Why royalty?

[David Banks]

It seems to me that we have been "dancing around" this topic on other threads without actually dealing with it seriously.

Most of us understand and accept why we give positions of power, authority, influence, respect and trust to folks such as judges, police or politicians. Such are based upon skill, training, morality and character etc., and in the case of politicians, direct public election. To keep such positions, ongoing evaluations occur, and positions can be terminated.

In looking for reasons, I do not think that "tradition" - by itself - is a good argument.
There was a tradition that lasted for maybe 300 years of burning witches - which was even supported by scientific tests (which were eventually found to be fallacious).
There was (and still is in many places) a tradition that a woman's place is in the home.

So, in 2013, why does an inherited royalty still exist?

[RagnarRocks]

Because historically we had a civil war chopped off a kings head, tried the alternative didn't like it and put a king back in the job but vastly stripped of power. In modern times there is either an acceptance the country has a royalty which works hard for the most part and whether you like it or not does bring vast amounts of tourist money to the country and generally represent the Country very well and seem well liked on the most part around the globe which aids our exports and diplomacy efforts. Or we could have a president or some other elected body but then we would just be the same as everyone else and I'd think it wouldn't advance democracy in this country by any great amount. Personally I wouldn't want to be a royal spending 24/7 in a virtual goldfish bowl permanently on show despite the comfortable lifestyle !

[macadamia]

The answer to the question is best obtained by standing in front of a mirror and saying "President Blair" out loud until you realise how blessed we are to have a constitutional Monarchy. It shouldn't take long.

[golach]

So, in 2013, why does an inherited royalty still exist?

So far no one has come up with a more cost effective and viable alternative. Scotland's last King was Idi Amin according to him, do we wish more like him? Robert Mugabe or President Eck for example

[ducati]

Because we want it. If we didn't, in large numbers, it would be a political issue. I don't see the abolishion of the monarchy in any party's agenda. We have much more important things to campaign for, the abolishion of the SNP for instance.

[Gronnuck]

Because the vast majority of the population prefer our Head of State to be apolitical. It works for us. The alternative is unthinkable, we could have had someone like Silvio Berlusconi.

[joxville]

On the whole I don't mind having a monarchy, however I don't like the amount of money that is lavished upon them and all the pomp and pageantry that goes with it, this is not the Middle Ages, we shouldn't be fawning over them at every opportunity. Plus, the amount of land that they inherited, and pays very well, should be returned to the country and sold off. We pay far too much to have a figurehead and the hangers on, it's time it was it cut back, especially when the country's finances are in such a mess, people have lost their homes and livelihood, yet we pay millions to keep a couple of pensioners in the lap of luxury while others less fortunate have to decide whether to eat or heat. It's wrong, so very wrong.

[mi16]

On the whole I don't mind having a monarchy, however I don't like the amount of money that is lavished upon them and all the pomp and pageantry that goes with it, this is not the Middle Ages, we shouldn't be fawning over them at every opportunity. Plus, the amount of land that they inherited, and pays very well, should be returned to the country and sold off. We pay far too much to have a figurehead and the hangers on, it's time it was it cut back, especially when the country's finances are in such a mess, people have lost their homes and livelihood, yet we pay millions to keep a couple of pensioners in the lap of luxury while others less fortunate have to decide whether to eat or heat. It's wrong, so very wrong.

Does their costs outweigh their income though?

[jacko]

AHH. what the heck , the rate at which their breeding at, and marry,n into COMMONER S , in a few hundred years , we all gonna be royalty anyway. .. . be some civil/privy purse then huh. .

[midi2304]

Does their costs outweigh their income though?

I don't have access to the figures but I'd bet a pound to a penny that the monarchy is comfortably a net positive to the UK economy in terms of £s. I'd be massively shocked if the income they generate isn't many tens or hundreds of times what we spend on them. A quick google search on the question would suggest that I am correct. This piece (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ery-penny.html) from 2011 suggests the Royal Family cost the taxpayer around £32m but the Crown Estate generated a profit of over £200m, the vast majority if which went back to the treasury. That's before we even consider the implications of tourism income. The long and the short of it is the Royal Family generates income. If they cost the UK money, I would imagine there would be public pressure to abolish them but I can't remember a single political manifesto from a major political party in the past 20 or 30 years which has included this as something worth considering. This would suggest that the vast majority of people are happy with the status quo.

[jacko]

thinking we should sort out the illegal immigration problem before we think on getting rid of the royal family .

[mi16]

I don't have access to the figures but I'd bet a pound to a penny that the monarchy is comfortably a net positive to the UK economy in terms of £s. I'd be massively shocked if the income they generate isn't many tens or hundreds of times what we spend on them. A quick google search on the question would suggest that I am correct. This piece (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ery-penny.html) from 2011 suggests the Royal Family cost the taxpayer around £32m but the Crown Estate generated a profit of over £200m, the vast majority if which went back to the treasury. That's before we even consider the implications of tourism income. The long and the short of it is the Royal Family generates income. If they cost the UK money, I would imagine there would be public pressure to abolish them but I can't remember a single political manifesto from a major political party in the past 20 or 30 years which has included this as something worth considering. This would suggest that the vast majority of people are happy with the status quo.

As I thought, Mayes you wonder what agenda the OP is trying to follow with the criticism of them.

[mi16]

There was (and still is in many places) a tradition that a woman's place is in the home.

What utter nonsense, we all know her place is in the kitchen