What’s up with Royalty? I know there are several European countries with Kings, Queens, Princes(ses), etc. Where do they get their money? Is it all self-generated, or do they receive funds from their governments?
What do they do, anyway? From what I’ve seen, they play a lot. They also do charity work and go to disaster sites, apparently.
How long is this expected to go on? Will there ALWAYS be a King or Queen of England? It’s somewhat wierd to me as an American that the Royal Family still exists and they haven’t been demoted yet to just plain ol’ wealthy dynasties. Will the tradition hold forever?
Not only is it weird, it’s barbaric. But that’s a rant for another forum.
The old western European royal families serve as heads of state and don’t really do much else. Almost exclusively, all the actual political power rests in democratically elected governments. In the case of the UK, the royal family has significant investments and land holdings; I’m pretty certain they don’t receive any tax money these days. They spend most of their times representing their country at fancy social ocasions, making speeches at Christmas, and being hounded by the press.
On the other side of the spectrum, you have royal families in countries like Saudi Arabia who are rather ruthless tyrants with essentially unchecked rule.
I can’t quite see how the existence of a Royal Family is particularly “barbaric”, unless you find families with vast amounts of inherited wealth barbaric, a phenomenon which isn’t confined to Europe and Saudi Arabia.
In answer to the OP, it helps if you look at the British RF as a cultural part of British life - they’re sort of intertwined with issues of government, politics and history. Personally, I think the last even mildly interesting British monarch was Charles II, but that’s another story…
Yeah I am not sure how ‘barbaric’ is a reasonable term. However, I notice that you are Aussie and the
Many people might accept the notion that monarchy is not the BEST form of government but it raises the question of whether there is a BETTER one.
A Presidential system as used in the United States has a number of downsides, most notably that the position is heavily politicised. As a moderate-monarchist, I am glad that the symbollic head of the UK does not openly adhere to any political party.
The answer is that there is no ‘perfect’ form of democratic government…each has its own downside. In the absence of a clearly defined ‘better way’, why bother changing the current systems? But this could be a subject for GD…
The Norwegian royal house is funded by tax money. The budget for 2005 is:
King & queen: 7 million Norwegian Kroner
Royal court: 103 million NKr
Crown prince & crown princess: 5 million Nkr
CP & CP staff: 10 million Nkr
(Approximate numbers, exact numbers here, in Norwegian). Divide by 7 or so to get dollars.)
They own a lot of stuff, but much of that are historical buildings which are more of cash drains than cash cows. I expect much of the budget for the royal court goes to maintenance of buildings which would be maintained by tax money anyway, as they are national and cultural treasures. These places tend to be partly open to the public, so they serve as museums as well as living quarters.
As for what they do: They do a lot of state visits and representation both abroad and nationally. The king (or queen, when/if the current king’s granddaughter inherits the job) is head of state, which in Norway is a mostly but not completely symbolic position. For instance, after national elections, the king requests the leader of the winning party to form a cabinet. In 1927 Labour was the largest party after the election for the first time. (They didn’t have a majority, as the more conservative votes were split between several parties.) There was a lot of political pressure on the king to request a conservative coalition to form a cabinet, but he asked Labour instead, uttering the famous (in Norway ) words: “I’m king of the communists, too.” The Labour government only lasted a few weeks before it fell and was replaced by a conservative coalition (more info on parliamentary systems), but it probably did have a long term effect in making Labour seen more as a serious political party.
Will it hold forever? Well, forever is a long time, but the republican movement (as in “Let’s replace monarchy with republic”) here is pretty weak. A typical feeling is that the current system works OK. If we didn’t have a king we’d need to elect a precident to do the same job, and that would probably cost more. There’s also a lot of positive feelings connected to the recent history of monarchy here - it’s tied up with getting political independence from Sweden in 1905, and resistance against the German occupation during WWII.
This is also one reason why the monarchies in Denmark and the Netherlands are pretty secure. The Danish and Dutch monarchs were very visible leaders of their people resisting the Nazi occupation.
Thanks, cunctator, for the link. I perused it, and I do understand more about who they are and what goes on.
I think I’d be pretty pissed, though, if I lived in a country with a royal family and they did get tax money.
Thanks for your replies, everyone.
When I saw the question I didn’t think of it as what is their usefulness as what is their own purpose, to which the answer is “to hang on to their wealth and as much of their power as they can manage.” In order to do this the royal families of Western democracies (and some others) have learned that to make themselves useful, and to provide a spectacle (make a spectacle of themselves :D) and to oppose fascism and not to support their government in prosecuting a war that they will lose are all useful traits. Other Royals – eg the aforementioned Sauds – prefer to do it the old fashioned way. That for many Royals this did not prove to be a winning strategy in the past, and especially the recent past, has not, so far, discouraged them.
And except for the fact that the First Lady doesn’t get million$ every year for her personal use out of tax money. She gets her$ from the Bush Dynasty. We won’t talk about how they get their$.
Before I read cunctator’s link, I pretty much thought that the purpose of the British RF was to wave to large crowds of people (that little queenly wave) and have lots of sex. I didn’t think they really had anything to do with politics- isn’t that what the PM is for? So, it seems they do more I thought.
And I’ve heard about the Saudi Royalty. They party. A LOT.
I think none of the responders have actually put the (slim) case for a constitutional monarchy. In a simple parliamentary system, one needs an ultimate check on the power of the legislature. In the US that is done by a complex web of states rights, senate, congress, president and courts, so that no one branch can run away unchecked. In other systems one has a prime minister/president/parliaments/courts. In England, one needs an outside power able to dissolve parliament in the case of a deadlock or constitutional crisis, and even perhaps refuse to sign bills. That power is vested in the monarchy, at least in theory. In Australia that power was used (via the governer general) to dissolve parliament during a financial deadlock in the 70’s.
Now, it’s been a while since my European history, so I’m sorry if I mix some things up.
How did the English royalty go from being tue kings and queens to just, basically, figureheads (well, everyone says they’re figureheads). Basically, how did they lose so much power? Was it all because of the (sorry if I get this wrong) Manga Carta (that was the document that made England a democratic monarchy, right? I feel like I’m way off.)? Or was it a slower process?
"The Queen is the United Kingdom’s Head of State. As well as carrying out significant constitutional functions, The Queen also acts as a focus for national unity, presiding at ceremonial occasions, visiting local communities and representing Britain around the world.
The Queen is also Head of the Commonwealth. During her reign she has visited all the Commonwealth countries, going on ‘walkabouts’ to gain direct contact with people from all walks of life throughout the world. " - from that webpage
What “significant constitutional functions”? That seems to be the only real government-involved thing she does. Other than that, it just seems to be looking pretty at important functions, and meeting people.
The Magna (no comics involved, I’m afraid) Carta was quite a bit earlier than true constitutional monarchy in England. Basically, England went from a more-or-less absolutistish monarchy–the monarch never had as much power as the French one, for example–to a completely Parliament-based one during the reign of the Stuart dynasty.
The Stuarts (James I in 1603 to James II’s dethroning in the Glorious Revolution in 1688ish) tried their darndest to make England totally absolutist, but their efforts really just made Parliament want to put the monarchy in their own hands. They finally did it for good when William of Orange and Mary took the throne. Parliament made sure that everyone knew that the monarchy’s power was from them, not from God or the nobility.
That was the biggest step towards a constitutional monarchy and the waning of the royal families’ power.
the English Civil War (actually there have been several civil wars over the centuries but this was the one which got dignified with the name) and the Glorious Revolution which was a tailpiece to it proved that Kings were made, not by God, but by Parliament, and they could be equally unmade by it. In practise the King’s power was already circumscribed by his need for money to carry on the business of government, which only Parliament could vote him. Charles I had attempted to govern without supply during the Years of Personal Government but even he was driven to summon another Parliament in the end. The country returned to monarchy largely because no one had been able to devise a system that worked better (Lord Protector Cromwell had been king in all but name for the last few years). From this point on the doctrine that the King does not rule but acts only on the ‘advice’ of his ministers began to grow in strength although it was Queen Victoria’s reign before the monarch’s role was entirely reduced to figurehead.
Today the Queen (and one or two others) receive annual payments from the Civil List, which is theory a fund set up with the income from various Crown lands surrendered to the Parliament in the 18th. c. in exchange for income in perpertuity. These payment are supposed to cover the cost of carrying out official engagements, entertaining guts-hungry foreign presidents, running the various palaces (which would inevitably be a charge on the public anyway as public buildings) and the machinery of royalty. She also has substantial income from other land and investments which are the monarch’s persoanl property.
Will it last? It will last as long as people want it to last. Privately many in the Labour Party would like to abolish them tomorrow but they hope the whole institution will just decline into irrelevance and ridicule to the point where they can just quietly end it. Those on the Right are always monarchists. You don’t get conservative republicans here.
Just pointing out (as you inevitably have to do in these kind of questions) that there is no such title as the Queen, or King, of England nor any English royal family.
Doesn’t a large part of the Royal income come from their privately owned property? Even if the RF ceased to be officially recognized as such, wouldn’t they still be able to carry on some of the trappings of a royal lifestyle, supported by their private income? Of course then they’d just be ex-officio aristocracy like the descendants of the German and French noble families, but probably still recognized as supremely important in the circles that care about such things.
One thing I rather like about the Canadian monarchy is that our executive branch comes in two parts: one part that’s a figurehead, and another part that actually has an official opposition that can criticize its actions in Parliament.
As for expenditures, if I have this correctly, since George III the revenue from the Crown’s personal landholdings has been turned over to the state. It’s many times the allowance the state gives the Queen, out of which, furthermore, she has to pay for the expenses of her office. In other words, the UK makes money off the Queen. The Royal Family also have a number of quite useful functions: for one thing, they’re the most prestigious of all the UK’s diplomats; for another, the Queen is more or less the most experienced of all senior government officials, experience she apparently puts to use in her discussions with the Prime Minister.
Furthermore, the much-ballyhooed expenses of the Governor General of Canada over the last year were, as few people seem to remember, incurred on a diplomatic mission she was sent on by the Department of Foreign Affairs. She can’t exactly turn around and go, “No, I’m going to disobey the civil government because I think it would be too costly.”
) words: “I’m king of the communists, too.” The Labour government only lasted a few weeks before it fell and was replaced by a conservative coalition (more info on