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?

All our institutions are tied into the monarchy.

Financially, they bring in masses of tourism. Far more than they cost to maintain. They are contributors, which is more than you can say for the type of person who generally calls for them to be removed.

Yes they are entitled bastards, but they work exceptionally hard for this country. They are figureheads with little to no influence in government decision making so whats the harm?

Mind you - some of the extended family/hangers on could do with paring back a little.

I admire the Queen's sense of duty. I wouldn't fancy being born into that but I think that she genuinely thinks of her life as one of service. I don't think all the Royals are made of the same stuff but actually William does seem pretty level headed and earnest. Quite an achievement with his family life. I have never had a sense of the Queen lording it (or ladying it) over people. She even helped my DH with a crossword once.

The royal family (especially the Queen) lighten the load of the Prime minister by being heads of state and entertaining foreign dignitaries etc. In the USA where the head of state also runs the country the President spend a lot of time on that stuff leaving less time for actual governing.

Happy to pay less than a quid a year so the PM can do less ceremonial stuff. Also we have someone to put on the money and gossip about in the papers!

Well, with the monarchy in situ we do avoid Rupert Murdoch as president [reads another unbelievable article about Silvio Berlusconi]

Chil, we last executed a king in 1649 - can hardly say therefore that we've really tried out the alternatives. The English Republic lasted only four years. Thing is that in those days ordinary people had not much say in anything. They didn't vote for the Restoration.

The Restoration sounded like much more fun than the Puritans though. With hindsight I'd have voted to brings back theatres, Christmas and enormously camp wigs.

I am currently reading a biography about the queen. I am only up to the 1970s, but it has already impressed upon me how hard she works. There is a lot of greasing the wheels of diplomacy/industry going on. She has been to some dangerous places and charmed dictators. She is seen as an important figurehead in other countries. It is certainly not just about tourism.

For less than a quid each I think the country gets great value for money. Yes, she is loaded and has all material comfort, but there are loads of extremely rich people out there who have never contributed anything to society at large. I think she has given her entire life to serving her country and deserves a bit of respect.

She and Philip are older than my GPs now. My GPs sit reading the Daily Mail all day. The Queen is STILL working. God, Philip must be approaching 90 now.

Portofino - I agree with you. Not sure about some of the other Royals but think the Queen is a very impressive woman. The fact that she is loaded doesn't lessen that. I'd want to be loaded too if I had to live my entire life with the lack of freedom she has had.

I'm American the first time I came to England I went to see the palace, not because it was such an amazing bit of architecture. But because the ROYAL FAMILY lived there.

Your royal family are exciting to the rest of the world. Yes they are expensive but at the end of the day they are also a tourist attraction and a merchandising dream.

Think of the thousands of London shop keepers make their living selling tat with their faces in it

Kitty, I think we could have a republic without closing the theatres this time around! And also like most Big Events the view we have is mostly from the point of view of the very upper classes For everyone else it was a bit of a disillusionment.

Oh, and what has Brenda not been free to do? I think this is a giant crock. She seems not much more constrained than anybody else. We're all constrained a bit by our circumstances at birth, surely?

Memoo think about it this way, they are a far better 'face' to our country than some bumbling double chinned ugly Prime Minister.

Think about it. If we didn't have them politiciants would be the face of our country. It would be embarrassing.

Free to retire? Sieglinde - we are but most of us don't have to go around with armed guards because we are constant targets for assassination. I would never sign up for their lives. It looks glamorous but they are in another world. I know a woman who worked for Price Philip at the Palace for years. He was OK she said, but the lack of privacy was relentless. No appeal at all.

Just to add to what's been said - many have their own companies - Charlie has his organic food company (I think you can get it in Waitrose) and started the Prince's Trust which contributes a huge ammount to the young people in this country!

Well if we didn't have a monarchy, who would people have to complain about?
I think they are great!
OTOH, I'd bring back the puritans if they could get away with abolishing Christmas!

Did anyone hear on the news that the MoD has paid Charlie nearly £700K (twice, I think it was) for the use of his land on Dartmoor.

Does the man really need this money? How many nurses and doctors would this pay for?

Ever wondered who 'anonymous' donors to charities might be? You're assuming they keep it all.

(I have worked with such donations and the companies set up to administrate them - not just guessing by the way.)

Charlie has donated £1.4 million to charity? Oh, that is lovely! Can you show me where he did that? If he didn't, then I'd really rather he waived the fee and told the MoD to keep the money and use it to directly benefit the soldiers.

OMDB has a very good point. The Queen stops Prime Ministers getting too big for their boots. Two words: President Blair. (Or President Thatcher.)

In answer to the OP:

the most important thing is that they prevent an "elected" Head of State.

I do not want Tony Blair and Cherie Antoinette as President and first lady

I do not want GOrdon Brown (on buggins turn)picking his nose round the world as my Head of state

I do not want their offspring as the ruling clan like the Gandhis in India.

Let's just stick with the Battenburg-Windsors, they will do for me.

Yep - must admit, even though it seems crazy that we have a monarchy still, I'd much prefer a non-political Head of State to bow to now and then, than a political one...

And, if there was ever a chance I did something noble and worthy, I'd be straight to the palace to collect my OBE or CBE of DBE (no John Lennon moment for me...)

Nonno - I've been presented to Charles a couple of times (unavoidable work stuff). First time I got out of curtseying by being heavily pregnant, second time I had a crisis between opposing deference vs. my Mother's voice ringing in my head telling me not to be rude. Think I ended up bobbing a bit.

I hate this crap about the royal family stop us being landed with a dictator, nagynolonger: Italy and Spain both had royal families and they ended up with Mussolini and several decades of Franco .

And why the hell, catinthehat, would you object to having the offspring of leaders perhaps becoming presidents when we have a hereditary monarchy? At least Gandhi's/Bhutto's children had to win an election to succeed their parents/grandparents.

She could abdicate, surely? If she wanted to, that is. As for security, I understand why she has it, but it's for HER benefit. Some people have fired their security types because they felt too constrained; a risky choice, but still a choice.