.

They have a lot of influence in the World and often achieve things our government can not.

They cost the taxpayer the same as two pints of milk and draw huge ammounts of tourism an business to the U.K.

Added to that they are the most powerfull land owners in the country.

Charles does huge ammounts for our farming industry and often is the voice of an unheard majority.

Yes there's negative sides to them but I feel the benefits far outweigh the costs.
2006-12-19 18:22:20 UTC
well it's a history thing and as we all know the good old USA has only been around for a little over 200 years you wouldn't have much to go on would you...we like things like histroy and tradition and they are a tradition. actually the queen pays tax so dont know where you get your info from...personally I am all in favour of the roayls as they are constant attraction for american tourist dollars to come and see... hope this helps
2006-12-19 18:29:20 UTC
Hmm. Hard to say. Do I prefer the idea of inbred over-privileged isolated figurehead - or illiterate vote-rigged corporate puppet figurehead as my head of state.
winston
2006-12-20 13:00:33 UTC
The Royals & everything they have, has all been created by us. They should be treasured,and are quite rightly placed on a pedastel, as they are a huge work of art & art does`nt always have to make sense
tinker bell
2006-12-20 11:17:21 UTC
It's tradition and people like the fanfare that goes with it. The American people really enjoy the Royals and are interested in them.
2006-12-19 19:22:44 UTC
We should keep our Monarchy for ever. The biggest argument in favour of doing so is the American Presidential Elections

1. What a farcical insult to voters' intellect

2. You are responsible for electing your idiot head of state - We don't get that same blame!



I actually don't mind paying my 67 pence per year to keep the Monarchy. I begrudge paying my £139 PER WEEK (and rising!) to pay for Tony Blair's ****-ups!
Skeff
2006-12-19 18:16:16 UTC
I'm not British, but Mum was. Tradition and inertia. Long-time staples of English culture.
susie
2006-12-20 04:13:35 UTC
hi i am British and like the royal family and i think that if we wanted to we would of done .away with them by now.not many country have a royal family now but we do .
jon_rags
2006-12-19 18:22:19 UTC
It is not just democratic people and countries that see them as figureheads, also non-democratic peoples. They're ambassadors, as shown in our history, which shows figureheads and aristocracy can work hand-in-hand..



Good question.
Sarah*
2006-12-20 12:51:47 UTC
The royals are just there for tradition.
rattyfraggs
2006-12-19 18:50:28 UTC
Theyre good for tourism, publicity, and keeping the UK in the public eye. Other than that, yes, they cost too much and are a pain in the ***, but one balances out the other i suppose.
Emily K
2006-12-19 18:18:00 UTC
As a Brit, I think its nice to have a monarchy for formality, but I have to admit that I dont believe they do much for our society. They bring in the tourists and are quite novelty!
2006-12-20 08:12:10 UTC
rage 997 u obviously ain't visited any big city lately not been invaded since 10 66.f u c k m e Bristol London Manchester Birmingham to name but a few are like Somalian refugee camps.and to Davy Crockett[ only joking] i like the yanks but damn whats up with there teeth.they are our German ancestors.and they do bring in tourists.
?
2006-12-19 22:16:56 UTC
Eyecandy! Of course
benn26k
2006-12-19 18:31:20 UTC
I do not see the point in them to be honest and would not hesitate in removing them should I ever have the power too.

It is a waste of tax payers money which could be used for better purposes.

Its not like everyone who goes to London gets to see the Queen is it?

By the way, my mum went to Buckingham Palace and said her net curtains were filthy.
2006-12-19 18:23:37 UTC
It keeps them off the streets. And we can send them to different counties to visit if they get too much.
Mr Crusty
2006-12-19 18:20:13 UTC
They’re the upper crust young lady…
2006-12-19 18:45:22 UTC
why not ? why do the americans support Bush at the government ? though everybody knows he is doing wrong
Sierra One
2006-12-20 19:04:39 UTC
I am a Royalist and I think it will be a bad day for us, If we lose our Monarchy
2006-12-20 09:10:14 UTC
Go on, be honest, you Americans love them because you have no history.
2006-12-19 18:20:39 UTC
It's in the constitution.

Why do you keep electing moronic presidents?
PRIVATE
2006-12-19 19:18:59 UTC
I CANT Understand why we do !

useless items get rid of them did u know if we had another war the queen will be snuggled up in her bomb shelter while were getting told to fight for the queen and countrie
2006-12-20 04:33:32 UTC
even i hate them.. such a parasite sucking on our money. pig and roosters are much more useful craeture than they are
Sereniti
2006-12-19 18:18:22 UTC
No. And by the way, how do you american's, feel about health insurance? Cause i know not everyone in the US can afford it, and it must really suck paying $40 for a bandage, i think your health policy or whatever it is sucks............................................................................sucks..............................lol
JETT
2006-12-20 16:34:42 UTC
Let me re phrase that question for you, ENGLISH PEOPLE.
2006-12-19 18:19:42 UTC
Hey, no one in the UK has been asked if we want them! It is wrong they live in luxury from public taxes while many Brits live below the poverty line.
2006-12-19 18:14:56 UTC
i live in the uk and they are a waste of tax payers money i say get rid of them america rocks
the devil666
2006-12-20 00:13:08 UTC
because there thick


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...