To ask somebody to explain to me exactly what purpose the monarchy serve?

[Memoo]

I just don?t get what purpose the monarchy serves in this day and age. Apart from attending charity events, openings etc what do they actually contribute to our country?

Surely any revenue created by tourism etc is cancelled out when you take into consideration the vast amount of money that maintaining a the royal family costs the tax payer?

Basically, what do they actually do?

[tuggy]

They cost 62p a year per taxpayer. Hardly that much really... I like them!

[Tee2072]

Someone said yesterday it was 66p. Where's my 4p darnit!

[SpiderObsession]

To bring American tourists over to Britain to spend money?

[Chil1234]

Aside from being our head of state, I think the monarchy is the UK's PR Department. Our PM and other elected representatives have plenty to occupy them running the country and the Royals pick up the slack in representing Britain overseas, hosting foreign dignitaries (don't underrate that one), charitable stuff, launching ships etc. If they didn't exist we'd have to have some kind of Government Department of Hand Shaking... and I expect it would cost rather more. The Queen is also a useful, a-political figurehead that many look up to. Some of us respond better to the idea of doing something 'for Queen and Country' than we would 'for some politician'.

Civil List costs £7.9m. Things like foreign trips and hosting visitors takes it up to about £40m.

[FindingMyMojo]

they also make a huge amount of ££ from tourists.

[Maisiethemorningsidecat]

They bring in the tourists. Other than that, they do little more than open things and attend charity events. For some people, that's incredibly important - don't get it myself. There are far too many hangers on, and far too many (it seems) who love a good royal story.

Yawn....

[HecateQueenOfWitches]

None.

Tourists would still come here even without them. They'd get to fully tour all the palaces.

We have the monarchy because we have always had the monarchy and because the powerful people who manage and own our society have an interest in ensuring that nothing significant changes in our society, lest it has the knock on effect of reducing their power.

We're all just serfs, serving our lords and masters. We just don't know it.

[FindingMyMojo]

I guess if we didn't have them as Head of State we'd have to have a President which would also cost loads.

[gothelen]

"The Queen is also a useful, a-political figurehead that many look up to."

Someone on some news channel during the election said that the Queen has been an ear for every single Prime Minister (weekly meetings) and the wealth of political knowledge she has under that crown is invaluable. Plus as monarch she is not eligible to vote and is thus impartial. Which I have to say hadn't occurred to me but once it was pointed out I realised what a loss it will be when she eventually pegs it and Charlie boy takes over. :(

[discobeaver]

I think there are far too many hangers on and toadies.

But - what about the Royal parks and gardens? That's one good thing.

Also Charles and Phillip provide hilarity.

Don't think Charles will take over, surely going to go straight to Wills?

[Chil1234]

Another Royal income stream... 'Crown Estates' contributed £200m+ back to the Treasury last year and employs quite a lot of people.

[nagynolonger]

The armed forces swear an oath to HRH.....not PM. HRH also head of judicial system.

If we didn't have a royal family we would need an elected president. I doubt if it would cost less.

The thought of singing God Save The King (Charles)....does bother me somewhat, but they won't miss him out.

[WowOoo]

They serve their own purpose as I understand.

I'd love to own as much land, bricks and mortar as they do. God bless em all.

[PanicMode]

I suppose on the one hand it (the monarchy) is a complete anachronism in this day and age, but I like the fact that we are a bit 'different' in this country for having them. 66p a year per household (or person?) isn't really such a huge price to pay not to be as bland as say, Switzerland or somewhere without a monarchy. (I was going to say Belgium, but then remembered I met the Crown Prince when we lived there ).

Also, the Queen has a huge amount of experience in politics even though she doesn't have a vote or a public voice - I should imagine each PM benefits hugely from the weekly audiences and her wisdom.

And, she's Head of the Commonwealth, which is also a valuable role.

The Prince's Trust has done hugely valuable things for the youth of this country, as has the Duke of Edinburgh's scheme and all of the huge amount of work that they each do for charity and for UK plc, aside from the tourist revenue they generate.

[discobeaver]

Duchy Originals are rubbish. Should be great, actually crap.

[dementedma]

dunno, memoo.
what purpose do you serve? waht purpose do any of us serve?

[Katey1010]

The French chopped their heads off and they still get tourists. Lets try that and sell tickets.

[KittyFoyle]

Don't any of you understand the idea of nationhood? Having a non-party head of state is hugely valuable in itself.

[nagynolonger]

Also less chance of a 'Hitler' happening here maybe. Well that's what DH thinks!

[HecateQueenOfWitches]

nationhood? no. What's that?

I understand that 2 people shagged in england and 9 months later I was born. I don't think there's any great value in that.

[sue52]

To answer the question, none whatsoever.

[nagynolonger]

That's because it was in england! If they had shagged in scotland, wales, or ireland you'd have something to shout about!

[Ryoko]

To make a mockery of our current political system?, to act as a a form of gene bank for toff DNA should the current crop, mix with the serfs too much and lose there pedigree and trademark stupidity?.

I don't know, maybe they are just there because no one has the guts to give em directions to Westminster Job Centre Plus.

[sieglinde]

But Chil, that's now being taken back.

And it doesn't answer the OPs question. A cardboard cutout or wax model would do as well. And don't you think there might be some drawbacks to the nation's PR team headed by stuffy old posh toffs?

[Chil1234]

I'm reliably informed that some of the most awkward foreign heads of state turn to sheepish mush and will agree to practically anything in exchange for a trip to the palace and dinner with HMQ. Ambassadors aren't elected.... and the UN has form on recruiting celeb ambassadors to raise their profile... the Royals are born into the job of ambassador. We ditched them once, didn't like what replaced them, and they carry on knowing that it's only as long as we, the people, want to keep them.