The British Monarchy

[Parsifal]

I have an English friend (from Yorkshire) who lives here in the U.S. with his American wife and family.  He says that the British monarch has no power and serves no useful purpose.

I disagree.  QE2 in her 70 years on the throne (despite her dysfunctional family) served as a force of constancy and respect throughout the political turmoil of the UK, thus in a sense holding it together through Sturm und Drang.  I also believe that her television appearance before the last Scottish secession referendum may have swung the vote.  She had a lot of "influence".

Now, Charles on the throne has plans to revise the monarchy in ways which still remain to be seen (aside from paring it down).

Any opinions on the value/importance/usefulness of the British monarchy (or any monarchy) or should the UK become the UR (United Republics)?

And it's not just the UK. Charles is also King of Canada, King of Australia, King of ...

(I hope this question doesn't start a second English civil war)

[RyCamp88]

They have zero say in how things are run, they are figure heads only. If there was no monarchy it would change nothing.

[murfitUK]

Its not strictly true that they have zero say in how things are run.  Queen's/King's Consent is needed before any Bill can be debated that affects the monarch's interests.

https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section...-interest/

If you google it you will find that the Guardian newspaper's investigation found several cases where permission was not granted.

Even if a bill is consented to and then debated and passed by parliament it still has to get Royal Assent.

https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section...-interest/

Convention has it that assent will always be given by the monarch but, legally, the King/Queen can say "No".

Whatever we think, or royals or politicians tell us, we are still subjects of the Crown and not citizens of this country.

[RyCamp88]

Its not strictly true that they have zero say in how things are run.  Queen's/King's Consent is needed before any Bill can be debated that affects the monarch's interests.

https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section...-interest/

If you google it you will find that the Guardian newspaper's investigation found several cases where permission was not granted.

Even if a bill is consented to and then debated and passed by parliament it still has to get Royal Assent.

https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section...-interest/

Convention has it that assent will always be given by the monarch but, legally, the King/Queen can say "No".

Whatever we think, or royals or politicians tell us, we are still subjects of the Crown and not citizens of this country.

I’m a subject to nobody. This isn’t medieval times ffs.

[John]

When you're rich and pampered in palaces doing nothing you can afford to be a force of consistency and respect. Not really saying much.

[pendorran]

Would you rather have yet another grasping politician or the stooge of one in that role? Because that's the alternative.

And if you think you're subject to no one you're totally naive.

[RyCamp88]

Would you rather have yet another grasping politician or the stooge of one in that role? Because that's the alternative.

And if you think you're subject to no one you're totally naive.

There is no need for the role full stop, as i said it doesn't mean anything, get rid of the lot of them. I don't pledge allegiance to any monarch, never have and never will, i never signed anything, I am an Irish Passport holder, so again no not a subject to anybody, the monarchy have zero say in how i live my life thank you very much.

[MintyRox]

Would you rather have yet another grasping politician or the stooge of one in that role? Because that's the alternative.

And if you think you're subject to no one you're totally naive.

If you are referring to a head of state, then you are the naïve one if you truly believe a hereditary birth right is somehow better than an elected role.  Royalty is an archaic system left over from a bygone era and has no place in modern society.  

Insofar as the supposed financial benefits reaped by UK plc from the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family, lately referred to as Windsor, that money comes from the Crown Estate and not the monarch or their family.  Granted, it would be complex to decouple the estate from the family in the event of any abolition, but the fact remains that the income derived from the royal family currently comes from this portfolio of properties and not from anything that they as people do.

In all likelihood the Crown Estate would (and certainly should) pass to the UK Taxpayer in the event of abolition and would therefore continue to create the same income as it does now, albeit most likely with the agreement that some properties be kept by the former sovereign with the bulk remaining within the portfolio and profits continuing to be paid to the Treasury, as it has been for centuries.  The royal family also have the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, their own personal property portfolios.

[Parsifal]

If you are referring to a head of state, then you are the naïve one if you truly believe a hereditary birth right is somehow better than an elected role.

Oh, we've had some very bad (elected) presidents in our history (USA).  And not just the recent ones we all know about.  Nineteenth-century America is littered with disasterous presidents (historians widely agree that the worst American president ever was James Buchanan who is blamed for letting the Civil War come to fruition).  Another awful president was Warren G. Harding (20th Century).  He was the first president to be elected after the 19th Amendment was ratified (Woman Suffrage).  The story goes that he was the handsomest candidate. 

In fact, the framers of the US Constitution were very uncomfortable with the idea of democracy and giving the vote to the masses.  Nowhere in the US Constitution does the word "democracy" appear.  (the original text; I haven't studied all of the amendments lately)

So, if you ditched the king/queen who would you put on your banknotes?  Here in the US we have enough infighting about who should be on ours.  (I'm in favor of ditching all of the political figures on our bills and replacing them with artists, writers, scientists, etc., but nobody is listening to me)

[MintyRox]

We have artists and figures from history on one side of our bank notes.  Scottish notes already do not feature the monarch either.  I don't disagree that elected officials can be poor statespersons, my point is that hereditary positions of power should hold no place in the modern world. 

In my opinion, America's current problem is not that of who is President but more centred around capitalism in general as the main driving force of your society; where money=status=power.  The modern version of our old fashioned royals versus plebes mentality.  That and guns, obviously.

[Parsifal]

We have artists and figures from history on one side of our bank notes. 

Yes!  Alan Turing is on the reverse of the £50 note.
(as ladsnet once pointed out, the only people who see those £50 notes are money launderers. )

Scottish notes already do not feature the monarch either.

Well, no surprise there.
Those notes are issued by private banks, yes?

I don't disagree that elected officials can be poor statespersons, my point is that hereditary positions of power should hold no place in the modern world.

As an American I have no direct experience of living in a monarchy.  I can only observe from afar.  It appears to me that QE2 in particular gave the UK and the Commonwealth a sense of stability that it might otherwise not have had.  She was widely loved, unlike your PMs.  (Her more aloof ancestors I don't view so kindly)
(As an aside, it appears to me that the royal family is giving Prince Harry the same treatment that it gave Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor)

It's up for debate how well the "American Experiment" has played out and how much longer it will last (lots of doomsayers around here).  How would the experiment have played out if we had a non-political king/queen (i.e. figurehead) all along?  I don't know, just a thought.  George Washington was asked to serve as king, but he declined.

In my opinion, America's current problem is not that of who is President but more centred around capitalism in general as the main driving force of your society; where money=status=power.

American economics and society changed after the closing of the frontier in the 1890s (known as "land enclosure", i.e. no more free land at the frontier).  We became a nation defined by the closing of the frontier, the growth of industrial capitalism and the transition to wage labor for most workers.  For some time I've been wanting to study the effects that land enclosure produced on American life, but simply haven't had the time.

Yes, $$$ drives politics and power in this country. Voters are led like lemmings with misinformation from both sides (one side more than the other)

An interesting observation that I've had is the recent explosion of "startup" ventures in our economy (and others), i.e. a broadening of young entrepreneurs who want to pursue their own talents and ideas outside of the corporate world (i.e. outside of wage labor).  It's interesting what's happening these days.  I myself had my own consulting practice (analytics) for many years.  Now semi-retired.

That and guns, obviously.

Yes.  
This country has more guns than people.
Just the other day a 6-y/o shot his teacher in class with a gun he brought from home (in Virginia).

It looks like I've gone off topic here (it's your fault MintyRox) in the very thread that I started.   (I'll think of something to say about King Charles. )

[ladsnet]

You could put Prince Harry on your dollar bills.

Might shut him up a bit.

[RyCamp88]

Out of curiosity how did Lizzie give the uk and commonwealth stability ? Americans have such romantic ideas when it comes to the royals.

[TR83]

Pretty sure that the monarch generally respects the policy making by the elected representatives.

My opinion on the monarchy; generally one of ambivalence. I really don't see how us being a republic will make an awful lot of difference. France are no worse off with being a republic; quite possibly the contrary. It's also the most visited country in Europe. If we got rid of the monarchy as the heads of state, tourists would still come to the UK to see the buildings they once inhabited. I would be fully behind Chas slimming/paring it down.

[Parsifal]

If we got rid of the monarchy as the heads of state, tourists would still come to the UK to see the buildings they once inhabited.

Yes, but the souvenir industry would suffer enormously.

---

Out of curiosity how did Lizzie give the uk and commonwealth stability ? Americans have such romantic ideas when it comes to the royals.

Buckingham Palace has a superior PR department.

Oh yes, Americans love the royals and the gossip and the scandals.  They keep our tabloids in business (and yours).  British Tourism ads here often feature royal motifs.

[RRUK01]

It will be interesting to see what happens this year now that Prince Andrew's Gagging contract with that young girl he is accused of sleeping with comes to an end.. £12m to pay for someone to keep quiet for a year, is a lot of money to pay if there is no truth to the suggestion.. I think Harry's mild revelations will seem like nothing, if the girl formally accuses Prince Andrew of having slept with her again. I seriously doubt that Charles would help buy him out like their mother did..

[John]

If we got rid of the monarchy as the heads of state, tourists would still come to the UK to see the buildings they once inhabited.

Yes, but the souvenir industry would suffer enormously.

---

Out of curiosity how did Lizzie give the uk and commonwealth stability ? Americans have such romantic ideas when it comes to the royals.

Buckingham Palace has a superior PR department.

Oh yes, Americans love the royals and the gossip and the scandals.  They keep our tabloids in business (and yours).  British Tourism ads here often feature royal motifs.

The souvenir industry would suffer enormously? Why can't Americans just stop being so extreme even when it's not about guns but about British royalty you guys are still extremists. Jesus Christ.

[ladsnet]

To be fair they're still struggling after having to bin all those Prince Andrew tea sets.

[MintyRox]

We Brits are supposed to be world leaders in sarcasm, yet some of us just can't seem to see it when it comes from an American apparently. Let's call them 'Don' to preserve their anonymity.

[Jwb52z]

Americans being mostly brainwashed to worship power and money is part of the reason so many Americans fawn over the British Royal Family. Another part is, even when we grow up, we remember being read and told stories about royalty. That makes it partly nostalgia. The final part is also because of the stories. Americans have no actual direct experience of living in a monarchy, so that makes it an interesting sort of novelty as well. Also, at this point, many Americans do not truly know how to live without extremes as we are also brought up from childhood by most of our parents to see everything in life as binary combined with many things thought to be compulsory, hence the US propensity for religious zealotry and bigotry. Although, the US right-wing spent most of the 20th century brainwashing poor white people to be against their own best interests while emboldening and encouraging that same religious zealotry and bigotry.