The Royal Family, just what exactly are they for

[0iD]

Being a bit of an old socialist and idealist at heart, I've often wondered as to the point of a Royal Family in modern Britain? They are basically (to me anyway) nothing more than an overpaid, elitist, out-dated marketing tool for the government.

In light of this years jubilee, does the queen & the royals as a whole have any relevance or credibility?

[Jay]

I am not to sure, its said they make the country a profit but to me its as if they are laughing in the publics face a little bit. Living their luxury lifestyle and looking down on us from their balcony.

[dave87]

Money, presitige, last vestige of the great empire?


I believe the Royal Estates generate more in revenue for the government than the Crown receives annually, so we (as a nation) run a net profit from their estates, without even considering the goodwill generated by visits abroad etc.

[MSIC]

an overpaid, elitist, out-dated marketing tool for the government.

At different stages of my life i've moved my views about our Royals, but right now i'm slightly in favour of having them.
The governments change, but the Royal Family doesnt (not at the same pace at least) - therefore i'd agree that they are a good marketing tool, but i dont agree that they market the government - more something a little more etherial, a value perhaps, or a mood that can seem quite attractive to outsiders / tourists.
I'd even argue that for some people in the UK they provide a sense of stability and security, whilst political bodies come and go -it arguably simultaneously outlines why they can be seen as dinosaurs (very slow to adapt) but also as rocks (predictability). The same is often true for more large incumbents, i think.

I enjoyed watching both 'The Queen' and 'The Kings Speech' - i have no idea how accurate they are, but they portray a sense that the Royals are hard working people in their own way (although i doubt you'd geta dock worker or miner to agree)

[SeriousSam]

Consider what we could have have ended up with without a constitutional monarchy... President Blair

[chuckskull]

I've always liked Stephen Fry's opinion on them; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ2Dggq4_lc

Yeah we do make a bit of money of them, useful for a bit diplomacy sometimes too.

[cptwhite_uk]

What Stephen said ^

[jim]

Consider what we could have have ended up with without a constitutional monarchy... President Blair

The nation voted for him

------

The only reason I ever hear routinely brought up is tourism, but I don't buy it. Are you telling me that people don't visit the White House because Barack Obama isn't King of America?

I'm not some raging republican who wants to see them all chucked into a council house and all of their property confiscated as that of the state, but I really don't see the point. Yes, they have some minor benefits in terms of diplomacy and the commonwealth and so on, but I don't believe it's anywhere near as great as is often implied.

Mind you, Britain as a nation carries a lot of tradition - dragging it along behind us for no particular reason, other than that's how we've always done things. Unless we're culling all of those things, it would be odd to focus solely on the Royal Family.

[HoldenBurn1000]

Who else would we put on plates?

[billythewiz]

They're not special, they're just rich.

I don't hold any ill will to them personally, but they are the pinnacle of an aspect of British society that I despise. I'm a big fan of meritocracy and I dislike the old school tie, aristocracy and the hereditary honours system. The monarchy is the lynch pin that holds all that together.

[0iD]

Need I say more than this? >>> https://twitter.com/#!/LouiseKPhilli.../photo/1/large

[Saracen]

The nation voted for him

....

/pedantic mode

Well, no, they didn't.

They voted for their constituency MP, and/or a political party. Or, perhaps, they voted against the alternative. It'll be interesting come the next election to see how many people that voted LibDem as an anti-Tory protest do so again.

The only people that voted for Blair were the party elite, and/or union bosses, etc, that vote on Labour party leaders. And, of course, his own constituents and they voted for him as MP, not as "President."

And only 51.4% of them voted for him (constituency results).

And nationally, 13.5m people voted Labour, out of 31.3m people that voted. That's 43.1% of the turnout, meaning 56.9% voted for someone else.

And only 71.5% of the electorate actually voted. So, 30.9% of the electorate voted for Labour, and 69.1% voted either against, or didn't vote. Either way, they didn't vote for him.

In the context of current events, it's interesting to note, in the 97 election (Labour's best, and by normal standards, a right whupping for the other parties) that :-

Labour 13,518,167
Tory 9,600,943
LibDem 5,242,947

Therefore Tory + LibDem = 14,843,890, comfortably beating Labour.

So if we're going for who voted for whom, really, we ought to have had a coalition, though it would no doubt have been a Labour/LD one.

What got Labour elected as the government in 97, and again each time until 2010, was exactly the same thing that got Thatcher's Tories elected in '79, that being a rather perverse system that, if not designed to keep those two parties in power perpetually, could hardly have been better designed to achieve that result if it had been the design purpose.

It certainly wasn't "the people" that elected either Blair, or Thatcher. It was the system.

Ironically, despite the fact that nobody in 2010 voted for the coalition, or indeed, even could have if they wanted to, we actually got the result that, really, best reflects the overall view of the people as a whole.



/pedantic mode off

[kalniel]

Labour 13,518,167
Tory 9,600,943
LibDem 5,242,947

Therefore Tory + LibDem = 14,843,890, comfortably beating Labour.

So if we're going for who voted for whom, really, we ought to have had a coalition, though it would no doubt have been a Labour/LD one.
[..]
Ironically, despite the fact that nobody in 2010 voted for the coalition, or indeed, even could have if they wanted to, we actually got the result that, really, best reflects the overall view of the people as a whole.

Not Lab + Tory?

Maybe we should have Lab+Tory+lib dem

[jim]

Well, no, they didn't.

Point taken.

It just annoys me when people act as though there was some huge period of autocratic rule by an evil dictator. He was not only placed firmly into government in 1997, but retained through further elections. He might have a bad reputation over Iraq etc, but he was a popular leader taking the electorate as a whole. There was more than enough opportunity to oust him if that's what people wanted.

Anyway, we're probably going a bit off-topic now.

[Saracen]

Well, one purpose for the Royal Family, and particularly the Queen, is as the glue that holds the Commonwealth together. It's interesting to note that the Commonwealth has been growing in strength, influence and membership, by countries applying to join up. It's an element of strength and cooperation between clearly independent, sovereign nations, and peoples.

Nobody would seriously suggest, for example, that Australia is exactly a British colony any more, yet they seem to be fairly well determined to keep the Queen and head of State, and to stay part of the Commonwealth. It is, of course, a nominal head of state with no actual influence, let alone power, over government policy. Much like here, really. But it's a link that provides relationships between all Commonwealth states.

An other use, again at least for the Queen, is that of a wise head on experienced shoulders. Ask any (British) Prime Minister and one thing they'll say is that the Queen is the one person they can talk to, use as a sounding board, that they can guarantee won't leak, and won't be overheard. And, having seen politicians, prime ministers and governments, not to mention scandals and crises, come and go for 60 years, she's a phenomenally experienced sounding board.

How else could we get that? Elected presidents come and go. Her Maj is there, decade in, decade out.

I mean, there's all the normal ceremonial stuff, tourist attraction, etc, as well, but in large part, the Queen, and whoever follows her, provide a focus and sounding board that's outside conventional government and civil service circles.

[melon]

they are in it for themselves...

bloody reptiles..

we need more moose

m