The UK is a parliamentary democracy. All facets of government are run by democratically elected and appointed officials. What, then, is the justification for continuing to use Brittish tax money to support the royal family, when their actual function in government is nothing?
If parliament has the power, should they disband the monarchy? And if they did, would it have any adverse affect on Brittish society?
How much money does the U.S. government spend on maintenance of the Washington Monument? Mt. Rushmore? Yellowstone Park? The Statue of Liberty? A million American Flags fluttering around public buildings and city streets?
Same thing.
If I lived in England I would probably be in favor of disbanding the monarchy (though I can’t be absolutely certain, as I don’t live there and am not certain of what role they play in society). I’m pretty sure Parliament has the power.
But I do wonder how much the upkeep of the Royal is, as compared to others who fulfill the Head of State role? (The Queen has a lot of money on her own, independent of what she is provided annually. Whether that money should be considered property of the state might be another question).
Personally, I’d like to see the Parliament erect some scaffolding around the Queen and sandblast her for about 4 months. They could get that guy who did the artsy scaffolding for the Washington Memorial. Then they could have a big unveiling ceremony, which would reveal her to actually be a small Indian man named Bajar.
IMHO in 3…2…1…
I don’t think it’s the same thing. Spending money to maintain monuments is different from spending money to support the unnecessarily luxurious lifestyle of people who don’t do anything.
Monuments teach us about history. The Brittish Royal Family knowingly takes money from Brittish citizens and do nothing in return.
The world’s wealthiest family is NOT the British royal family! There is a cuban-American family in Florida, which controls about 90% of American sugar production, by the name of Fanjul, or Fanjol-something like this. Anyway, because this family has lavished money on politicians of both parties, the US domestic sugar industry has been sheltered by tariffs from foreign competition. As well, they are allowed to skirt US labor laws-US sugar workers are among the poorest and most downtrodded workers in this country. We 9the US consumer) currently pay around @ times the world price of sugar-the difference goes into this familie’s pockets!
I
Unfortunately, this will probably never end…at last counting, the Fanjul family had it pretty good!
As the Queen is considered to be the head of state, do the Commonwealth nations provide any monetary support for the Royal family? I remember reading a while back that the Australians voted on keeping the Queen as the head of state (versus getting rid of her and adopting a new form of government without her as the head of state).
The British Royal Family may appear to be pointless figureheads to outsiders, but in reality they provide a stability and represent a cohesion between nations, as well as personally being very visible via charity organisations and publicly funded institutions.
They don’t do anything in a job sense, but they are so deeply a part of British Culture, they cannot be easily eliminated without a huge outcry.
Here’s what they do: They Represent.
The Queen Mum does do something. The Queen or King signs all bills into law. It is my understanding that they ahve allways abided by the palimentary decisions. If parliment passed it they signed it as a matter of cource. I caught this during a documentary I caught while traveling in the lower 48. I’ll try to find out which one.
As for them not contributing anything in return. When the place burned recently a good portion of the funds used for repairs came from the royal family’s coffers, and well hey they give us yanks something to read about in the tabloids.
Well, we don’t. We stopped paying any kind of tax/tribute/whatever to the UK a hell of a long time ago, and that ‘keeping the queen’ vs ‘republican gvt’ bit was just our way of showing that a compulsory referendum doesn’t necessarily produce an intelligent result.
After the civil war we had a republic then the monarchy came back ( with less power ) and that power has been reducing ever since.
The Queen does have to sign the laws for them to be passed BUT parliament can change who is the Queen / King.
Slowly, ever so slowly, us Brits are moving to a proper democracy but nothing happens quickly over here, mainly because we don’t know what to do with them !! Queen moves to welfare housing ?, queen and royal family look for a job ?
I think an elected head of state is better, at least you can vote them out !
You also forgot that the Sugar Kings have side stepped lawsuits over environmental pollution, obtained major millions in corporate welfare, are constantly the targets of labor violations, which they ignore, and own enough government officials to have not been bothered by the last major, public investigation into their operation.
As for the Royals. I figure that for the English, steeped in history and traditions for centuries, they are important for their connection to historical times. The majority of the English people adore and support them plus they are basically the keepers of the national treasures. They do wield considerable influence and provide the nation with living symbols.
If it makes the English happy, why not? They’re not like Americans. Ever seen the Parliament in action? Those ‘congressmen’ seem like they’re having a rollicking good time, almost as if they’ve been tippling a bit of stout on the side! Examine the American congress in action and most look bored, irritated or seem to be wishing they could shoot whichever speaker has the floor.
What nation is it that each time their congress meets, they get into fist fights? Taiwan or something? On one instance, I think an opposing senator actually tried to shoot the speaker.
The British Parliament does have the power to abolish the monarchy, for the purposes of the Government of the U.K.
We chatted about this one a few months ago, in the following threads:
Incorrect. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Constitutional Monarchy, with a Parliament.
Incorrect. The Parliament, being a part of the UK government, is composed of the House of Commons (elected members) and the House of Lords Spiritual and Temporal (both members who are appointed and members who have inherited their seats).
First, the justification is that the British tried getting along without a monarchy and decided that just wasn’t for them; so, they installed/invested a new king.
Second, the monarchs function in government is not “nothing.” Feel free to peruse the links I’ve provided below.
It’s really an open question if Parliament has the authority at the time to abolish the monarchy; after all, each MP is required to take an oath supporting the monarchy to assume his or her seat in Parliament. Voting to abolish can be seen as a violation of that oath.
BTW, there’s only one “t” in “British.” (There must be a joke in there, but I can’t think of one.)
Links:
Oh, I dunno about that - the Bloc Québécois MPs don’t seem to find their oath of allegiance to the Queen an impediment to trying to establish Quebec sovereignty. 
OK, those are different names, but is the difference between the things represented by those names so great that if the UK is one of those things, it isn’t the other?
But the HoC has all the power. The HoL can’t block legislation passed in the HoC in the manner that one house of the US Congress can block legislation passed by the other. So the mere existence of the HoL doesn’t contradict the quoted statement in the least.
Sorry for the bolding. Shoulda previewed. 
Truth is us brits would like to get rid of the monarchy but we get embarrassed ( is that right spelling, my copy of word ! ) and stare at our shoes.
Your right about parliament being a bit jolly - they do have a bar and drink a fair bit, the important thing is that they debate, not what they debate ( in theory ).
dude – WTF are you talking about ? This is GD, would you happen to have any kind of substantive citation for your observations ? Also, and despite your claims, you do not speak for either me or the country.
For my own part, I can only reiterate the view I expressed in this thread - quite a useful thread for this discussion, IMHO.
Just trying to clarify the issues.
Whose connections? Ask most people about the history of the country/countries
and they are likely to know very little to be honest, and probably couldn’t name the last monarch before Elizabeth II
Despite the fact that I would like this to be true (there are some royalists around) it is, in my opinion, nonsense. Check out any survey.
I would say that there doesn’t appear to be any great popular demand for abolition of the monarchy, but to suggest that the majority of the people adore the royals is ridiculous.