# What's the Point of the Royals in Britain? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933 "2010-12-13T00:31:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/41 "2010-12-13T18:12:02Z")
Well, in that case, no one would accuse the Queen of being the Under-17s. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/42 "2010-12-13T18:34:53Z")
Reserve team, perhaps. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/43 "2010-12-13T19:06:15Z")
I considered that, but decided that “Under-17s” was funnier. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/44 "2010-12-14T00:59:01Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I considered that, but decided that “Under-17s” was funnier. And a more appropriate comparison to Biden, too. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/45 "2010-12-14T02:30:08Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > But when is the last time the British sovereign actually intervened in a significant and relevant way? Wikipedia tells me that she [exercised some significant discretion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II#Continuing_evolution_of_the_Commonwealth) in the selection of Prime Ministers in the late 50s and early 60s. ---
**Author:** ![wayward](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a87d85/32.png) [@wayward](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wayward)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/46 "2010-12-14T12:22:13Z")
Re: the cost issue, according to [this](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/7872052/Cost-of-Royal-Family-drops-7p-per-person.html) news story (Daily Telegraph), the Royal family cost us the equivalent of 62p per taxpayer last year - that’s just under a dollar. Even if we all wanted to get rid of them, would it really be worth the hassle for the sake of an annual Mars bar? If it ain’t broke, and all that… ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/47 "2010-12-14T12:48:30Z")
> [@wayward](#): > > Re: the cost issue, according to [this](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/7872052/Cost-of-Royal-Family-drops-7p-per-person.html) news story (Daily Telegraph), the Royal family cost us the equivalent of 62p per taxpayer last year - that’s just under a dollar. Even if we all wanted to get rid of them, would it really be worth the hassle for the sake of an annual Mars bar? If it ain’t broke, and all that… That also needs to be offset against the tourist revenue brought into the country by having the royals as a draw. > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > I mean, the President of the United States gets to live in the White House, which is huge and opulent and imposing. I understood that many people feel the White House is too small for its purpose - the staff areas are cramped and stuffy, particularly in the West Wing, and when they made the TV show they had to expand the set dimensions to allow cameras etc to operate effectively. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/48 "2010-12-14T13:02:36Z")
Why _must_ there be a point to the monarchy? Our system of government evolved over millennia, and wasn’t explicitly designed. As it stands, the system seems to work pretty well. Why mess with something that isn’t broken? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/49 "2010-12-14T14:52:07Z")
> [@Wallenstein](#): > > I understood that many people feel the White House is too small for its purpose - the staff areas are cramped and stuffy, particularly in the West Wing, and when they made the TV show they had to expand the set dimensions to allow cameras etc to operate effectively. I meant to mention that in my post - that it’s huge and opulent and imposing even though it’s smaller than you expect and everyone says it’s cramped. In any event, it’s still _much_ bigger than the PM’s offices. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/50 "2010-12-14T15:30:53Z")
The UK PM also has access to [Chequers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chequers), which looks quite nice. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/51 "2010-12-14T17:32:18Z")
> [@wayward](#): > > Re: the cost issue, according to [this](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/7872052/Cost-of-Royal-Family-drops-7p-per-person.html) news story (Daily Telegraph), the Royal family cost us the equivalent of 62p per taxpayer last year - that’s just under a dollar. Even if we all wanted to get rid of them, would it really be worth the hassle for the sake of an annual Mars bar? If it ain’t broke, and all that… That’s the cost. They cost about [£37M per year](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4121170.stm), which in expenditure terms is peanuts; almost negligible. There are a thousand other expenditures of many times that value which could be argued as wastage. Now we need to find some kind of stats on how much money the economy gains from their presence. In addition it would be worth looking at how much money they raise for charities. They get paid from the civil list, but the taxpayer gets the profit from the various estates, etc. I’ve no idea how much that is, but I imagine it’s a hell of a lot of money. So - they cost a teeny £37M, and generate money in a whole load of different ways, but my Google search didn’t turn up any figures for that. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/52 "2010-12-14T17:35:26Z")
[Half a billion pounds](http://www.gotimeshare.org/visitbritain/00847-royal-family-boosts-uk-tourism), apparently. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/53 "2010-12-14T17:48:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > [Half a billion pounds](http://www.gotimeshare.org/visitbritain/00847-royal-family-boosts-uk-tourism), apparently. And that’s just the tourism aspect! Add in the royal estates, charities, etc. I’d say they seem to be pretty good value for money! That’s quite the return on investment! And that’s not even starting on the non-financial ambassadorial benefits, which probably can’t be quantified. I’m coming out strongly on the “Keep Them” side of the debate. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/54 "2010-12-14T18:12:49Z")
Well, the government would still have the royal estates even if there were no royals, and there would still be lots of charities. I don’t think you can credit them for things like that. I’m also on the keep them side, at least now that HM has to pay taxes like everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/55 "2010-12-14T18:16:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, the government would still have the royal estates even if there were no royals, and there would still be lots of charities. I don’t think you can credit them for things like that. You don’t think the charity work they do has any value? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/56 "2010-12-14T18:17:24Z")
Well, to the charities, yes. To _Britain?_ Maybe, but I doubt it. I mean, the money would still be there; it would just be going somewhere else. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/57 "2010-12-14T19:00:48Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, to the charities, yes. To _Britain?_ Maybe, but I doubt it. I mean, the money would still be there; it would just be going somewhere else. Charity work alleviates the state burden, though. So it means the taxpayer isn’t paying more. Plus there’s the moral value, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/58 "2010-12-14T19:03:29Z")
Sure he is. He’s just doing it via charities instead of the government. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/59 "2010-12-14T19:07:54Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure he is. He’s just doing it via charities instead of the government. That’s true; although a charity is optional where a tax is not. Anyway, we can argue forever whether their charity work has value to the country; doesn’t sound like we’ll agree. I can’t help but see charity work as a net positive - otherwise there’s no point doing it. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/60 "2010-12-14T19:08:08Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > 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. > > … It seems looking from afar it’s time for them to retire. But there’s a problem: even assuming political will to do so, what do you replace them with? I posted the following in one of the threads about Prince William marrying, where someone made a similar suggestion that the monarchy be abolished on Her Majesty’s death: > [@Prince William to marry](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prince-william-to-marry/560847/94): > > This is a lot easier said than done, as the [Australian referendum on abolishing the monarchy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999) showed. > > The difficulty is that it requires a substantial re-write of the Constitutions. You can’t just strike out “Queen” and put in “President”. You always have to answer at least two major questions: how do you select the President? and what powers do you want the President to have? Those points of detail are the difficult ones. > > For example, in Canada, the Queen has extensive constitutional powers, both prerogative and written. If you want to keep the focus of the Constitution as a system of responsible government, with the new President as a figurehead, and real power resting with the Prime Minister, you have to have a system of election that does not give the new President the political legitimacy to use those enormous powers. You also likely have to define the principles of responsible government much more carefully in a written constitutional instrument, rather than relying solely on constitutional convention, because now you would have two different politicians squabbling over power, rather than the unelected representative of a hereditary monarch deferring automatically to the elected Prime Minister. > > But if you want the President to be popularly elected, or to have real powers, then it’s even more difficult - that would be a wholesale change to the constitutional and political system. Those types of fundamental constitutional changes are typically not easily made. The most difficult is to combine popular election with the system of responsible government - you might end up with a completely hybrid system, more akin to the French or Russian governments. > > The difficulty in switching from a constitutional monarchy to a republic is well-illustrated by this comment in the wiki article: > > > [@](#): > > > > The Australian Electoral Survey that is conducted following all elections by the Australian National University has found that support for a republic has remained reasonably static since 1987 at around 60%, if the type of republic is not part of the question. > > (My emphasis.) > > In short, abolishing the monarchy and switching to a republic is easy in theory, hard in practice. So I’m not convinced that as soon as Her Majesty is no longer with us, you’ll have a rash of Commonwealth Realms suddenly going republic. I wrote that from the perspective of Commonwealth realms like Canada and Australia, which have written constitutions, albeit with large portions of conventions tucked in. I would think it would technically be even more difficult to replace the Crown in the UK Constitution, since it is so amorphous. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933.md?page=4)