# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/101 "2010-12-16T17:45:46Z")
I can’t argue with that. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/102 "2010-12-16T17:48:29Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > It strikes me that countries without or with a different notion of class structure to us Brits have pretty damaged economies at the moment. Deference to talentless assclowns has been apparently pretty common even without a monarchy propping up the system. Every country has a “class structure”. Those that don’t have a historical hereditary one have a more recent income-based one. The idea that the US is a classless society of some kind is absurd, and usually propagated by people whose interests would be harmed by widespread lower-class recognition of the fact that 99% of those in a lower class than Ridiculously Wealthy are never going to be Ridiculously Wealthy. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/103 "2010-12-16T17:49:38Z")
I would never claim the US is a classless structure. I think the British class structure has been particularly damaging, but I’d make changes to the US too, mainly through reform of education and inheritance law. ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/104 "2010-12-16T18:15:14Z")
> [@villa](#): > > No you haven’t. The monarchy props up the entire British class structure, which through its deference to talentless assclowns has damaged the British economy. Oookaay… ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/105 "2010-12-16T18:26:31Z")
Piffle. I’m a son of the Republic, & it’s abundantly clear to me that some people will invent aristocratic families out of whole cloth given the chance. Aristocracy came from somewhere to begin with, & it will probably reappear again in any case. So why not formalize it, with some agency to mark upward & downward mobility in cases where it seems deserved, & impose a sense of _noblesse oblige_ on the toffs? I am so sick of men who could buy & sell Africa before breakfast insisting they are just desperate commoners really. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/106 "2010-12-16T22:51:53Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Every country has a “class structure”. Those that don’t have a historical hereditary one have a more recent income-based one. The idea that the US is a classless society of some kind is absurd, and usually propagated by people whose interests would be harmed by widespread lower-class recognition of the fact that 99% of those in a lower class than Ridiculously Wealthy are never going to be Ridiculously Wealthy. It was badly put, looking back; I meant with or without a different structure, not those with a different one and those without one at all. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/107 "2010-12-16T22:56:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > This is probably the most retarded question anyone has ever asked on these boards. What a vacuous statement so oft repeated by nincompoops . I know you can produce world class celebrities, but can you hang on to them ? Like John Lennon. where do you think he resided prior to his death ? Or Elton John and Paul McCartney. Where do you think they spend the majority of their time and do business ? Somehow, having Prince William making appearances in a Vegas hotel just won’t cut it. And we don’t travel to London to see celebrities that we can see in New York, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/108 "2010-12-16T23:18:59Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > What a vacuous statement so oft repeated by nincompoops . > > I know you can produce world class celebrities, but can you hang on to them ? > > Like John Lennon. where do you think he resided prior to his death ? > > Or Elton John and Paul McCartney. Where do you think they spend the majority of their time and do business ? > > Somehow, having Prince William making appearances in a Vegas hotel just won’t cut it. > > And we don’t travel to London to see celebrities that we can see in New York, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. Congratulations on setting new standards, yet again. ---
**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 16, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/109 "2010-12-16T23:29:04Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > What a vacuous statement so oft repeated by nincompoops . > > I know you can produce world class celebrities, but can you hang on to them ? > > Like John Lennon. where do you think he resided prior to his death ? > > Or Elton John and Paul McCartney. Where do you think they spend the majority of their time and do business ? > > Somehow, having Prince William making appearances in a Vegas hotel just won’t cut it. > > And we don’t travel to London to see celebrities that we can see in New York, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. You know, leaving just your first “contribution” to the thread as-is could have given you some leeway later when you inevitably claim you’re just “wooshing” us all and you aren’t really a window licker. With your second post, that leeway all but disappeared. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/110 "2010-12-17T02:19:52Z")
**ENOUGH!** Take the stupid bickering to **The BBQ Pit**. \*\* [/Moderating]\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/111 "2010-12-17T18:05:13Z")
IMO, the Queen IS the ‘nuclear option’. Like this: virtually everything done is done in her name, but by others. When she signs bills into law, or issues royal warrants, it’s on the “advice” (orders) of her ministers. In that sense, she is pretty much a figurehead. But there’s more to it than that: she’s a shrewd old bird who has literally read every government document, most secret or not, since 1952, and who has absolutely no political aspirations. That’s a resource no Minister ignores lightly. She does help to shape legislation – how much, is confidential, because everything in Britain is done by consensus and compromise, behind the scenes. **Villa** can argue she doesn’t have squat to do with it, **Guin** that her advice is vitally important – and they’re both operating from the same information vacuum. How much a PM depends on what she has to say is never made public, for good reason. But contemplate these facts: No US President has ever dismissed a sitt5ing Congress. Since the Constitution was put in place, no Constitutional Convention has ever been called. Only once have the states been obliged to call ratifying conventions, and only twice has the President ever been impeached, and not convicted either time. Only twice has the House elected the President, and only once has the Senate the V P. But these are all legal mechanisms spelled out in the Constitution – they CAN be done if there’s good reason ever to do them. It’s just that no crisis calling for them has ever happened. Likewise, there’s a woman sitting in Buckingham Palace who CAN veto a law, dismiss a PM with delusions of grandeur, prorogue Parliament, etc., etc. To be sure, she’s unlikely ever to do any of these things except on the ‘advice’ of her Ministers, with an eye to what the public will stand for. But the potential is there. If a PM attempted to convert himself into dictator for life, and the people were sufficiently pissed off about it, she could fire him. It is quite literally her prerogative. The Governor Generals of Australia and Canada made tough decisions of the same sort – Kerr to dismiss Whitlam when he couldn’t get a Budget passed, and Jean to grant Harper a prorogation when his political enemies were trying to oust him on a confidence vote. In both cases, they acted without ‘advice’ in the constitutional sense, with an eye to the long-term good of the nation’s institutions. At last analysis, that’s what the Queen is for. She’s seen it all before; she’s not going to react prematurely to each and every pseudo-crisis. But if the chips are ever down and action needs to be taken, there’s an actual person, not a document or bit of bunting, with the commonly conceded authority to take needed action. She’s not an excrescence. Like the relief valve on a well-functioning boiler, she’s there to prevent a blow-up that may never happen, by draining off the too-great buildup of power. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/112 "2010-12-17T20:23:20Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Jean to grant Harper a prorogation when his political enemies were trying to oust him on a confidence vote. In both cases, they acted without ‘advice’ in the constitutional sense In what sense is Harper asking Jean to prorogue Parliament not “advice” in the constitutional sense? She was acting on the advice of her prime minister, not on her own volition. This is different from the Kerr-Whitlam crisis which you also mention, where the GG chose to dismiss the prime minister without any advice asking him to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/113 "2010-12-17T20:44:31Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > In what sense is Harper asking Jean to prorogue Parliament not “advice” in the constitutional sense? She was acting on the advice of her prime minister, not on her own volition. This is different from the Kerr-Whitlam crisis which you also mention, where the GG chose to dismiss the prime minister without any advice asking him to do so. I’m going to differ with you in a very minor way, Yeah, Harper asked the Crown, i.e., Michaelle, to prorogue Parliament. But unlike “advice” in the Parliamentary-government-euphemism sense, she had free discretion whether to grant or deny his request. It’s a bit of a nuance, I grant. But an important one: translated from the Euphemistic, it says, “A politician cannot demand that the Crown retain him in office against the vote of no confidence he expects to receive when Commons sits.” ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/114 "2010-12-17T21:26:11Z")
I’m not sure Mme Jean made the right call there. It looked an awful lot like Harper getting something for himself at the cost of the nation. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/115 "2010-12-17T21:48:14Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I’m not sure Mme Jean made the right call there. It looked an awful lot like Harper getting something for himself at the cost of the nation. True, and I have no great affection for Harper. The principle I saw being played out is the reason British and Commonwealth governments tend to be more stable than Italian, Weimar Republic, Fourth-Republic French, and the like: the Premier’s Government is entitled to the support of the Crown until it stands a credible chance of being toppled by those who can install a viable alternative Government in its place. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/116 "2010-12-17T21:59:24Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I’m going to differ with you in a very minor way, Yeah, Harper asked the Crown, i.e., Michaelle, to prorogue Parliament. But unlike “advice” in the Parliamentary-government-euphemism sense, she had free discretion whether to grant or deny his request. It’s a bit of a nuance, I grant. But an important one: translated from the Euphemistic, it says, “A politician cannot demand that the Crown retain him in office against the vote of no confidence he expects to receive when Commons sits.” Just to point out that your contribution to this thread appears highly relevant to me . ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/117 "2010-12-17T23:24:58Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > But unlike “advice” in the Parliamentary-government-euphemism sense, she had free discretion whether to grant or deny his request. I don’t think she did. The power to prorogue or dissolve Parliament is a Crown prerogative, exerced under the advice of the prime minister. I think she had no choice but to grant the prorogation her prime minister was asking for. To be sure, it would have caused a constitutional crisis if she hadn’t granted it. As it stands, there was no constitutional crisis. > [@](#): > > It’s a bit of a nuance, I grant. But an important one: translated from the Euphemistic, it says, “A politician cannot demand that the Crown retain him in office against the vote of no confidence he expects to receive when Commons sits.” I know it’s a fine line, but Harper hadn’t lost any confidence vote yet. He would have, had the vote taken place, but he was still presumed to hold the confidence of the house until he actually lost a vote. There are cases where the Crown would be in their rights to refuse a request for prorogation or dissolution, but I don’t think this one reached that level yet. And correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I remember hearing about previous cases (in the 20th century) where a prime minister in a Westminster-like system asked for and was granted prorogation of the house in order to avoid a vote of no confidence. If I’m right, there was precedent for Jean’s decision. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/118 "2010-12-18T00:42:47Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > 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? Many Americans have a knee-jerk antipathy to monarchy. That kings are necessarily an evil is part of our national myth. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/119 "2010-12-18T01:08:25Z")
I believe that ethnographically, the USA is less its own people than the republican wing of the Anglo-Saxons. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933/120 "2010-12-18T01:11:09Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > I don’t think she did. The power to prorogue or dissolve Parliament is a Crown prerogative, exerced under the advice of the prime minister. I think she had no choice but to grant the prorogation her prime minister was asking for. > > To be sure, it would have caused a constitutional crisis if she hadn’t granted it. As it stands, there was no constitutional crisis. I had no idea we were heading into a constitutional crisis back then. Had the GG refused the prime minister’s request then what ? What’s the worst that could happen ? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-royals-in-britain/563933.md?page=7)