British Royalty

[SkullKing]

Sorry if there is already a thread on this, I was unable to find it.

This is a doubt I had for a while, but i was prompted to post here by this thread "http://fratching.com/showthread.php?p=118742#post118742"

I decided to create a new thread because the "things I hate" seems to be more of a rant forum.

Could some british member,(or someone who lives/lived in England) Explain it to me?

Because I honestly do not understand it at all. It seems a bit anachronistic to me.

I do not understand what purpose they serve at all.

the impression I get is kind of that Britain pays a lot of money, to maintain the lifestyle of people who aren't really that important to the country in order to keep them as some sort of national symbol. kind of like a living monument.

But I doubt it is so simple, and England is a developed country, so I am pretty sure there IS a good reason for it.

[fireheart17]

\

I do not understand what purpose they serve at all.

the impression I get is kind of that Britain pays a lot of money, to maintain the lifestyle of people who aren't really that important to the country in order to keep them as some sort of national symbol. kind of like a living monument.

But I doubt it is so simple, and England is a developed country, so I am pretty sure there IS a good reason for it.

The Royal Family do act as more than just a "figurehead" to the UK. She also reigns power over the Commonwealth of Nations. This includes countries such as Australia. Since the queen can't actually physically act as our Head of State (unless Doctor Who somehow grants her permission to use the TARDIS), her representative is the Governor-General, who at the moment for Australia is Quentin Bryce if memory serves me correctly (there was a HUGE hubbub over here about how the G-G is a woman -.-)

IN terms of funding, the Queen does repay back the amounts herself. So it's not like the country is in debt to her.

[SkullKing]

She also reigns power over the Commonwealth of Nations

Can you please explain to me what this actually means?

IN terms of funding, the Queen does repay back the amounts herself. So it's not like the country is in debt to her.

this makes a lot of sense. Thanks

[the_std]

Can you please explain to me what this actually means?

Wiki is your friend.

[telecom_goddess]

I think England just doesn't want to give up long term traditions. What I'd like to know is long does the Queen plan to live anyway? She is having her what, 60th anniversary as Queen? Isn't she the longest ruling monarch they've had to date? Charles is going to be dead before he has a chance to be king and it's going to pass straight through to William.

That being said I'm somewhat intrigued by the whole Royal Family thing. I've been working on my family tree again on Ancestry.com and I am only a third generation american on my maternal grandfather's side, coming from England. I'm trying to trace back that branch of the family and have come to a dead end

But anyway most of my background is english, with some french and Scandinavian thrown in from waaaaaaaaaay back. Scottish too.

[s_stabeler]

as someone from the UK, I'll say what I know.

1) the queen is mostly a firgurehead, but that is actually by convention, not by statute. By law, there are several reserve powers the Queen can perform independently of the Government
1) to appoint a PM of her own choosing. In theory, Queen Elizabeth could have appointed Gordon brown as Pm after the last election, for instance.
2) Dismiss the Government. The Queen can tell the Government to pack their bags, and the government has to go.
3) refuse to sign a bill.

so yeah, the Queen has quite a few reserve powers, but in practice, they aren't used. Essentially, most people like the queen, so she's kept.

[HYHYBT]

Those powers could be useful, though, if the government turns into a total disaster... so long as you have a monarch who wouldn't use them unless it were an emergency. Which they wouldn't, in modern times, if for no other reason than nobody would put up with it.

[wraiths_crono]

Reason for the British Monarch

Replying to your inquiry on my husband's forum with his permission, in 1985 upon my birth I became a subject of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II and proud to be such. The British monarch has power more than most realize-even those in the English Isles, for the queen is such of not only England but also of the Commonwealth, which is a consortium of independent yet connected countries headed by the queen. Queen Elizabeth is a diplomat, who is able to memorize a lot of information in a very quick time on the country she is visiting, as well as their leader's interests which have assisted with smoothing talks. The British military do not answer to Parliament but to whoever sits upon the throne; whoever holds that power also is the counter to a corrupt government as they are then able to disband them and call for new elections. Over the past twenty years the British monarchy has gone from being tight lipped, closed doors to being very open-more so than anyone within Congress, the House of Representatives and/or Senate in America. They have limited their expenses, forsaken luxuries such as the Royal Yacht and publicize their budget, which is everything they receive to pay for the castles, palaces, employees, their living expenses and trips abroad-most of which is NOT tax payers' expense but from the real estate set up centuries ago by a king for this purpose. The male Royals are expected to serve in some branch of the military WITHOUT perks; Prince William is in the air force, his brother in the army, so when you see them in uniform with medals pinned, it is because they earned them; esp. Prince Andrew who served during the Balkan War in the 1980s. Without the Royals, thousands of charities would cease to exist-and all those who depend upon the single visit per year would not receive food, clothes, medicine, etc as the members of the royal family engage in public volunteer work and visit hospitals, clinics, etc and the media follow-through this televised event, people donate their money-just as if you donated to P.B.S. or any other public-driven entity. Their lives are luxurious, yes, but so are those of rock and movie stars who, for the most part, are free to go where they want, do whatever they want and spend money without being criticized, much less that of the members of various governments. Though luxurious, they are born into a life where they are limited vs. those born into wealth who waste it such as a certain hire to Hilton-I do not understand why people criticize the Royal family of England when every tax payer supports rich people each time they pay a product of that person-a book, movie ticket, concert, etc. when, most likely, those people have NOT dedicated themselves to serving others. When born into the British royalty, you are born into a life of luxury...and of servitude, a highly UNprivate life as well as to serve others BEFORE yourself. The Royals-esp. Queen Elizabeth II who served her country during World War II as a mechanic-are critical to the stability of the Commonwealth and all those who they visit. It is the queen who hosts state dinners for foreign diplomats and heads of state; the queen, at the age of 85, had 400 public/private events last year alone; her husband, who is almost 91, had just as many commitments. To replace them with others would cost the country way more than anyone practically realizes. Any questions?

[Nekojin]

Wall of text is hard to read. =>_<=

[wraiths_crono]

Civil List and Other Information

1. http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHous...CivilList.aspx

This is the official site of the British Royal Family; which most likely corrects anything of which I posted to be wrong as the information I gave could be out of date.

Use the website to farther answer any questions you have.

[wraiths_crono]

Apology

Do you want me to resubmit it in sections?

[wraiths_crono]

Replying to your inquiry on my husband's forum with his permission, in 1985 upon my birth I became a subject of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II and proud to be such. The British monarch has power more than most realize-even those in the English Isles, for the queen is such of not only England but also of the Commonwealth, which is a consortium of independent yet connected countries headed by the queen. Queen Elizabeth is a diplomat, who is able to memorize a lot of information in a very quick time on the country she is visiting, as well as their leader's interests which have assisted with smoothing talks. The British military do not answer to Parliament but to whoever sits upon the throne; whoever holds that power also is the counter to a corrupt government as they are then able to disband them and call for new elections. Over the past twenty years the British monarchy has gone from being tight lipped, closed doors to being very open-more so than anyone within Congress, the House of Representatives and/or Senate in America.

[wraiths_crono]

They have limited their expenses, forsaken luxuries such as the Royal Yacht and publicize their budget, which is everything they receive to pay for the castles, palaces, employees, their living expenses and trips abroad-most of which is NOT tax payers' expense but from the real estate set up centuries ago by a king for this purpose. The male Royals are expected to serve in some branch of the military WITHOUT perks; Prince William is in the air force, his brother in the army, so when you see them in uniform with medals pinned, it is because they earned them; esp. Prince Andrew who served during the Balkan War in the 1980s. Without the Royals, thousands of charities would cease to exist-and all those who depend upon the single visit per year would not receive food, clothes, medicine, etc as the members of the royal family engage in public volunteer work and visit hospitals, clinics, etc and the media follow-through this televised event, people donate their money-just as if you donated to P.B.S. or any other public-driven entity.

[wraiths_crono]

Their lives are luxurious, yes, but so are those of rock and movie stars who, for the most part, are free to go where they want, do whatever they want and spend money without being criticized, much less that of the members of various governments. Though luxurious, they are born into a life where they are limited vs. those born into wealth who waste it such as a certain hire to Hilton-I do not understand why people criticize the Royal family of England when every tax payer supports rich people each time they pay a product of that person-a book, movie ticket, concert, etc. when, most likely, those people have NOT dedicated themselves to serving others. When born into the British royalty, you are born into a life of luxury...and of servitude, a highly UNprivate life as well as to serve others BEFORE yourself. The Royals-esp. Queen Elizabeth II who served her country during World War II as a mechanic-are critical to the stability of the Commonwealth and all those who they visit. It is the queen who hosts state dinners for foreign diplomats and heads of state; the queen, at the age of 85, had 400 public/private events last year alone; her husband, who is almost 91, had just as many commitments. To replace them with others would cost the country way more than anyone practically realizes. Any questions?

[wolfie]

The male Royals are expected to serve in some branch of the military WITHOUT perks; Prince William is in the air force, his brother in the army, so when you see them in uniform with medals pinned, it is because they earned them; esp. Prince Andrew who served during the Balkan War in the 1980s.

I believe that was the Falklands war. One "sound bite" that sticks in my mind was a reporter asking if Prince Andrew got any special privileges for being a member of the royal family. His response: "I'm the only one with my parents' picture hanging in the Captain's cabin". Of course, the Captain of every ship in the Royal Navy would have the reigning monarch's picture hanging in their cabin, whether or not another member of the royal family was serving on board.