a queen I would be an enterprising one, I love gadgets and I am interested in Buisness I think the King or queens role should be more about securing Employment. The only good thing Charles ever did was the princes trust, which helps new
enterprise.(but only to a certain age group) which is abit discriminative. But if William did more of this, and advocated better wages for the British working People, and did more hands on PR work then he would have a proper job and in my view the royals might then be worthy, they should also be financially secure without public taxes. What do you think
2007-09-01 02:08:51 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Yes - it would be great but the british monarchy are not allowed to get involved directly with political issues ! They are supposed to be seen as independant.
The queen is the head of the Church of England so that is why they are involved in religion.
2007-09-01 02:15:11 · answer #1 · answered by Fluffy 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
When Princess Victoria first learned of her destiny, she responded, "I will be good." Paradoxically, her long reign between 1837 and 1901 saw the end of the British monarch's actual exercise of political power and the beginnings of a primarily symbolic role. For example, the Queen opens Parliament, and she must approve all parliamentary legislation. The last English ruler to refuse to do so was Queen Anne in 1704. Thus, constitutionally, Charles can be no more than a political gadfly.
Traditionally, the Monarch at least since the 19th century has exercised three rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. Since the Royal Family fulfills the ceremonial duties of the executive branch of office, it acts as a check on the powers of government.
2007-09-01 15:45:37 · answer #2 · answered by Ellie Evans-Thyme 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Monarchy and queen are nothing but a plaything, a symbol or figureheadfor Britain, and unfortunately the other commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia. True that the Monarchy generates a lot of tourism dollars for Britain, but they are no more than an expensive toy (for the taxpayers) that serves the purpose of filling the tabloids and generating chat around the water cooler.
The only kings and queens that the world needs today are found in a deck of playing cards.
2007-09-01 10:51:31 · answer #3 · answered by Tom S 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The monarchy is financially secure and they pay millions of pounds into the Treasury every year from the Royal Estates. The Queen receives a mere fraction of this back for the Civil List, which covers the expenses for her and Prince Philip. She also remits the allowances paid to other family members. They all pay hefty income tax as well. Prince Charles and his family receive income from the Duchy of Cornwall. The monarchy costs something like 63p to each taxpayer.
2007-09-01 10:13:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that they are locked in by law by what they can and cannot do.
Needless to say, if they did something outside of these set rules and it backfired, the press would create another Bastille day for them. So, I don't blame them a bit for being ultra conservative in what they do and the functions that they perform.
2007-09-02 13:18:03 · answer #5 · answered by rann_georgia 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the monarch of Britain has been since Henry viii the head of the church of England, so they have to be religious.
what your proposing is government policy and would be seen as interfering with the elected government, this would be a breech of the English Constitution
2007-09-01 09:26:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Read your history books Fiona, they are full of bad Kings and Queens.
Today they are under threat of becoming extinct that is why they have to be seen to be good.
2007-09-01 09:23:02 · answer #7 · answered by Jadore 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋