Maybe someone from the UK has an answer this time instead of defensive insults.
2006-10-15 12:19:16 · 28 answers · asked by bavwill 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Many things.
For one, continuity of Government even if the House of Commons were to change from one party to another. Or even if just the Prime Minister changes. Her Majesty has been Queen through many Prime Ministers. They have weekly audiences with Her Majesty. As you can read in books and on the Internet, many Prime Ministers are astonished by her knowledge. And it does help keep Prime Ministers "on their toes". There is one time that is told of a Prime Minister who told Her Majesty that "we have a rather unusual situation ...."; Her Majesty was able to bring to his attention that she remembered a very similar situation several Prime Ministers ago ... and how that government had handled the situation.
If the USA changes the President, the House of Representatives, and the Senate (I think it is possible all at one time even), then the only real continuity might be that held by the "public servants" or bureaucrats. A frightening situation!!
Even not considering the House of Lords, still there is Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Privy Council. Even if there were a major disruption of parliament, still there would be a constitutional government as many functions can be handled by Her Majesty in Council.
I mean, the U.K. has been working on it for over 1000 years. The USA (and this is not intended as an "insult", just as a fact) is still basically a "new-comer".
2006-10-15 15:38:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm a Royalist.
It's in our tradition to be ruled over by a Monarch. Queen Elizabeth II was appointed to the throne by the traditions of our fine Nation. If we abandon out traditions, then our Nation will have no Identity, and be forgotten in the world. The Royal family do attract tourists, and many members of the Royal family do much work for charities.
I'm in the RAF and joined because I have a strong sense of patriotism for the United Kingdom. (Not just England, the Whole of the UK). This may sound outdated or cheesey to some, but I honestly joined for Queen and Country. (besides, would we really want a President???)
2006-10-15 21:51:54 · answer #2 · answered by genghis41f 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I know that she brings tourism to the country, people come from all around the world to see Buckingham palace and for the queens royal visits. I don't really agree that she benefits the country outright but you could say its a bit sad that the British Royal family is now just a tourist attraction. But she does have that benefit to the UK as a whole.
Tiny benefit, maybe, but its a benefit.
2006-10-15 12:26:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You really need to read Walter Baghot who defines her roles quite clearly, but to summarise:
1. She is a figurehead (similar to a president), presideing over state functions.
2. A monarch provides historical continuity (without therapiod changes of national leadership common in some republics)
3. She has the right of consultation with the Prime Minister
4. She provides an a-political head for the Armed Forces and Services and judiciary.
5. She is head of the Church of England.
6. It is likely that she encourages tourism;
7. She is head of the Commonwealth.
2006-10-15 12:36:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
From a real looking attitude she brings in truly some vacationer sales. Secondly, the picture of any vastly wealthy person in her personal accurate she will be ready to do exceptionally a lot what she needs besides so the actual incontrovertible truth that she sticks to the royal responsibilities ect is extra paintings than maximum folk who've it made might want to do besides. maximum critically she is technically head of State, which ability the authorities and the military, so no head of the authorities can flow mad and degree a coup because if the Queen ordered the military now to not do what the gov. of the day ordered they have sworn their oaths to her no longer the authorities. In practice it would want to be exciting to work out. you have not got any such guard in u . s . a . of america so in case you ever get your human being mad King George there is no safe practices information superhighway! (in case you have not already!)
2016-12-04 21:05:17 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do people constantly complain about British royalty on this site. I mean once okay, but it's like every month there's a new post about it. I mean just look around the Royalty forum and you'll see old questions about it in the same nature.
2006-10-15 13:27:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The British monarch or Sovereign is the head of state of the United Kingdom and in the British overseas territories.
The powers of the monarchy, known as the Royal Prerogative, are still very extensive. Most prerogative powers are exercised not by the monarch personally, but by ministers acting on his or her behalf; examples such as the power to regulate the civil service and the power to issue passports. Some major powers are exercised nominally by the monarch herself, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and according to constitutional convention. An example is the power to dissolve Parliament. The Crown cannot set new prerogative powers..
2006-10-15 12:25:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Tourism.
A lot of British people question the need for a royal family though. I remember even being set debates on "Do we need a royal family?" at school.
They do do charity work but I've always thought... so they bloody should! Besides doing charity work when you don't actually have to earn a living and have got a grand house to return to at the end of the day isn't that amazing when there are normal people out there who seriously sacrifice their own standard of living to make a difference in the world.
2006-10-15 12:46:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What does the statue of liberty do to benefit the U.S?
It's a symbol. The british royalty is a symbol for many things. It may die out, but it is still close to many. If you're getting emotional responses, then maybe that is your answer. The monarchy exists for sentiment, and as a symbol.
Why not? Who is to say that sentiment is more or less important than other things?
2006-10-15 12:24:14 · answer #9 · answered by jeffo 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Royalty is strictly a ceremonial role. They "approve" the prime minister but the prime minister is elected otherwise. The reason they keep the queen is because British love tradition.
2006-10-15 12:22:10 · answer #10 · answered by b-rad 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋