What's the use of a royal family in a modern society?
2007-10-21 14:03:11 · 37 answers · asked by hamelin_control 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
What changes when a royal family is removed? It is the politicians who have the power, not the royalty, or the people . Read Animal Farm
2007-10-22 01:04:55 · answer #1 · answered by tankie419 5 · 8⤊ 4⤋
Shocking! I had no idea where were SO many royal-heads on the internet in the 21st century giving people thumbs down because they tell the truth that monarchy is an ancient establishment that should be left in the past.
People who believe in divine right or power must suffer from lack of self-belief as well because they want to behave like a herd of sheep. It's sad. The UK can learn a lot from Ireland, France and Germany.
2007-10-28 08:12:11 · answer #2 · answered by balgownie34 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Queen and the royals bring in quite a bit of revenue in tourism alone. The Queen does not sit around all day she works hard as do other royals.
I am proud that we have royalty and heritage, what do we need with a boring old President....Look at Bush, who would want to go around to his house and shake his hand.....no fun there I fear......
Yes we live in a so called modern society but we still have a heritage why should we get rid of this institution, the newspapers would be out of work for starters, think of all the people that make money off the Queens back, believe me there are many. So Leave her where she is thank you.
2007-10-24 09:08:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Well, yes, but the queen's power is only symbolical, the real power rest on the elected officals. This is called a consitutional Monarchy. The Monarch is just there to look pretty.
2007-10-27 07:28:42 · answer #4 · answered by jiahua448 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The British people think the only reason foreign tourists come to Britain is because they have a royal family. I have been to Britain 15 times and never once saw anybody in the royal family. I guess that means I was really cheated. I can see royal palaces in almost any other country in Europe regardless of their particular form of government.
Sorry, Angel Lady. The British are afraid that if there were no British royal family, no tourists would want to come to the United Kingdom. They feel that everybody would prefer to go to France instead of visiting England.
Angel Lady, you seem to be saying that the only thing Great Britain has to offer to tourists is the royal family.
2007-10-25 13:45:11 · answer #5 · answered by Mark 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
The British don't like changing things unless there is a good reason, and often a very good reason at that.
They would only really be in favour of creating a Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland if it was an improvement on what they have. Seeing that they have as democratic a monarchy as one can hope to have, the would be no practical advantage.
The "theoretical" advantage of all citizens being equal would almost universally be seen to be out-weighed by the tedium of having another election and more politicians running for yet another office. And at the root of it all, the British people don't really like politics or politicians.
As to "what use", there are two main uses; one is that they do earn the country a bit of the tourist dollar and two is that the whole non-politician thing.
2007-10-22 08:50:52 · answer #6 · answered by Adrian F 3 · 6⤊ 3⤋
I grew up thinking that what we really needed was to get rid of the monarchy and establish a democratically elected head of state. These days, my conviction is less strong on this. In the main, this is due to the performance of HM herself, whose conduct over her decades of reign has been one of great duty and committment. Looking at the ragbag of presidents around the world, one can be aware too often of raw self-interest, liars, adulterers, embezzlers, crooks, and vicous thugs. HM represents many things, including stability, social cohesion, continuity, and, though some may deride the concept, nobility. Not the nobility of the hierarchy of the aristocracy, but that of nobility in demeanour and conduct. It's true, presidents don't have to be crooks and liars, and there will be good examples in history to choose from, just as there have been bad monarchs, but I think the weight of prestige behind the British monarchy renders it a far more stable institution than that of presidents elected on a political mandate. I'd far rather see Britain represented, as a state, by the Queen than by any politician.
2007-10-24 02:24:28 · answer #7 · answered by kinning_park 5 · 7⤊ 1⤋
The answer is of course, yes. The trouble is that the US proves that Democracy means nothing when corporates essentially run the system. You simply end up with a puppet at the helm and a bunch of accountants working out the value of human life.
It would be nice to think that the monarch may actually come in useful and act as a check or balance to the increasingly overfunded UK political parties.
2007-10-21 14:20:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
Sure, then the UK wouldn't be the UK anymore but the Republic of Great Britain or RGB. Then England would be as messed up as the United States is now.
2007-10-29 07:20:43 · answer #9 · answered by rann_georgia 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO! Citizens in the UK have come to the realization that the monarchy is the only instution that protects them from severe political problems as well as the rise of a tyrant or somone who totally desposed of parliment, the representative voice of the people. The current system is not broke so dont fix fix it.
2007-10-23 04:21:42 · answer #10 · answered by rrctbgwr 2 · 6⤊ 2⤋
This question has been the major question and cause of uprising on ww1 and ww2. And Carl Marxism was the desspossal of such political belief. It causes economic resession of too much segregation and the root of racism and leadership by paranoia. Republic principle I wouldnt say its bad. But the problem was it causes so much war by crab mentality dog eat dog society and tyranny against legitimate dessent dignity of expression as well as basic fundamental rights was indescriminately deprived. Republic Politician of One for all and all for one principle of notioned democrasy and never been a motioned democrasy cannot afford to buy absolutely the tittled land and country of which Monarchs of long ancestry been nourishing civilizations, The reality was it has a long standing account of unpaid behest loans not in billion but in trillions. The result was a grave misconduct against corporate ascendancy morality resulted to legal dessent mobbery and Identity thief and rubbery. Republic principle must move drastically to norture 55trillion sides of stories and treat its human right fairly, If this republic can respect these kind of global parliament. The term republic might be the replacement of indespost narrowminded monarch in puppetry of such name was from thieves from the parliament archive of a monarch since 1905. In my own opinion I think its too late to aspire a republic. I think American politician must start realizing they just lost their bottle of wanna be republic and cannot justify its validity and legitimacy. Never been a republic was a creator of civilization but of politiking and politiking and politiking currupting agenda. A republic of law to lie and be a liar of lies in the people's house for common court composed of anarchist since 1905.
Republic in short is a business of no licence to operate.
2007-10-27 15:52:17 · answer #11 · answered by PRINCESS AQUIRAH 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋