England has a parliment that has similarities to the body of Congress we have in the US. So, what purpose do Queen Elizabeth and the royal family serve?
2007-02-12 10:52:59 · 9 answers · asked by natobanato2 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Not much. Costs us money. She used to have all the power, but now parliment does. Although she does have to 'ok' everything that gets passed through parliment, she pretty much always does.
I'm anti-royalty for this very reason that they don't do much and have so much money, but it's like tradition to have them, and people think they sort of represent out country and the like. There like a symbol of Britain or some such.
Plus, no way they are going to step away from all that power and money and there's no one 'above' them (they ok everything in parliement, so they won't ok them going!) so we'll likely always have them.
2007-02-12 11:04:16 · answer #1 · answered by Shanti76 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In modern history it has become more of a symbolic reign.
The Royal family oversees public affairs as a figurehead and a symbol. It's actually nice to see a country that is trying to hold onto it's heritage instead of turning it's back on it.
The Royal family has it's own money and is not supported by the government.
2007-02-12 11:13:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i think you will would desire to ask Elizabeth to kn w the respond. The recorded history we've is likely lacking fairly some information. We cna incredibly purely wager what got here approximately in accordance with what replace into recorded on the time. we would additionally would desire to evaluate, that even historians write from their attitude, and we've not got an entire expertise of the politics and practices of the time. so we are able to purely base our opinion of history, on comments of others and their view factors. now and returned issues seem so common, yet incredibly, there are such fairly some components to evaluate, and that i'm specific there are a number of components that we don't comprehend of to describe why she would not have met along with her. For all all of us comprehend, she did in secret. basically as now, there replace into plenty scheming and making plans in politics. such fairly some issues carried out or no longer carried out for such fairly some diverse motives. It made it plenty greater complicated via fact land, domination, and lives have been at stake with each and every decision.
2016-11-03 07:01:17 · answer #3 · answered by dewulf 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are a national symbol, much like the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell, and many other monuments, except for the fact that they are alive, and are descendants of actual monarchs who shaped the world we now live in.
2007-02-12 11:02:39 · answer #4 · answered by sjsosullivan 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They serve as titular heads of state. In other words, they are there mainly for show and have very little real power. They keep the nation together.
2007-02-14 08:50:33 · answer #5 · answered by Ariel 128 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
She is a figurehead in a consitutional monarchy with little power. The opposite would be an absolute monarchy where the king is THE KING.
2007-02-12 11:02:36 · answer #6 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No purpose whatsoever,they are just thieves with crowns and stupid uniforms,parasites of the highest order. The Bolsheviks had the right idea
2007-02-12 12:25:09 · answer #7 · answered by stef8705 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think she personally writes letters to people on their 100th birthday. I'm not sure that's all she does but I was told she did that.
2007-02-12 11:01:08 · answer #8 · answered by Bread Crumb Maloy 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Surely she pays her country back by encouraging tourist dollars.
2007-02-12 11:06:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋