The monarchy is a constitutional position that is well worth the investment in economic and diplomatic terms.
Think about it as well - if we didn;t have a monarchy we’d simply have a drab President, who would spend similar if not greater amounts, and would be far less of a diplomatic and economic asset.
Also note that the biggest watse of taxpayers money is by politicans, notably through subsidies to companies - the rail network is a particular glaring example of extreme waste.
This is all very interesting. There is a small debate in Canada over whether we should retain the monarchy. This is of course a different question than it is in Britain, since the queen makes us pretty close to no money on tourism or anything else.
But the question of a non-partisan head of state is a complex and interesting one. On one side, states are partisan… and the system we’ve got now in Canada means that if anything, the G-G will be partisan to the party in power. (Well, maybe not the current G-G… I dunno.) So it’s arguable whether it’s an advantage to have a non-partisan head of state.
One interesting example in which a monarch plays a crucial role politically is Spain. Juan Carlos relinquished the power that had been left to him by Franco, played his constitutional power card to ensure the success of the transition despite an attempted military coup. In bringing back democracy, regional autonomy that had been suppressed under Franco also returned, meaning that even the regions with autonomist sentiments share a respect for the king even if they lack it for the civil government… at least this was how it was explained to me by my friends in Spain 
count me in on the anti-monarchy side…i find it disgusting to be honest. I hate the idea of someone simply being BORN into a position of power.
Somthing that nobody has mentioned is that the Queen is our spiritual leader. She is the head of the Church of England and God’s representative on earth for us (at least in theory, thanks Henry!). Saying let’s ditch the monarchy is rather like saying let’s ditch the Pope.
Ooops, my mistake. Sorry.
I’ve been told by Brit friends that they consider the monarchy a good investment because it helps keep all those Yanks coming over with their lovely dollars. YMMV of course.
There might even have been a study about that somewhere.
I’m always baffled by this argument. The answer is none. Does the fact that France has no royal family put you off holidaying there? Is America a no-go zone for European tourists because it only has a dreary old President? I don’t think so.
Pension the royals off, have an elected head of state to do the ceremonial stuff and act as a check on would-be dictators, as well as the PM. Then we would all be ‘citizens’ rather than ‘subjects’ and finally be free of the forelock-tugging mentality that royal families induce.
Thanks! I tend to take a rather romantic view of the British Monarchy, as seems to be the case for many Americans. But in hard-nails terms, I do see a value for what E2R and her clan do, and strongly suspect that a lot of it goes on behind the scenes and therefore isn’t recognized.
Point taken. Compare any Hollywood celebrity’s reaction to the paparazzi to what the Royals, who have got to have it worse than any celebrity, have said and done.
Warning: Very un-PC remark follows. Well, you have to admit that England has always done best under a Queen! 
Winston had a very high view of the role of the monarchy, and conceived of it as his job to help the new young Queen, whose father died young and unexpectedly, it might be remembered, take on her constitutional role. In this he had vast experience, having been a minister in close contact with the previous four kings, and being the son of a minister and strong political leader under Victoria.
I don’t share your wishy-washy 
American perspective but I do agree much of the Queens constitutional role is misunderstood and, consequently, undervalued. It’s a shame, really. For example, her role releases (currently) Blair to run a highly dynamic, agenda-driven administration and, in relation to real-time * issues of the day*, pretty much without fetter (as long as he/she has a good and loyal HoC majority)– best he doesn’t try to mess with constitutional / parliamentary precedent, though.
I do tend to take a more, as you say, “hard nails” perspective of the Monarch’s role; If there’s something better out there, we ought to be looking at it. I just haven’t seen it and these people who occasionally come by to tell us how dreadful it all is never seem to have an alternative.
What I do find interesting is that after a thousand years or so, one might imagine a kind of evolution could have occurred; that the checks, balances, precedents, experiences, etc. – the shape and character of the constitution – may have grown and become a form that exactly suits the national character and its democratic wishes. I find it difficult to explain, this evening. How about trees and giraffe’s ?
It is, at least, an interesting comparison. IMHO.
Yes, I suppose if Elton were to be crowned at least the long tradition of embracing misguided millinery would continue. Never mind the dodgy partners …
Spiritual leader? Not mine, my friend.
To go back to the original question - why does the UK still have a monarchy? The answer would have to be inertia.
Think of the constitutional and procedural changes - to list a few:
I’m sure there’s lots more, but each of these changes would bring out a lot of debate and argument, drawn-out and divisive, that I think would create more damage than leaving the dysfunctional family where it is. Perhaps just tell them to learn to live on the income from the Duchy of Cornwall, and if that doesn’t support all the grandchildren and Archduke Uncles, send 'em off on their bikes to get a job.
There is a very strong resistance (among legal professionals)in the UK to have a constituion for two reasons:
2)If you then allow the constitution to be changed, what is the point in having a constitution in the first place?
Also the UK does now have a bill of rights thanks to the EU.
The point is that the royal family itself, with associated trappings, is a tourist attraction, just like the Eiffel Tower. Mystique and pageantry and whatnot. I wonder how many people a year attend the changing of the guard, etc.
This misses the point. No one is suggesting that the British tourist industry would collapse if the UK became the republic. The argument is instead the rather more subtle one that enough foreign tourists see the monarchy as a positive reason to visit the UK for that to offset the costs of the monarchy. As foreign tourists are thought to have added £11 billion to the UK economy in 2001 (and, thanks to foot-and-mouth, that was a year of very low visitor numbers), we only need to be talking about a very small proportion of all overseas visitors thinking in that way for the argument to stand up. The marginal benefits to the tourism industry probably are greater than the monarchy’s marginal costs. There is also no great mystery as to why some tourists see the Royal Family as a positive reason - visitors find it more interesting to visit palaces that are still in use, preferably lived in by people they regularly see on television.
I’ve never understood any aspect of the financial argument. It’s the fourth largest economy in the world, so why are we looking for bargains. Isn’t the idea to have the best form of democracy possible and hang the cost ? Anything else has to be an absurd false economy.
Thus, IMHO, to engage in debate on the tourist value of the Monarchy is to engage the “they cost to much” crowd on their own bizarre, and redundant, terms. Just … meaningless.
Well, I’ve never actually seen the calculation done - I’d be interested to know how many foreign tourists gave the existence of the royal family as their “main” reason for visiting Britain, as opposed to scenery, literary associations, culture, architecture, history etc etc. Even if your argument is right and the costs of the royals are offset by royalist tourists, I don’t think this kneejerk shout of “tourism” is an argument against change. Tourists go touring for some pretty dodgy reasons - in the 19th century, for example, there were guided tours of lunatic asylums; today, Northern Ireland has “terror tourism” - visitors who want to take photos of sectarian grafitti and get the sectarian experience for themselves.
Anyway I don’t think the cost of the royal family is the most important point - if something is worth keeping, its worth paying for. The royal family must go because its existence perpetuates the idea that people are worthy of respect and reverence through an accident of birth. I think this is a pernicious idea which still infects British culture and institutions. Of course abolition has constitutional implications and I understand the inertia argument - I would go for a gradual phasing out rather than anything dramatic.
My first post in aeons and in the end it looks like mrsface has said it in her last paragraph. bah!
My problem with the maintenance of a royal family is the same problem that I have with any hereditary political power. It runs contrary to the idea of participative government (however lazy we are at the polls) to have a constitutional position filled by birth. I think we tend to think too fondly of these hereditary institutions, instead of seeing them as the face of a kind of social order we should have outgrown.
Agreeing with mrsface again, I would be happy to see a gradual phasing-out of the institution. Inertia is what we’re good at! I have heard it said that the Queen (and by extension her descendants) could not in conscience abdicate unless “her people” asked her to, which kind of suggests that we do need a referendum, with all the agonising about phrasing the “right” question that goes with it.
That said, the lack of practical power wielded by the monarchy means that I don’t spend much time down at Buck House shouting “Lizzie! Lizzie! Lizzie! Out! Out! Out!”
Embra
This perspective is absent in my world. People earn respect. I genuinely no nothing of this “reverence” of which you speak. I see it in old films and I see it as a choice. It’s not for me so I have no time for it. I doubt if \I’ll be taken to the Tower. What this has to do with ensuring the most effective form of democracy possible, I’m not entirely sure; Are you arguing that this perceived “reverence” and retaining the Monarchy are mutually inclusive ?
The last two posters want the Monarchy gone, which is fine. But again, no one is suggesting an alternative, let alone a better (for democracy) alternative… all I’m reading is, ‘it has to go … It’s half an argument, folks.
that would make for rather an interesting series of Big Brother.
OK London,
It has to go and be replaced my a presidential figurehead like we have in Ireland.