what is the point of the royal family?

[bobtheduck]

other countries just laugh at them i cant think of a single  purpose can you?

[Laura-sakura]

I can't stand the Royal family myself, but I believe they generate a huge amount of money through tourism(if that makes sense) then again, they cost the taxpayers a lot of money too.

[FP]

I am not a royalist and have no real feelings either way, Bobtheduck. However, I feel their status was let down terribly by the arrival of Diana and her ability to attract the wrong sort of publicity.  I will be criticised for saying this!

[willowherb]

fp..you wont be criticised by me as diana was the begining of the end where the royal family are concerned..after revelations of all her sordid love affairs and other related scandals..their is bound to be many more scandals we dont know about,,concerning several members of the royal family..maybe not in my life time but in years to come they will probably be got rid of and just vanish into thin air so to speak..the press seem to dig more now regarding the royals as they know they are not the sweet rightouse people they used to make out to be.and they must live under a ticking time bomb as they dont know who is going to reveal their sordid lives next..they are a complete waste of money and if they wish to be looked up to as representives of the uk then they should be squeeky clean,,alas they are only human like us all..and the cracks within their family are getting wider ,,their must be loads of things they have covered up over the years and maybe one day some of them will be revealed,,the only thing is they allways hush things and do cover up jobs if we get a glimpse of anything,,but they are not as popular now as when i was young and in time will get less so..  

[Bangkok]

Pesonally I thought Henry VIII was the beginning of the end. 

[Clanad]

Speaking as an American, I would say that we tend to look at the institution of the monarchy, rather than the individuals occupying the office, so to speak.  In other words, at least for Americans, we have a rather short history and much of that connected to England and her history.  Therefore, we appreciate the tradition and historical significance, knowing full well that those occupying it today are superfluous in the eyes of many of the British citizens.  We also realize that there were not many monarchs, Royals, as you call them, in history that were individually admirable.  Just enough, I suppose, to see England through some really tough times...

[FP]

Willowherb.  Your answer elaborates very well what I was trying to say.  I agree with you entirely.  I can't understand why she was idolised by a large section of the British public.   Yes, she was the beginning of the end.

[FP]

Bangkok.  I see your point!

[druiaghtagh]

Roll on the Republic !!

[bernardo]

Vital constitutional safeguard against tyranny and tyrannical legislation.  Focus of loyalty for the nation as a whole, above political differences.  Three gorgeous hunks.

[keen2learn]

I don't think the crown has the power to influence legislation - rightly so, as the monarch is even further removed from the daily lives and concerns of the majority of citizens than most MPs. In terms of providing a focus of loyalty, wouldn't it be better for people to feel loyal and patriotic towards their country?Personally, I have a problem trying to rustle up anything resembling loyalty to a bunch of narrow minded, financially overindulged, cognitively challenged, sartorially outdated parasites. And, sorry Bernardo, I'm sure your taste is usually impeccable, but you must have been wearing the wrongs specs...Hunks? Never in a million years! Flabby bodies, close-set eyes, slack mouths, jug ears - need I go on?

[bernardo]

"Financially overindulged"? I don't think so.  They pay more money to us (the taxpayers) than we pay to them.  The three huinks I was referring to were Peter, William and Harry (obviously).

[Flanker8]

There is no point - but of chinless parisitic bl00dy Germans.

 

'Good ambassadors for the country' - rubbish; I thought our ambassadors were ambassadors for our country.

 

'Attract tourism' - Utter utter rubbish; France, a republic,  has more tourists than we do: and are people really that naive that they think people will stop coming here when we become a republic. 

 

'Can't answer back' - Rubbish; Chas spouting his hippy opinions about architecture and farming, Phil the racist and so on and so forth.

 

'Focus of loyalty for the nation' - weird set of principles we have if we look up to this inbred bunch of german greeks.

[Hgrove]

I am neither particularly a supporter of the monarchy, nor even an expert on the English constitution (I think I am right in saying English as opposed to British but any experts are welcome to correct me).  However from what little I know, the sovereign has a role to play in the constitution.    I think it goes back to a famous (among scholars) constitutional expert of the 19th cent. called A.V. Dicey who said something like "the Queen is the dignified element of the Constitution".  Well, I can't explain it very well, but I gather the sovereign is part of the Constitution and it would not be easy to replace her(him).  I don't have any ideas about the rest of the Royal Family.   On Diana, this is what I think:  she may have not been the best choice, but the fact is, the PoW "had to" marry a virgin, and aristocratic virgins were in short supply;  if they had not been so hung up on that particular issue he might have found someone more suitable perhaps?

[mike1222]

Dead right - most other countries do find them amusing.  Personally, like the majority of people in this country I find them abhorrent and archaic.  They are privileged parasites who we would be better off without. Diana was just a parasitic adultress and her two offspring really do her justice!  Get rid!!!!!

[El D]

haha bernado very funny - the monarchy a guardian of constitutionalism - very funny. If you can point me to a recent and relevant example where the crown upheld civil rights against a tyrannical government it would amaze me. Lest we all forget, not very long ago it was the monarch who was the tyrant. They add 'nothing' whatsoever to our civil liberties or constitutional freedoms. They don't bother me in the slightest as personally I don't give them any time at all.

[tigga]

I think they are great, where would be without them ?.

(you did mean Jim Royle and his family didnt you ?.)

[mike1222]

Tigga, they've probably got higher morals than the other lot!!

[FP]

Tigga, thanks for the laugh on a gloomy Monday evening!

[Impret-Sir]

What a hige relief, 

I thought I was in a tiny minoity feeling 

as I do that the whole Royle family is total 

waste of money and time, I hate the lot of them. 

What really makes my blood boil is the vast 

amounts of our money we give them every year, 

just so that they can swan around the world 

having one holiday after another. My personal 

"favorite for disdane is Edward, what an utter, 

useless, wet, pointless, drip that bloke is.