What does good does the Monarchy really do ?

The devastation of losing pointless titles with archaic names is softened by having a huge pile of cash to fall back on.

Doctorates are different-they are not arbitrarily awarded but done so after years of work and are a qualification in their own right.

I am a British citizen.

The world outside is glad they aren't paying for it

and I can tell you one thing and that is that there are very successful countries worldwide which elect their heads of state.

They do not need elitism to keep people in check and their democracy is no weaker than ours.

I am also certain that the previous British monarchs had no say over our colonial exploits all over the world. Empress Victoria anyone?

2. I didn't realise being a bigot made you more sympathetic than elected politicians. The Duke once asked someone in a wheelchair 'do people fall over you?', highlighting his concern for the disabled, and 'are you all related?' to a group of black music artists to show his awareness of the cultural diversity in his land.

3. The office manager can still be sacked (poor David Brent) because he is accountable to his own managers above him. He also has his own bills to pay and has his own responsibilities.

The Queen's job is not taxing in the slightest

and the government will never deny her help.

4. The public would decide the President, not MPs.

Since the position is an elected one then whoever is in it must perform competently to be re-elected and by virtue of being elected has a clear mandate from the people.

I note that the British people have never been asked whether they want a monarchy

and media coverage on it has always been an arm of Palace PR.

An objective discussion of the monarchy with balanced media would send its support plummeting.

Well, the ruling royal family in my country is doing poorly to develop the nation. They have spent a HUGE sum of our revenue for their own interests and heavy expenditures on luxury goods, i.e. cars, palace, etc. Personally, I don't mind with monarchical system for as long as they DO know how to run a country and do not misuse the nation's treasury for their own benefits. However, if they do not prove their worth, the system must be dissolved instantly by revolutionary or democratic means. The existence of monarchy has proved to be a manifestation of a country's stability, be it absolute or constitutional. But heck, I just can't stand the one that is ruling my country, they are clueless. Ps: please do not ask where I'm from.

You're exposing your ignorance. The monarch cannot make any formal move without the advice of Her ministers. It also depends on political climate. This whole issue about her paying taxes only arose as a mainstream complaint int he late 80s/early 90s. What do you expect Her to be, psychic?



And? Why should I care? Firstly, he's not the monarch, and secondly, you can have views like that and still be concerned about them. He's in his bloody nineties, for God's sake. He's acquired attitudes and modes of speaking that were entirely normal until the late 80s, and it's unrealistic to expect him to transform into the mindset of a 20-year-old hipster.



The Queen can be sacked.



On what basis do you say this? Are you saying that the President of Germany's job is not taxing in the slightest? Because that's what you are saying.



We have plenty of examples from history of government ignoring, denying, and being pretty rude to monarchs who say things the Government doesn't want to hear, so you're talking about of your proverbial.



You don't know that. The Australian monarchy referendum proposed one chosen by Parliament, because they specifically wanted to avoid the office being political.



A mandate to do what? You've already said the job is doss.



They've never been asked if we should drive on the left hand side of the road either, but they are free to set up a political party to change it. They don't, because they are content.



Come off it. Everyone has a PR department nowadays, why should the monarch be denied one?



Yeah, objective. you're really objective.

1. Of course if the Queen decided she wanted to contribute more to the Treasury they would stop it. It is nothing to do with predicting the future and everything to do with the sympathy you talked about earlier.

2. He is a major royal embarrassing the nation with things you or I would be sacked for saying.

3. When's the last time a monarch was sacked? Note: Edward VIII abdicated of his own volition.

4. Ceremonial roles elected or not are a doss but the former does at least carry the risk of not being re-elected in the case of major PR fiascos as happened with the German president.

Why are they a doss? Look at the 'day in the life' of the Queen on the monarchy's website. Hosting a banquet qualifies as work-how many others can claim that?

5. So what if Australia does that. At the point of abolishing the monarchy the British people are free to decide on whatever form of HoS they wish. Republicans differ on ceremonial/non-ceremonial, Parliament/people and so on but they are united in the idea that a hereditary monarchy is inherently unfair.

6. I would instead argue that people are 'content' because they have only been brought up with positive portrayals of the Windsors and dissenting opinion has been suppressed.

Despite that 20% of British people are republican, which is perhaps the more surprising statistic. The Republic pressure group is growing and opted against being a political party because it would be a one issue party with little chance of success. Instead it focuses on the existing major parties.

7. The Palace PR machine uses a bit more than a PR firm and more the entire British media with the exception of the Guardian.

I protested at the Jubilee Pageant 3 years ago-there were thousands of us but none of our own country's media were there. Foreign media were though, Russian, French, Spanish and so on. Wonder why

Can someone explain to me why the BBC should have a paid member of staff with the title "Royal Correspondent" in the 21st Century?

Can someone explain to me why the BBC should have a paid member of staff with the title "Royal Correspondent" in the 21st Century?

why not have a House of Lords correspondent, a Diplomatic Service correspondent. a Barnsley Correspondent etc.?

btw although I'm in favour of us becoming a republic, I'd hardly consider myself an obsessed, idiosyncratic republican. My obsession for royal things in the past has led me to being accused of being an obsessed, idiosyncratic royalist, if anything.

If I see the Queen (or someone like Diana) doing some good, I don't see any point in criticising her, I just think "It must be easy to look like a hardworking (or caring in the case of Diana) individual if you are paid millions to do it".

She most certainly is.

Why then does the Duke of Edinburgh get paid from the Civil List?

Why does Charles get paid from the estates of the Duchy of Cornwall and Lancaster etc.?

Why doesn't the monarch pay inheritance tax and other duties?

But of course they only own 'private property' by 'right of conquest' and are only head of state for the same reason. Why should they be given tax breaks or a salary?

If the queen is paid by the government in lieu of claiming it from her estates and is paid housingbenefits for being a landlord and so on, it is difficult to see how she qualifies as not being paid.

Why then does the Duke of Edinburgh get paid from the Civil List? Why does Charles get paid from the estates of the Duchy of Cornwall and Lancaster etc.? Why doesn't the monarch pay inheritance tax and other duties?

So now you're changing your tune, and saying she's entirely in the right to wait until she's formally advise by ministers?



Nope. Seeing as Britain's popularity is pretty good, and how there are elected politicians that balls up and are still in place, your point makes no sense. Hell, there are elected politicians that do good jobs, and yet people still seek out ways to be offended. See, Obama and the Republicans.



Yeah, 'of his own volition'. Come off it. He wanted to marry his future wife and keep the Crown, and he was told one or the other. Of his own volition



The German president isn't elected. And why are you obsessed with the post being elected? On what basis do you insist it's some kind of right or necessity? As it quite plainly is not.



A lot, actually. It's a very demanding piece of work, and it's also one aspect of a wide-ranging job. To turn your own warped logic on you, you earlier said the royals, as rich, privileged people, cannot possibly understand the travails of the ordinary person. Now, I'm saying you're an incredibly ignorant person who doesn't bother to properly consider the workload of a Head of State,



And they're bloody idiots for thinking that. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.



Oh come off it. That's a sign of desperation: you're only unpopular because the big nasty means Windsors control the media. Boo hoo. And yet, there are critical papers, criticial broadcasts, and criticial opinions voiced all the time. Moreover, the monarchy is popular abroad, in republics, where they have no control over the media.

Can it with the conspiracy theories. For one thing, it suggests you don't trust the people to draw their own conclusions, as you don't honestly respect opinions that aren't yours.



And none of which are interested in advocating republicanism. Not even the SNP is, despite them being representatives of people very much otherwise genuinely and reasonably aggrieved.



Give over. All the other papers include articles that mock and criticise the royals. It's not their business to bend over for you.



A few thousand against several million. Uh-huh. The media should give you equal exposure. by the way, the creationists and the Flat Earth Society called, asked if you wanted to club together with them.

Before: Lots of money + honours
After: Lots of money + no honours

If you do anything sufficiently 'bad' to have your honours withdrawn you probably aren't too bothered about them being withdrawn.

Whilst honours could be arbitrarily awarded, they are not commonly perceived this way, and most of them aren't awarded randomly anyhow.

It takes more work to get knighthood or lordship then getting a doctorates. How many people have a doctorate? How many people have a knighthood or lordship? Do you think Sir Elton got his knighthood 'arbitrarily' instead of it being a result of decades of impact on the industry, his struggle with sexuality and discrimination, 200 million records sold world-wide, and having the biggest-selling single of all-time? Is it easier to achieve what Sir Elton has than getting a doctorate from a random university?

You're also forgetting that lots of doctorates could be purchased, and honorary doctorates, which many people care about, exist. If titles don't worth anything, you won't be seeing billionaires buying their way into a knighthood, a doctorate, or sultanship. Even the people who decline an honour often shows that people actually care about them - Prof Stephen Hawking declined one as a protest against the government's plans to cut science funding. If he doesn't think it's a major thing, declining it won't mean anything to anyone.

Now you see fit to denigrate people with PhDs as well as those with enough medical training to call themselves 'Dr'. It takes supreme intelligence and dedication to get that title. Knighthoods, MBEs, OBEs, CBEs and so on are awarded for political convenience and are recommended to the Queen. Gary Barlow gets a knighthood for arselicking Her Majesty in 2012? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Have you lived outside of the UK for an extended period of time? As someone who's from outside of the UK, I can tell you most parts of the world, especially East Asia, adores the monarchy. Even France at one point wanted The Queen to be their head of state.

When did the French want a return to the monarchy? The Far East is home to nations where the monarch was, and in some places still is, revered as a God-like figure. I find it of little surprise that you idolise our own one.

Irrelevant. Not only did I already say I disagree with the costs, but this also doesn't contribute to this particular discussion.

Apart from America and Germany, who else? Sure, the Japanese Emperor is technically not the head of state due to historical reasons, but even they have a monarchy.

Germany is a prime example of why having a ceremonial president is silly. But of course that's neither here nor there, as not having a monarch doesn't mean there needs to be someone in place of that ceremonial position.

Well I would prefer only a President who serves a clear practical role in the governance of the country, so I don't favour an elected ceremonial leader over the system they have in the US or France. France has managed without a monarchy, as have other nations like South Korea, Brazil, Ireland and Switzerland.

They do, and I mentioned nothing about democracy.

And actually, having The Queen saved Canada some trouble in the past - two of their Prime Ministers refused to leave their office after they've lost the election, and the governor-general made it easy to dismiss them. Things would be a lot more uncertain if for example the first George Bush refused to leave.

Which is why countries must legislate for such events to prevent any uncertainty. No reason why we couldn't.

You misinterpreted my argument. The world doesn't associate the monarchy with colonial exploitation but with the country/Empire itself. Just like how no-one associates WWII in East Asia with the Japanese Emperor himself.

If you think Victoria had actual powers over colonial exploitation, I think either you need to retake your history classes, or the education system has failed. She was influential, but she was determined to be the moral symbol of the nation (which remains today) instead of an actual ruler, partly due to the influence of Prince Albert, and partly due to the fact that the monarch at that point already had very limited power.

The monarch didn't just become ceremonial overnight. It was a long and gradual process - Henry VIII needed support from parliament to an extent with his troubles with The Pope, Mary totally needed the parliament as Henry's son chose Lady Jane Grey and the only claim she had would be with the Act of Parliament (and support from The Pope), same went to Elizabeth I. Charles didn't end well without the support of parliament, and Charles II reversed the power a little due to parliament realising that the people wanted a king. But James II showed that the king didn't have absolute power, and William The Conqueror couldn't have power in England without parliamentary support. As time goes by, powers of the monarch become weaker and weaker especially with the need to get money from parliament. By the time Victoria ascended to the throne, the time of the monarch had already passed.

She was given the title Empress of India not really for her personal amusement, but rather an entirely political decision made by the parliament. There were many monarchs in India so by making the British monarch the Empress of India, Britain gained the 'legitimacy' to 'inherent' the 'thrones' from them. In fact, if it was for her personal amusement, she wouldn't have been made an Empress, but rather a Queen - it was inappropriate for her to be made an Empress outside of the UK, for it is convention to use the highest title to address someone (thus 'Professor' over 'Dr', 'Prince of Wales' over 'Duke of Cornwall', 'Queen' over 'Duke of Normandy', etc) but at the same time if she was an Empress, it'd technically mean GB would be in an inferior, subsidiary/subordinary position (as Emperors/Empresses rule over Kingdoms - the Japanese 'Emperor' is the only notable exception to this). This is why she's called the Queen-Empress, not Empress Victoria.

An elected head of state would be less problematic. Having a Queen descended from an Emperor of India or from Plantagenet kings who conquered Ireland as our head of state merely because of her father being a king has a huge damaging effect on the image of the UK.