What's the Point of the Royals in Britain?

Great Debates
1

I’m not particularly impassioned by this or anything. The incident this weekend where Charles and his lady were attacked by a crowd got me to thinking. First, I can’t imagine why anyone would target them. They are totally apolitical, and have absolutely no power or influence. But, it does cost money to protect them and provide them a comfortable life.

So, why do the Brits continue having a King/Queen? It seems like they are about as useful as Victorian Spats and Corset Hooks. It seems like a great time to “retire” the crown is when Elizabeth eventually passes in her sleep.

I actually feel sorry for the lady marrying the royal’s son. The paparazzi turned Diana’s life into a living hell, and literally hounded the woman to an early grave. There isn’t enough money or gold in the world to make me marry a royal. It’s just not worth all the bullshit. I wish Prince William and Kate Middleton all the best. But, I fear 20 years from now Kate will look just as miserable and stressed as Diana.

I’m not British and have no stake in this. It seems looking from afar it’s time for them to retire. But, perhaps others can convince me otherwise? :slight_smile: Maybe they do serve a great purpose to the country I’m not aware of?

2

You can’t. It’s the law. The existence of the monarchy is a cornerstone of the British system of law. “Retiring” the monarchy when Elizabeth dies would be no easier than “retiring” the Presidency of the United States when Barack Obama’s term ends.

A Constitutional change of that magnitude simply isn’t something you do like changing your shoes. It would, in the literal sense of the term, be a revolution. And nobody in the UK’s interested in a revolution, because the system works pretty well as it is, so there’s no pressing reason to change it.

3

But the presidency has powers over certain law-making processes and decisions. The monarchy is just a figurehead, isn’t it?

4

INA solicitor, or English, but my understanding is that pretty much the entire body of British law is predicated on the legal concept that all laws and authority devolve from the Sovereign. To undo that would take a lot more than crossing out “King/Queen” and writing in “President” in all the relevant statutes.

5

The answer I hear is “they are a tourist attraction” which kind of makes sense. The thought is that people are more willing to go see the buildings, etc. if they know the royals still live there. Or they just hope to see the royals in person.

As an American my 2 cents is : get them out of all government functions. Let them stay as king, queen, etc. but they should have zero role in running the government or even pretend like they are in charge.

6

Perhaps they could leave the monarchy vacant? By mutual agreement with Parliament and the royal family? In return, they keep all the land and wealth they hold.

I recall years ago watching a documentary about Queen Elizabeth’s daily life. She does stay very busy hosting visiting heads of state, holding dinners etc. It seemed like every minute of her day was scheduled for something or other. As I said in the OP. It’s not a job I’d want. No way.

7

Just my American 2 pence, but I believe they have done many studies showing that British tourism most certainly has a lot to do with the Royal Family, and Buckingham Palace and tradition and all. I know in my many trips to London, there were always huge crowds near the palace, lots of souvenirs being sold and in that respect, I suppose a case could be made that they actually bring in money to the country.

As far the the political impact, or lack of, that is more complicated.
I know many British friends like the idea of the monarchy, while others consider them a bunch of lazy - well, fill in the blank for their terms of endearment.
Thus, as figureheads they will always be a target - even if, as you point out, they don’t really have the power to really change any specific laws or policies.
Throwing eggs or whatever at their car won’t do much to change things, but probably make the protesters feel better.

8

The monarch is the figure head but the monarchy does have powers. The main one being that the monarchy can disolve parliament in the event of a stop in supply. This was done to Gough Whitlam in Australia.

Most soveriegn duties are delegated via laws or customs to elected officials.

In theory the British Government is operating via royal prerogative, but in reality they have little to do with the decisions of the government.

9

One argument I’ve heard in favor of a British style monarchy is that they divert much of the leader hero worship many people are prone to onto figureheads with little real power. As opposed to a Presidential system like America, where people will near-deify a favored President, who unlike the British royals has plenty of power he can abuse.

10

I thought Parliament was sovereign.

11

RickJay is correct in that it would require a constitutional change; and Smapti is correct in that laws derive from the sovereign.

Practically speaking, the Queen really is a figurehead. Theoretically, though, she plays an important role in the lawmaking process of the UK, and a number of Commonwealth realms. Nothing becomes a law in these places until the Queen, or her representative approves it. This is, the vast majority of the time, a rubber-stamp–after all, if the elected Parliament has approved it, and an upper house has approved it, then it should be good to go. But the fact that the Queen (or her representative in her Commonwealth realms) has the power to say No; or indeed, to dissolve Parliament if it goes too far, acts as a check/balance on Parliament’s power.

There is a lot more to the monarchy than opening hospitals and waving from limousines. The constitutional rights and obligations of the monarchy have been established through hundreds of years of history and are a heavy responsibility that could not be waved away on a whim. Of course, doing away with the monarchy could be done if it was wanted and enough time and effort was put into coming up with a suitable constitutional replacement, but to provide a short answer to the OP–at this point in time, the monarchy is constitutionally-required.

12

So what if Prince William becomes King and decides “well, dammit, if I’m the King, then I’m going to be the bloody King. Time to seize power and rule like Kings of old.”

Could he do that in a legal manner? “Legal” in this sense meaning that something extra-legal would have to happen to stop him from doing it.

13

I’m sure the French still have a guillotine in a museum they could lend out. :wink:

Isn’t England and Monaco the last two monarchy’s? It’s pretty interesting that things evolved so that they could continue into the 21st century in a symbolic form.

14

Generally speaking, no. We find the King’s power first being constrained in Magna Carta (1215); and while that document has been superceded through the years, William must follow hundreds of years of statuory and caselaw precedent that likewise nibbled away at the monarch’s power. He (and Elizabeth and Charles) is left with little more than I mentioned above. Still powerful, but nowhere near what it once was; and this feeds into the role of the monarch in today’s constitutional context.

If William tried to seize all power (I’m thinking similar to a dictator such as Hitler, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung, or Mao Tse-tung), I have little doubt that the British people, who are accustomed to freely electing their Parliamentary members, would refuse to support him. I doubt also that the Army, the RN and the RAF would rush to his aid–yes, they are sworn to the sovereign, but to the best of my knowledge, only in the constitutional context that obtains nowadays. If the sovereign did not behave constitutionally, I see no reason why the armed forces would either. I cannot predict what might happen if William played the dictator card, but I am sure that in the end, William would somehow be forced to give up the throne and it would pass to Harry.

15

No.

Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Spain also have monarchies.

16

No, those are not the last two. European monarchies include Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, The United Kingdom, Andorra, Liechtenstein, and Monaco.

17

No, the UK is a constitutional monarchy.

Indeed, England (as it was then) has already shown that it is a constitutional monarchy, in the Act of Settlement 1701, whereby Parliament extended the invitation to govern to Queen Anne. Parliament had done so before, extending the invitation to rule to William and Mary in 1689, after James II & IV was “deemed to have fled” England in the Glorious Revolution (N.B. he was run out on a rail for being Catholic and having a Catholic son.)

In other words, there is precedent to remove the King (or Queen) and pick a new one, which I don’t doubt the English Parliament would do if William tried anything.

In any case, his power would be extremely limited, and he although he would have the power to prevent “unconstitutional use” of the military, the de facto power over it is with the Prime Minister in Parliament. So he could bluff and bluster, but all for nothing.

The most he could do is dissolve the current Parliament, prorouge Parliament or summon a new one. I suspect if he were to go totally bonkers, dissolve Parliament for no reason and not summon a new one…well then…er…nothing would happen. He’d have no bills to put the Royal Assent to then, would he? And he could order people to do stuff, and they could look at him like he was off his head.

It’d end with Harry or Andrew as Regent, and William in a padded cell. Then Andrew or Harry would recall Parliament, and the UK would have a nice cuppa, and solider on. I suspect the true aftermath of this would be a rigid, written constitution or at last and Act akin to the Act of Settlement.

Further, having now lived under both systems, I appreciate the Westminster system with a monarch even more - when the Parliament in Australia was at a total impass, there was a method of resolving it. Looking at the US currently, well…hmmm…

18

There’s also a lot of debate in Constitutional Law circles (especially in Australia) about whether the reigning monarch (or more specifically, the Governor-General, being their official representative here) can actually refuse to prove the Royal Assent to legislation that’s been properly passed by Parliament after following the appropriate process etc.

I’m pretty sure that, at least at a State level, the Governor cannot refuse to provide the Royal Assent- or, more specifically, Reserve it for Her Majesty’s Pleasure (ie saying “You know what? I don’t think this is right; I’m going to kick it upstairs to The Boss”).

At a Federal level, I believe the Governor-General can do this, but I’m not sure of the last time it was done. Not in the last 40-odd years or so, I’d say. People are still mad about the Governor-General excercising their right to sack the Prime Minister in the mid-70s, so I hate to think what would happen if the Governor-General decided to reserve a piece of legislation for Her Majesty’s pleasure and then “advised” Her Majesty to withold the Royal Assent.

I’ve heard it argued by sharper legal minds than my own that any remaining idea that the Reigning Monarch could quash legislation they objected to went out the window when Her Majesty provided the Royal Assent to the Hunting Act 2004 (UK), which banned the traditional aristocratic sport of hunting foxes from horseback with hounds, FWIW.

19

In fact there was a royal wedding in Sweden this past summer, if I recall correctly.

And I have seen the royal palace in Brussels.

20

Call me quaint, but I always thought it was important that at the end of the day, the ultimate backstop of government resided in a human being who (theoretically) stands above politics and can excercise an individual conscience, rather than an impersonal machine-like constitution. If HM sees something truly awful going on in government, even if it’s the last power she ever exercises and even if it’s only for a day before said power is abolished and she’s walled away in the Tower, at least she still has the residual power to say “stop that nonsense right now” and make the British people stand up and pay attention. Or is that too romantic of me?