Question about England.

[MatthewG215]

What's with the royal family? How much longer are they going to be around?

 

[BobbieDog]

What's with the royal family? How much longer are they going to be around?

Well, by many accounts Queen Victoria genuinely anticipated that she would be able to hand here crown to Christ, in her own lifetime: and that would have been the end, the fulfillment if you will of that dynasty of British monarchy.
For many Brits the monarchy is an anachronism: something of a choke and a restriction. Equally there would seem to be many Brits who are content with the status quo.
Perhaps the monarchy will be progressively shaped and trimmed to modern circumstance, while retaining some core psychological, symbolic and constitutional quality.
Perhaps the royal family is essentially an irrelevance which might continue indefinitely: or equally dissapear in a flash.
I think this indicates that the British lack an affirmative conception of who they are, or would like to be.
Sad really.

 

[Cjwinnit]

I can see the Crown being around for a long time. As a political system it would be a right pain to rewrite laws to remove the Crown. In fact it would probably need an entire rewrite of English and Scots law and a constitution would need to be written to start a new system of government.

Add to that, people don't like change. Apart from the interregnum there has been a monarchy here for a thousand years. It's a symbol of the nation's (percieved) stability and independence. Frankly it would be extremely unlikely to remove the monarchy and is unlikely for at least Elizabeth II's reign. Besides, "President Blair"? I'd rather have civil war.

 

[Dale]

Matthew:
<< What's with the royal family? How much longer are they going to be around? >>

I don't know about Britain itself, but in Australia irreverence toward the Royals has progressed to the point that Sydney unveiled a nude statue of Elizabeth and Philip (sitting on a park bench) in a public park some years ago.

 

[East Anglican]

What's with the royal family? How much longer are they going to be around?

Wit a head of state that doesn't actually have any authority in reality. We can give that respect to her/his majesty and it makes the prime minister fair game. In many republics one is frowned upon if one speaks against the policies of a peresident. Also people from your country come over as tourists and give us lots of money. It will be around for a long time yet.

 

[meebs]

What's with the royal family? How much longer are they going to be around?

I hope they wont be round for long. My dad says they are good for international affairs etc (though even he doesnt like them). But i think they are useless - so are our present government.

Im left wing and so are my family - but there is NOTHING or NO-ONE to represent us at all. Its a total farce and i dread elections.

I hope we can replace the queen soon. Prefebly with a useful head of state.

But some royal families are good and do stuff, that i can totally respect. But ours are pointless.

sorry if i babble, im not happy with the way things are at the moment.

 

[Casaubon]

The advantages of having a politically neutral head of state merans that the prestige of the country which the head of state represents isn't tied up in the politics of the head of government. Whether this is elected (as per Ireland) or hereditary isn't so much the issue. Also, the Monarchy costs around 60 miilion pounds per year - alot less than the French or Italian presidents (around the equivalent of 100 million pounds).

I don't see any republic which works any better than the British system, so I don't see the advantage of change.

 

[Cjwinnit]

I don't see any republic which works any better than the British system, so I don't see the advantage of change.

The other thing is our head of state and the surrounding family does give us the occasional laugh (I'll include the Italians here, watching Ciampi constsntly snubbing Berlusconi's ambitions is worth a laugh).

Another point is we are probably the only country where both our head of government and head of state are well-known around the world. France's PM isn't as well-known as Tony Blair abd I bet few of you knew who the Italian president was... (and of course the US has one person filling both roles).

 

[Catrione]

The Royal family is a symbol of strength and continuity. It shows that Britishness has not disappeared and that Britain is different in some ways to other countries and has had something solid streatching far back into its history. They may not have much power, but they represent something very important. - My friend explained all this to me

 

[meebs]

The Royal family is a symbol of strength and continuity. It shows that Britishness has not disappeared and that Britain is different in some ways to other countries and has had something solid streatching far back into its history. They may not have much power, but they represent something very important. - My friend explained all this to me

ummm, no.

(sorry i really dont like them , i think they were better in the past, like when kings and queens ruled, but now they are nothing, just rubbish)

 

[ShadowAspect]

The advantages of having a politically neutral head of state merans that the prestige of the country which the head of state represents isn't tied up in the politics of the head of government. Whether this is elected (as per Ireland) or hereditary isn't so much the issue. Also, the Monarchy costs around 60 miilion pounds per year - alot less than the French or Italian presidents (around the equivalent of 100 million pounds).

I don't see any republic which works any better than the British system, so I don't see the advantage of change.

Add to that the fact that we get a number of them (instead of just one president) means they can be in several places at once, and we have options as to which royal is best suited to which job. And I don't know if you know this, but when it comes to sorting out trade deals, they rake in a fortune.

Add to this the fact that they make all our palaces and castles all the more "real", means that they help to make tourism our biggest industry. There are many countries with sunshine and sandy beaches that can't earn a fraction of what Britian does out of tourism... and much of that is down to the fact that we have the Royals.

Tey may cost us millions, (actucually they don't as they are getting an allowance out of the icome of their own lands, the tresury gets the rest), but they earn this country billions.

Besides, a president just doesn't compare to a Royal. I don't know if you saw the program about body language a month or so ago. Basically, Bush and Clinton both showed dominant body language when dealing with every head of state except the Queen... Bush was visibly shaking with fear! Thats a serious advantage in matters of diplomacy.