ISTM that the British “royalty” perform no real societal function, other than as a source of drama/entertainment and gossip, similar to the Kardashians in the US. I actually have more respect for the Kardashians in this respect, in that they’re at least making it on their own based on market forces and public demand and are funded by willing payers rather than being imposed on society. (Personally I have little interest in this type of thing, and if I lived in England I would be in favor of abolishing the royalty and let those people shake a leg and see if they can make it on their own.)
But how does the British public feel about it? I’m aware that the public seems to support keeping them around, but is this because they feel they perform an actual role, or is it because people like the entertainment value and/or because they represent some emotional tie to the country’s glorious history? If the former, what actual role might that be?
Not a UKer, but the Queen is the Head of State, which is a valuable role indeed. It allows for softer diplomacy. In the US, the Head of State and Head of Government are the same person, Donald J. Trump. In the UK, the Head of State is the Queen and the Head of Government is Theresa May. I think that it’s pretty obvious to see why this is to many people a preferable scenario. It allows other countries to separate the current government from the state as a whole. An example: obviously Theresa May is probably not the most popular person in Germany at the moment. If Mrs. May were to go to Germany, it is likely that she would be greeted with a certain degree of opprobrium. One might expect protests or non-invitations to particular events or certain politicians would decline to meet with her, things that might be quite insulting indeed. The Queen though would likely be able to visit Germany with far fewer issues. She might even be celebrated and certainly wined and dined by the political establishment. It allows for public signaling that the UK is not Germany’s problem, but rather the current government of the UK. The US lacks this ability to allow allies to separate the state and the government. Mr. Trump is the complete embodiment of the United States. Slights against him are effectively slights against the state as well as his policies. You can see how that can cause diplomatic issues and can cause resentment and difficulty maintaining alliances. It can lead to more tension between countries than needs to exist.
I would also like to point out that in the particular case of the UK, the Queen is also Head of the Commonwealth. Obviously, in diplomacy this is EXTREMELY valuable. The UK government can dispatch her to other Commonwealth nations and seriously impact public opinion in those countries. Commonwealth nations can also rely upon the Queen to symbolically attach themselves to the UK. Canada right now is having a tiff with the Philippines (actually it just resolved, but pretend I wrote this last week.) Canada could request that a royal visit the Philippines to discuss trash. Such an event would likely lead to much higher approval from the Philippine people for Canada and compel Duterte to back down. The soft power that the Queen yields is immense and I would wager is worth the relative pittance that the royals cost.
The Royal family are very in to charitable work. And a visit by a royal to somewhere will prompt all sorts of activity before the visit. People will tidy things up, essential repairs will be done, and so on and so forth.
They try to encourage the best in people.
And the Queen is the world’s pre-eminent diplomat. And the Royal Family are a symbol of continuity and stability. Governments come and go but the monarchy remains.
Yes, for some, they are a real-life soap opera. But they’re a whole lot more.
This is the 2nd post like this here I’ve seen recently and I do not remotely get why such a distinction is useful at all.
So QEII goes to another country and gets a different (but not guaranteed better) reception than the PM. So … what? I’m smart enough to understand the distinction between a person and a country. The UK isn’t visiting and being snubbed/lauded in either case.
A non-functional head of state is a complete waste of enzymes and a contradiction in terms.
In the U.S., we currently have an extremely politically divisive president. There are plenty of people within the U.S. and outside, who would not feel comforted or honored if he were to visit, or even to express concern over a situation. And while the current president represents an extreme, there have been other presidents who invoked similar reactions to a lesser degree.
When there is a disaster or a triumph, it’s nice to have a representative of your country to commiserate or share the joy without making a political statement.
Queen Elizabeth visiting the victims of the Grenfell fire, or attending the London Olympics, represents all of the people of the UK, and joins them together in a shared sentiment. Can you get that the same would not be the case for the U.S. president?
Added to that, the primary work of the monarchy, as stated above, is charitable. The “engagements” that are the bulk of their schedule involve charities, and working for the betterment of the country. To the extent that the Kardashians have begun to involve themselves in a few charitable causes, they can be similarly beneficial, but they have a long way to go to reach anything even approaching the impact of the royal family.
All the time. Watch official state visits of the Queen. Guaranteed that you see column inches and airtime dedicated to the event. In many if not most cases far more time than devoted to the UK Head of Government coming. Look at Charles’s trip to Cuba. The Cuban people went nuts for it. That changes the Cuban perception of the UK and can and does lead to investment opportunities and a certain degree of political power that the UK can exert in the future. Imagine if you will that a US company and a British company both want to put a resort on the same Cuban beach, that royal visit could be the tipping point that gets the UK company the contract.
I assume that you’re American. If you have been paying any attention at all, you know that Trump is meeting with Charles in two weeks. My guess is that prior to that coming out, you didn’t even know Trump was going to the UK. Now, it’s a big deal. There’s also a pretty good chance that their conversation is going to be about climate change. So the UK is able to lecture the most powerful man in the world on his commitment to climate change in a way and in an environment that does not allow him to respond in the same way that he could respond to a politician. That’s tremendous soft power. The very fact that you know so much about the royal family is soft power for the UK. The royal family can keep them in the center of international news and amplify their perceived power and thus their real power around the globe. These are not trifles.
I did not know about that. Which is kind of my point. I follow politics more closely than the average person and read all sorts of analysis of British-US relations (and a bit of British internal stuff, e.g. elections, Brexit negotiations, Corbyn anti-Semitism issues, and the like) and have never seen anything which suggests any significant role for the British royal family.
Almost all of what I know about the royal family is related to them constantly appearing in headlines in my Google News feed, all of which appears to be related to them getting married or divorced, having affairs or babies, feuding with each other or other relatives, and the like. (I can’t be completely sure, since I never click on the headlines to read the articles, but it’s hard to imagine that articles with these types of headlines are really about the royals having substantive impacts on international relations and policy.)
So QEII visits somewhere. The country is not visiting the spot. And since she’s powerless, etc., the visit has no practical purpose. No speed up of government aid or anything is going to happen as a result. I don’t see the point at all.
A figurehead doesn’t do anything in this regard.
And you continue to assume that everybody lurvs people like QEII. In some places at some times having them passing by results in more controversy than an actual person with power.
It’s all a pop-social thing. In terms of politics it just complicates matters. So instead of one person/group to worry about there’s now two people/groups to worry about.
People and governments around the world interpret a visit from the Queen as an act of the UK, just as they interpret a visit from the U.S. president as an act of the U.S. And the queen has one of the president’s most powerful tools, the bully pulpit. When she draws attention to something, the government of the UK, the people of the UK, and governments and people elsewhere pay attention, which results in things happening as a result. It’s not as direct as signing legislation, but it can be even more powerful.
The queen and the royal family have their detractors, but nothing like the divisions caused by politics, either in the UK or the U.S.
Speaking as a UK taxpayer (for over 40 years), I’m perfectly happy to fund the Queen.
As others have said, the Monarch acts as a distinguished neutral representative of the UK.
The Queen is the host for State visits, using our castles and palaces to provide a suitable welcome to foreign dignitaries.
She represents the country abroad in the same way.
She meets regularly with Prime Ministers and no doubt can offer advice based on her unrivalled experience.
By contrast the UK has had a wide range of Prime Ministers, with varying views and degrees of competence.
Prime Ministers are responsible for political policy and decisions and that can lead to real unpopularity, both at home and abroad.
So it’s much better to have the Queen do the hospitality stuff.
It’s true that newspapers and social media focus on gossip about the Royal family. But that’s a reflection on them, not the Monarch.
By contrast, having Trump represent America is an embarrassment.
“How many divisions does the Pope have?” – Stalin’s successors found out the hard way that the Pope doesn’t need an army in order to exert influence.
There are dozens of corporations that have gained huge influence in the world without ever firing a shot. Thomas Paine was a writer, yet he had vastly more influence on the Revolutionary War than most soldiers.
I suggest that you devote some time to thinking really, really hard about the nature of power.
It’s almost as though stories about the royal family having an argument generate more clicks and interest (especially from US-based IPs) than stories about soft diplomacy.
I was responding to a specific point by senoy (which I quoted). He said “The very fact that you know so much about the royal family is soft power for the UK”. My response that “Almost all of what I know about the royal family is related to [soap-opera type matters]” was making the point that the fact that I know so much about the royal family is not soft power for the UK, due to the nature of what information about the royal family I get.
Your rejoinder about why the information is skewed in this manner is irrelevant to this specific point.