British people, why do you keep your royals around?

Question

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?

Dude people I'm NOT trying to offend you!! This is a serious question!!

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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."

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

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!

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

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?)

Answer 7

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.

Answer 8

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.

Answer 9

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!

Answer 10

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.