WHAT ACTUAL USE HAS A MONARCHY GOt ???

Question

apart from having to pay them millions of pounds just to lounge around and be wealthy and not know anything about modern england and it's clear troubles.

Answer 1

Veronica Alicia seems to have it right. only one small point missing.  How much do you think it cost us britts to pay our royality.  According to BBC documentaries  about 60 pence per year from each of us. I dont know about anyone else but I think we get our moneys worth.

Answer 2

It depends on which country you go to--England has a constitutional monarch and Queen Elizabeth has only the figurehead things to do

Answer 3

Absolutely bugger all use! WHat have they done lately apart from stroll around doing the odd visit, show up on telly and holiday in their castles?! I hope I can't get arrested for sayin that!!

Answer 4

no use

Answer 5

None that i can think of  its about time they all got jobs and stop scrounging of honest taxpayers  let Liz and Phil try living  on a state pension

Answer 6

If any, I'de say they are like our president, just a figure head, a face behind the country. They are used for good will conferences and such!

Answer 7

there are groups of influential people who make money off the monarchy:

1. The prostituted entourage that follow them around, laud and glorify them as if they were some sort of gods, and get favors tossed to them that gives them social advantage in a variety of ways.

2. The commercial entourage who sells souveniers with their pictures on it, and who take tourists around who seem curious about what kind of people would put up with such a social system as the brits have and the hotels and restaurants that the tourists frequent. That money is split between these commercial leeches and the royals themselves, who benefit from their being so glorified.

All these find the monarchy useful.

Of course, the royals with their social clout as rulers of the social system, exercise the weapon of ostracization, which  is leveled from them down thru the social system against all critics. So the brits shut up, rather than lose their friends, and job advancement opportunities, and social contacts as well as business contacts. The critics know they will be shunned by others and thus, left in social and economic isolation and despair. So nobody dares raise their voices against the plundering of the public money that these people engage in, under the phony claim that they bring in more money to britain than they get from the brits, always modifying the amount from untold millions, to the number of pounds per person it costs the brits.

They get ruthless when necessary - when Diana tried to change the system to excise out the evils, she had to be liquidated inview of the great following she had developed.

All the royals had to do was privately express their displeasure with a few of the closest ones in the prostituted entourage, and it was a done deal.

Answer 8

I read in an economics journal that they bring £400m of tourism per year, but hey, thats probably half their staffing costs!

Answer 9

Errrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm????????????????...

??????????????????????????????????????...

No can't think of any reason for them at all?????????????

16th century twerps and parasites we can no longer afford!!

(Alexi Sayle)

?

Answer 10

What actual use have quite a lot of things got?

Funerals and their expense?  Why not just send your dead to the cat food factory?

Our lives are full of things with no clear material benefit.  Removing them would not make life more pleasant.

Answer 11

If there were no monarchies, tourists would never visit.  After all, the fact that Great Britain has a queen is the only reason why Americans come to Britain. If Britain didn't have a queen, all of those Americans would go to Ireland, France, and Germany instead.

Isn't that what Jamie was saying above?

Belgium and the Netherlands have monarchs, but they seem to run their monarchies in a more efficient manner than the United Kingdom does.

Answer 12

Nothing. I really can't see the point of them. It's just another bunch of people we have to pay money too that think they're better than everyone else.

Answer 13

none

Answer 14

Don't be silly, its all a matter of Parliament vs Royalty. Civil wars in the past were about who was in power, monarchs or Parliament. obviously the government is in control but the Queen can always say she's had enough and enact a civil war or something to regain control. *shrugs*

Answer 15

Nothing

-SS (:-Smiling Star-:)

Answer 16

Hey, just a minute!  Where did you get your figures of "millions of pounds just to lounge around".

I will probably get a ton of thumbs down for this, but did you know that the Queen pays Income Tax?

The Royal Family do a job, which I certainly wouldn't fancy of being in the Public Eye all the time, castigated if they are even thought to put a foot wrong, have to go to endless and boring functions always on their best behaviour, meet stuffy representatives from other Countries and the Queen has to do this, in her 80's when everyone else has taken retirement, because at her Coronation she swore before her people and her God that she would give her life to the job.

Her Maj probably knows more about modern England and the Country's problems than you or I.  She is a very well-read woman who follows World events as part of her job.

When she was a child she was very well educated in Constitutional History by the Provost of Eton, so she does have some idea of what it's all about.

As a wealthy family, they could just chuck it all in, retire to one of the family estates and leave us with our Prime Minister to represent our Country and entertain foreign dignataries and royals.  I'm not sure that they would do such a good job nor be quite as impressive.  

Or do you really think that we would be better off with a President, as they have in the US?

If we did this, the tax payer would still have to foot the bill for the upkeep of the Presidential Palace (Buck House belongs to the Country, not to the Queen) and the vast army of staff needed to run the business.