just how important is the Royal Family?

[CaptainDesslock]

Curious question,

This being a primarily british userbase, just how important is the Queen and such to the average citizen? I've met some people who consider the family a matter of great national pride, and others who think of them as fat cats stuffing themselves with the peoples money.

Sooo..................?

[38thBeatle]

Personally I like a bit of tradition and the alternative would perhaps be a president... a politician, no way I'd rather have nothing than that. The present Queen is good in my view but like all families there are those that certainly don't have the right public image but we only see them via the media and therefore just about any view will be distorted. I think for me it is more about the alternative. They cost each of us something like 80p per annum.We are currently wasting far more than that on other things that I would gladly see ditched before we thought about ditching the Royal family. I don't like the media drivel though that they generate. I think that Prince William is doing his best to be worthwhile . I don't think they do any real harm.

[MrBump]

I guess I was more anti-royal in my youth, but not so much these days.  I'm kinda OK with the status quo - in that ultimately it makes very little difference to my life.  I'm with Mr 38th in that having a political head of state doesn't really float my boat.  Very little substance in British politics at the moment, in my opinion.

Just re-read this post, and I'm not actually asking for Frances Rossi to be president.  At all.

Mark.

[Ian Price]

I don't think they do any real harm.

Me neither. And they bring in a shed load of money through tourism.

[gwEm]

the Queen herself is an extremely savvy diplomat/ambassador, her genius is that she appears very transparent. its too bad other members of the family make fools of themselves from time to time. definitely pro-Royals here

[Plexi Ken]

I'm not really bothered either way  :?  The present Queen has done a great job but Charles (the next in line) is generally unpopular and won't have the popular support that the Queen does now. If/when Charles becomes King, there could be a rise in republican opinions, so it maybe for the best to skip a generation and let William (who is popular) have a go.

I also think the high levels of contempt shown to politicians has increased popularity in the monarchy. When the Westminster expenses crises first happened, I heard many people saying the Queen should suspend parliament and take control. Not a bad idea but last time that happened, the monarch lost their head.

[Ian Price]

I actually like Charles. Not sure why though.

[Will]

I suppose Charles is trying to be a role model in some ways, providing your own green food; or maybe not for the public, but for business, food originating from the UK.
I personally have no problem with them, would be interesting to see the results of parliament being closed

[gwEm]

I suppose Charles is trying to be a role model in some ways, providing your own green food; or maybe not for the public, but for business, food originating from the UK.
I personally have no problem with them, would be interesting to see the results of parliament being closed

i reckon : most of the population would become instantly anti-royal. we would have a swift, violence free revolution, the royal family would be exiled and parliament would be reinstated, almost as it was before.

[fbloke]

I used to be quite anti-royal until a wise man put me right during the Blair years.  He asked me to imagine Blair as the "president" of this country, free to rule as he saw fit without his ego and ambition being kept in check by the Royal Family and associated powers.  Blair with more power and less accountability.  Shudder.

Also, it is alleged that the relationships the Royal Family build with other nations keen to be associated with them allows an awful lot of trade to take place. Just don't mention the arms trade.  Apparently the royals more than pay for their own expenses in this way.  If we didn't have this facility we may have to go much closer to Europe in order to secure trade.  Fancy cuddling up to the Germans and French to ensure prosperity? 

How about controlling terror?  Is there a special relationship with the Saudi Royals?  I don't know, but I'm sure the free flow of information that has prevented further attacks has come from some very good relationships being built somewhere.  All in all I'm happy for the Royals to be there.  In fact, I'd quite like them to behead some bankers....

[Will]

I suppose Charles is trying to be a role model in some ways, providing your own green food; or maybe not for the public, but for business, food originating from the UK.
I personally have no problem with them, would be interesting to see the results of parliament being closed

i reckon : most of the population would become instantly anti-royal. we would have a swift, violence free revolution, the royal family would be exiled and parliament would be reinstated, almost as it was before.

Didn't really explain myself properly, sorry :P I agree with you upon that part, but I was more referring to if the Royals were to do so not out of their own interest in power but the politicians uselessness.
Then to try and reinstate another more legitimate system.
There are echoes of Russia in about 1919 here though I think.

[HTH AMPS]

The main thing that bugs me is the list of 'royal' hanger-ons that we pay for.  At least the Queen gets herself about and does what she's supposed to.  In the main, I would consider myself an anti-royalist though.  We've got massive heritage in this country and we'd still get massive tourism on the historic legacy of the royals without a current royal family.

[Elliot]

Personally I think the best thing that happened in the history of the English monarchy was when they cut off Charles I's head and declared a republic.  The worst thing was when monarchy came back. 

In saying that the monarchy has no political role in the English constitution except a symbolic one - that is why the 'keep the monarchy because 'Thatcher/Blair/Brown/Cameron' as President would be worse' is just naive.  With a first past the post system of elections, the Prime Minister is the president for all intents and purposes as all except hung or minority parliaments give the prime minister a huge mandate through the political whip system.  England has an elected temporary dictatorship and the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha aka Windsor do nothing (and can do nothing) to keep any check on the supremacy of a majority government. 

Personally, I would abolish the expensive fiction of monarchy that we have, and flog or open up all her houses to make even more money from tourists and get on with things as normal.

[HTH AMPS]

Personally I think the best thing that happened in the history of the English monarchy was when they cut off Charles I's head and declared a republic.  The worst thing was when monarchy came back. 

In saying that the monarchy has no political role in the English constitution except a symbolic one - that is why the 'keep the monarchy because 'Thatcher/Blair/Brown/Cameron' as President would be worse' is just naive.  With a first past the post system of elections, the Prime Minister is the president for all intents and purposes as all except hung or minority parliaments give the prime minister a huge mandate through the political whip system.  England has an elected temporary dictatorship and the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha aka Windsor do nothing (and can do nothing) to keep any check on the supremacy of a majority government. 

Personally, I would abolish the expensive fiction of monarchy that we have, and flog or open up all her houses to make even more money from tourists and get on with things as normal.

we could have Lizzy and Phil do the guided tours of the palace too  :lol:

[Philly Q]

I agree with Mr 38th.  Nothing more to add really.