The Queen - useful or useless?

[Racheya]

Queen of England, what do you guys think of her, I'm curious.

 

 

 

I think that though she might do fairly little, she is still a big part of what is seen as English culture. Our Monarchy makes us different.

 

 

 

Not sure what else to say so... discuss.

[1_man_army]

There is no need for a Monarch in a modern democratic state, the have no practical purpose in our society. The cost of the Royal family to the taxpayer could be put to much better use and help the masses rather than the privileged few who are only in that position because they were lucky to be born into a Royal family.

 

 

 

People make the argument that the Royals are a tradition and that they bring in tourists. Well, we also had a tradition of pillaging the world in the name of empire as well until we thankfully gave that abhorrent nonsense up and Paris is one is one of the world's biggest tourist attractions (remember what they did with their monarchy?).

[Lionheart_0]

As a Canadian, I am not one of those haters who think that we should only listen to the PM of Canada, and see the Queen as some old lady. Even though she only exercises a small amount of power now, I still see her as an important figure head.

[Racheya]

There is no need for a Monarch in a modern democratic state, the have no practical purpose in our society. The cost of the Royal family to the taxpayer could be put to much better use and help the masses rather than the privileged few who are only in that position because they were lucky to be born into a Royal family.

 

 

 

People make the argument that the Royals are a tradition and that they bring in tourists. Well, we also had a tradition of pillaging the world in the name of empire as well until we thankfully gave that abhorrent nonsense up and Paris is one is one of the world's biggest tourist attractions (remember what they did with their monarchy?).

 

I do agree we spend too much money on them, but where would that money end up going? Just lining the pockets of the politicians rather than the people, probably. *sigh*

[1_man_army]

There is no need for a Monarch in a modern democratic state, the have no practical purpose in our society. The cost of the Royal family to the taxpayer could be put to much better use and help the masses rather than the privileged few who are only in that position because they were lucky to be born into a Royal family.

 

 

 

People make the argument that the Royals are a tradition and that they bring in tourists. Well, we also had a tradition of pillaging the world in the name of empire as well until we thankfully gave that abhorrent nonsense up and Paris is one is one of the world's biggest tourist attractions (remember what they did with their monarchy?).

 

I do agree we spend too much money on them, but where would that money end up going? Just lining the pockets of the politicians rather than the people, probably. *sigh*

 

 

 

It's easy to be cynical about how the would be spent in the current climate with the banking bailouts and the MP's expenses controversies but hypothetically that cash could be used to keep hospitals and schools running rather than to pay for Prince Andrew and Prince William to use the RAF as their personal taxi service.

[OldJoe]

We have a royal family (Sweden). I have no problem with it, i want to keep it. It is somethign which i like, to keep an old tradition alive.

 

I don't care about those who say "oh it should be equal for everyone"... Blablabla, it will never be equal for everyone.

 

And they don't cost much to run, about 40 million kr (4 million) a year. We spend so much money on everything else, so it wouldn't boost the economy anyways.

[mmmcannibalism]

not an expert on british tradition but I think the queen serves as an important figure head. In a sense, if the people arent in riot over it I see no reason for it to be a problem.

[Rainy_Day]

She's still the head of our church, and we are one of the few countries that still have a Monarch, thus attracting tourism. It's traditional these days, they don't have any real powers.

[1_man_army]

The UK royal family costs over £37M in 2005 alone which doesn't include protection costs. I vaguely remember reading recently that they wanted more but I can't find an article on that at the moment.

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm

 

 

 

I still don't buy the tourism argument, most tourists sees the Royals and their palaces wouldn't disappear if there wasn't a monarchy. Again, France is one of the biggest tourist capitals in the world but they got rid of their monarchy long ago. The argument doesn't work for me.

[Wongtong]

So what exactly has the queen done? I was thinking about this the other day.

[Dax]

So what exactly has the queen done? I was thinking about this the other day.

 

 

 

She doesn't do much for us Australians, I don't think she's ever done anything while I've been around anyway. :-s

[eias]

From what i heard the Queen has no political powers or benefits,is that true?

[a_bert]

There is no real reason to keep the monarchy in Britain.

 

 

 

It's just how we roll.

[warri0r45]

I find the idea of ruling through bloodlines completely irrational and archaic. There's nothing about Elizabeth II and her forebears that makes them any better at leadership than any number of people who could be democratically elected.

 

 

 

So yes, I think the Queen is essentially useless. She seems nice enough and I can appreciate the sentimental feelings some Brits have towards her, but the British government doesn't need her help for anything.

[____]

The Queen, as the ruling Head of State, is generally powerless until the government gets to a point where the Crown needs to interveen. She has the power to sack the PM if needs be and dissolve parliment along with some other perks but not much else. The position is comparative to the Govener General, no real political power in relation to the running of the country. But is there in the off chance the government gets too... unstable.

[l0l0lpur34]

The UK royal family costs over £37M in 2005 alone which doesn't include protection costs. I vaguely remember reading recently that they wanted more but I can't find an article on that at the moment.

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm

 

 

 

I still don't buy the tourism argument, most tourists sees the Royals and their palaces wouldn't disappear if there wasn't a monarchy. Again, France is one of the biggest tourist capitals in the world but they got rid of their monarchy long ago. The argument doesn't work for me.

 

I'm not convinced on the money argument after seeing some of the recent scandals with MP expenses!

[baron8000]

I like the Queen, she provides enough entertainment and such that I think the cost of keeping her about is small enough to be put up with (although of course, even if the Government cut off her allowance, its not like she doesn't have enough money of her own to keep herself going).

 

 

 

Also, the reorganisation of the English constitution and legal system when you remove the crown would be a nightmare (and probably cost a ton).

[Howlin0001]

So what exactly has the queen done? I was thinking about this the other day.

 

Present queen or past king/queens?

[Da_Latios]

Useless. We might as well have a painting in her place.

[Lateralus]

I enjoy the monarchy and like the current queen, but I can't justify the whole thing in my head. If anything reinforces the class system then this is it. Getting rid of the monarchy will also be an essential step in removing the church from the state. The Queen is the head of the church, too.

[Tim]

She's still the head of our church, and we are one of the few countries that still have a Monarch, thus attracting tourism. It's traditional these days, they don't have any real powers.

 

Not to mention the Royal Air Force and Royal Australian Air Force, Since we swear an alegienace (sp?) to HRM 'Liz II. Which is something i've always wondered, If we (Australia) were to become republic, what would happen to the our Air Force, let alone the Officers in it that swear an Oath of Sentence to HRM. Would they lose their jobs? Shipped off to England? Something thats puzzled me for 2 years now.

[Bufoman]

Well, for under 40 million pounds you get an entire family serving as the Representatives of England. You also get a well trained diplomatic core, and a figurehead to lead the commonwealth of nations. I do believe I heard the Royal Family costs each English subject approximately 40 pounds per year in taxes... That seems like very little to pay to keep tradition alive. Besides, if worse comes to worse and the country needs a strong leader, I think it's a good idea to have a few Princes working together to get things back to normal.

 

 

 

Although I am an American, I do like the British monarchy as a whole. I just wish they would take a more active role in their government. When you have a monarch that leads for so long, you should get consistency of policy that affects generations. Here it seems like every 8 years things are flipped upside down. But more and more I think our two party system is really a one party system with two slightly different flavors. At lest a monarchy is honest.

[l0l0lpur34]

I heard the Royal Family costs each English subject approximately 40 pounds per year in taxes...

 

Less than 60p - a tiny amount.

[Utopianflame]

Courtesy of the queen we avoided having 'president' Tony as head of state, so she is quite fine by me.

[megakiller32]

She doesn't do anything, and keeps Britian from going too communist, and at the same time (like Americans and their flags) gives Brits something distinguished and patriotic to show if they care.