Does Britain really need the Royal Family now?

Question

I see them as nothing more than a drain on our nation, the Royal Family hasn't done anything for me in the 22 years I've been alive.

I say this country should be a Republic

Answer 1

I think that it needs to have a good "overhaul", we are in the 21st Century!

Answer 2

I don't agree, the Queen does a wonderful job as Sovereign.Other countries iv'e been to envy and respect our royal family.

Answer 3

I don't think Gordon Brown would look so good with a bouquet of flowers in hand cutting the ribbon to open a new something or other.

The Queen probably pays more in tax than you will earn in your lifetime.

She is paid for doing a job for life (which she swore to do at her Coronation) - Buck House is an official office with accommodation, like like 10 and 11 Downing Street.  I'm sure she would much rather live quietly in her own pad in Balmoral than live in the Smoke.  I certainly would.

She does a fine job for a lady in her 80's, meeting and greeting and keeping her cool with Foreign diplomats and representatives of other Countries with whom she probably has nothing whatsovever in common.

You are only 22 - a third of that time has been spent sleeping, so you have something like 14 years of experience of life.

One other thing worth mentioning - remember when we tried it without a Royal Family once before - it was the ordinary populace who decided they wanted a Monarch again.

Answer 4

The Royal Family is a  "drain for your money"

Answer 5

I am at a loss for words..

to take away the royal family would be like denying your lungs the right to breathe in air..

the daffodils to come up at springtime

the earth to keep on spining

the sun to keep on shining

history to be itself..

what a dreadful thought

Answer 6

What makes you think the Royal family should do something for you? What have you contributed in your 22 years ? you have only just become an adult.( I use that term loosely) If you don't like it move to a republic.

Answer 7

Like the US? The US is a republic and not a democracy. I think that the royalty offers a stability throughout many administrations. Perhaps there is a way they can cut down expenses though I agree.

Answer 8

we don't really need a monarchy but the queen does have the power to rule the country but she dosn't, the government dos. Although if the queen did try and do something she'd probably be repromanded by the government but since she is head of state, not the pm she could call a general election whenever she wanted....this countries a democracy so get over it

Answer 9

good for tourism,if nothing else!

Answer 10

i read somewhere on here that the royal family is the roots of Britain, well in honesty that's not strictly true as the royal family descends from Germany and Greece which firstly suggests they shouldn't be there. Secondly, I agree that as a body, the royal family do not do anything for the UK but remain a figure head, however could it be argued it would cost alot less of tax payers money to fund a president rather than a whole "royal" family. What is so royal about a family who are funded by their citizens, if monarchy could still be politically active this would be Marxism.

Answer 11

if u put it like that,but I will say is worlth preserving as cultural or identification of the Brits traditions. This things are sometimes the only evidence to the past being good or bad. May be the only issue to look into or deal with is money or wealth apart from this,getting raid of them or anyone is never a good idea. All am saying is,I need my past,u need ur past,all in a good way to move forward. God bless as all amen.

Answer 12

It's obscene to think that 1 in 10 kids live in absolute poverty in her own country, yet she gets an annual income of more than £10 million+, and that's just for Queenie! The total amount of money the royal family lives on is sickening, and that's without their private ventures as well.

The big problem is that is you took away the royalty, England, and London in particular, would lose some of the glitter that draws in tourists. Don't get me wrong, England still has Shakespeare, The Beatles, and Stone Henge but the royal family is quite attractive with its pomp and ceremony. Whatever they eat up in costs might be replaced by the business generated from tourism.

It's almost a case of the devil you know rather than the devil you don't. Maybe they should just quietly rework the financial status of the Queen and her tribe, perhaps limit them to one solid gold toilet per year?

Answer 13

no its just for the show... JOLLY DAY

OMG are you british oooo thats awsome (i am a obnoshouse american thats is killing the earth with my hummers)

Answer 14

being Irish and a Republican I think they are a bunch of scroungers, and the older ones should be put in council flats and be made to live on a basic state pension while their wealth is divided between deserving pensioners, the young ones should also be stripped of their wealth, and made to do real work, the wealth they forfeit could go into the N.H.S also all the lords dukes and the rest should suffer the same fate.

Answer 15

yeah.. u r right. But, britain still needs the royal family. They are the roots of britain.

Answer 16

If we didn't have the royal family, we'd have to have an eleced head of state, which would mean more bloody elections,and would be no cheaper.  I say keep the royal family, they are cheap at the price.

As for the royal family not having done anything for you, what do you expect them to do for you?  And what do you think an elected head of state might have done for you that they haven't?  Why don't you try doing something for yourself?

As for the comment about the royal familyb eing Greek and German, well George I inherited the throne of england because he was a direct descendent of King James I, and was the next Protestant heir after Queen Anne died.  The royal family has always intermarried with the royalty of other nations, because that is what royalty do.  To suggest that they 'shouldn't be here' because they are not purely English by blood is absurd, few people in this country are pure-blooded anything, we all come from a vast  mixture of different racial origins.

As for '1 in 10 kids living in absolut poverty', well it all depends how you define poverty, doesn't it?  No child in this country has to go without an education for example, or medical treatment, both of which are free.  children who are 'absolutely poor' by comparison with better-off english children are still immeasurably better off compared to the poor of most of the world.

Answer 17

Would you want a head of state like bush???.

the Queen is sooooooooooooo much better!.

Answer 18

You must keep your Queen at all costs!

I don't want to get rid of the Queen's Birthday.

Answer 19

They are a waste of resources and should self implode ASAP

Answer 20

They bring in more tourist revenue than they cost, so on economic grounds i say keep them.

The 'institution' also gives us a feeling of tradition and strong roots in our country, ao again they are worth keeping.

On the other hand, any 'Royal' under 50 seems to have no concept of the word 'decorum', so they are hardly good role models. And that mad xenophobe prince Philip should be put down.

Answer 21

No this country do sent need a royal family.

They are a relic of the past and don't serve a useful purpose any more.

Their wealth was created by robbing and plundering the people of this nation as well as thieving from the poor of other occupied lands .

The diamond .gold and oil industries was from other lands and yet the wealth from it kept the royal family and all its hangers on for centuries in comfort while the poor suffered .

So goodbye to them and good riddance

So now its time we said good bye to them