Will they ever expect that the British government one day will be overthrown and then they will get the Monarchy back? I wonder why all the fuss about the Royals. If they such a real burden to the British tax payers, why not stop and revoke paying for them?
2007-04-26 16:17:20 · 8 answers · asked by angelikabertrand64 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
The Monarchy is tradition. Even though they have a Parliment, which is kinda like our Congress they respect the history of the Monarchy. The Monarchy brings lots of tourisim to the country and they are Ambassadors for Britian.
2007-04-26 17:48:24 · answer #1 · answered by KM 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The Queen donates 100-odd million a year to the government from Crown Estate revenue, so she's hardly a burden on anybody. She doesn't get a salary at all, and her various functions cost about £37 million.
Second in line etc is not a matter of ever actually getting the throne, but one of precedence. Your importance in the class structure for Royals depends on how close you are to the Crown.
2007-04-27 00:02:50 · answer #2 · answered by quirinalean 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dictators come and go, but the Brit monarchy will always be around. It's hostory tradition. Think of the line of succession like this, Prince Charles is Pres. Bush. If he dies, Prince William is next to secede just like Dick Chaney will if Dubya passes away. Prince Harry is next. The Speaker of the house , Nancy Pelosi (go Ca, shout out to my home state, lol) will be next for the top job. Of course we don't anyone to die. But that's the line of succession.
Oh, don't think The Queen will step down in favor of Charles or when it's his turn the Prince of Wales will abdicate in favor of William. Unlike many European royals houses, the Windsors don't like the term abdication, for the matter neither does the Brit people. All because of the fiasco with Queen Elizabeth's Uncle Edward VIII. Many thought that it was the end of the monarchy when he abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson, an Amer divorcee.
2007-04-26 21:34:28 · answer #3 · answered by Danielle P 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because if 1st in line was killed, 2nd in line would take over? lol.. The English monarchy has been around for a long time. That's how they were ruled for centuries. I guess it's a little like the founding families of England? You don't just abolish it in favor of the government. I suppose it's like a novelty and tradition that England will always have a King/Queen.
2007-04-26 18:12:42 · answer #4 · answered by Zuleika 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you were married to William,you will change of mind quickly.Because you think as a payer,and not a payed one.
Before there were tax payers,or a State to call Home,there was a Royalty making it happen for them to live free and not be a province of Denmark or Norway.That Land was not made free by Tax payers or a Paid Army.If you wanted to be British,you did stick to who was First and Last keeping it.
2007-04-26 16:33:14 · answer #5 · answered by amleth 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
the regulations of succession have been drawn up in a paternalistic society, the place it grew to become into assumed that men have been the only ones able to management. This had stepped forward from one useful attention - kings generally had to combat for their thrones and war grew to become into consistent. In an age whilst kings led their adult men into conflict, the alternative grew to become into for male heirs. In England, women individuals might desire to be triumphant, nonetheless it grew to become into not uncomplicated. in spite of each little thing the kerfuffle that Henry VIII went by using for a male inheritor, his daughter Elizabeth i grew to become into the main able ruler of her time. The succession grew to become into traced returned to the Electress Sophia, because of fact the different lines have been finally Stuarts, who have been banned from the succession for the reason that James II grew to become right into a Roman Catholic. The Electress Sophia might are becoming to be queen, yet she died basically some months earlier Queen Anne. So Sophia's eldest son grew to grow to be King George I. at modern, Prince Charles is inheritor to the throne because of fact he's the oldest son. If Princess Anne have been the oldest, he might nonetheless be inheritor, because of fact sons take priority over daughters. Unfair, yet that's the way it incredibly is. those regulations have been drawn up 1000's of years in the past.
2016-10-30 09:58:19 · answer #6 · answered by demster 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not aware that anyone is worried about it. The succession is governed by rules that make it automatic who succeeds to the throne. And it's been ongoing for 1000 years, give or take a usurper or two. So we'll just trundle along, thank you very much.
2007-04-27 00:35:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
As silly as it seems to those of us who don't have a monarch as the head of state, people that bow to a king or queen want the heir to be as close to the current ruler as possible; so a son or son of a son is great, nephew of a cousin is lousy.
2007-04-26 18:01:43 · answer #8 · answered by jlzkcarlos 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋