The Royal family, pointless or not?
445325
I'm the American son of a British father, so I hold dual national status and carry both US and UK passports. I am thus able to view this from both perspectives, I think, so I'll toss in my two cents/pence.\n\nThe Royals are indeed pointless in terms of actual power and general usefulness (the Queen is only the titular head of state and wields no real power that I can see -- and quite right too!) and they cost the British taxpayer an absolute fortune to house, clothe, feed and protect in the almost obscene luxury and style to which they are accustomed. \n\nThat said, they also bring in mega tourist dollars/pounds/euros and all the media attention associated with prestige, pomp and circumstance. I sometimes wonder if they are more beloved in the former British colonies than at home. Odd, that. Still, there are very clearly many Britons who remain loyal and supportive of the titular monarchy, even as there are many who would love nothing better than to see them deposed and made to work for a living. It is quite a conundrum, isn't it?\n\nAs to your query about why they interest people so much, your guess is as good as mine. I expect it's because we live in such a celebrity culture (on both sides of the pond and in most other modern, westernized nations, as well) and people just can't get enough of this sort of thing. It goes without saying that I am made nauseous by this fact, but I am hardly representative of either my fellow countrymen or those in the land of my forebears. \n\nFor what it's worth, I think the much-maligned Prince Charles is actually an intelligent and generally decent man with sound ideas regarding the environment, architecture, etc. His father is a complete jackanapes who puts his foot in his mouth on a regular basis. The Queen herself is okay with me, albeit as pompous and dowdy as a modern monarch could even dream of being. I always liked the late Princess Diana and was sorry for her tragic loss. I like Fergie, as well. Prince William seems a decent and responsible sort but Harry is trouble and will doubtless remain so, his training at Sandhurst notwithstanding.\n\nI'll not bother with the rest of the Royals and I expect you have your own well-formed views in any case. I think the best and fairest thing to do would be for the British people to hold a referendum on the desirability of the monarchy, literally a popular vote with an up or down verdict. I confess I would be very intrigued to see the end result. Please keep me posted, ok?
420072
The Royal family has certainly done a bang-up job to convince everyone that Royalty is an awful idea. For all the money the Royal family reportedly receives from the UK taxpayers, you would think there would be some way of keeping some sort of leash on them, especially when the nation is involved in a not too terribly popular war.\n\nNot that we are all that much better. During the Hostage Crisis, Billy Carter was photographed peeing on the tarmac at Dulles Airport. You have the whole Reagan family either prancing around or posing topless or saying that they hate each other. You have Barbara Bush, who was always much more popular than her husband, saying that black people should be happy to be able to live in the Oiler Dome. Don't even get me started on the Clintons from both sides of the family. And of course, who can forget the Bush twins?\n\nMaybe ... naw!
90427
Yes, besides the fact that they have a long tradition, they are part of the National identity of a country. And ... they bring publicity for the country, many tourists come to see them, their castles and perhaps even a member of the royal family. The yellow press would be nothing without them, it is a big business.\nEverywhere in the world, people are interested in Royalty.\nI wish we still had a royal family in Austria.
286969
They are just exotic enough to be interesting and not so exotic to be off-putting.  \n\nWe don't have anything like royalty in our country.  (The current Kennedys just aren't that glamorous and Hollywood stars come and go)  The trappings of royalty and the nobility fascinate a lot of Americans, probably because we don't have knighthoods and huge fairy tale TV weddings. \n\nBut we don't really pay attention to anybody else's royals either. I think we're comfortable with the English because we share a language and a history with you.  Nobody really wants Queen Elizabeth as a figurehead at the top of our government, but we can't help but feel we have some claim to her too.
301767
well, i guess since not many people are actually royal, it doesn't apply to them, so they dont bother!
1039827
Are you talking about THE ROYAL FAMILY?\n\nAlso, is it the Brittish or some other one?\n\nIf it was the Brittish family, I really don't know the answer. But I was thinking about Diana the other day, I think because I love weddings and someone mentioned her wedding for some reason. I wonder if anyone knows about a video with her wedding.
886623
yes i too beleive they are brain washed....this really does irritates the brits...but they know its true...they wld like to get rid of the royals but dont have the balls to do so. when u ask them they say its for the tourism....give me a break...what abt those countries with no royals but get soo many tourists than england???....im looking for that day when i will wake up and find that they have removed them....they need to live this is 21st century not 1400!!!
741148
In most royal families yes that is the case. This is so that the bloodline is passed on and due to traditions
473989
The monarchy has to end. It seems they are only here for tradition and nothing else. Sod off for all I care! Cheers!!
667314
Below is a link to the official website of the British Monarchy, specifically a page that gives you the whole history of all it's monarchs. Have fun.\n\nMore importantly, Prince Harry is not the next in line. First is Prince Charles, the current Queen's eldest child. \nNext is his eldest child, Prince William. \n\nLike the person above said, seeing as how the members of the house of Windsor are quite long-lived, it's quite possible that Charles may never be king, even if he wanted to. It could very well pass directly to William if the Queen lives long enough and Charles doesn't.
1095667
The native Australians think the same thing. The monarchy is a tradition, and a very expensive one at that. I would like to know why that tradition is upheld because they have no power. they are basically useless.
1030271
Katie P. you are one confused lady. First of all, it is miscenegation and it doesn't happen, secondly you are on the Royalty page, and I fail to see how this applies in any way shape or form to the royals.
464529
Officially they hold none.  Most royals in England hold the same sway as top celebrities in the U.S. do.  The Queen's job is to entertain diplomats and world leaders who visit England.  Except for those in line for the throne English royals have no official royal duties.
495889
Hell, yes! Royalty and hereditary titles. I get fed up with these titled muppets moaning because life isn't like it was in the 15th century. They receive too many tax exemptions. have too many privileges and serve little purpose. \nHaving said that, what would we do with their stately homes and a number of un-employed lords and ladies post-revolution? The houses could be re-used for the benefit of the community. The aristocracy could be encouraged to seek work like the rest of us.\nI can't see that we would lose much if we didn't have royalty or aristocracy.
1072106
I think that the Royal Family has a lot to ask for. Instead of letting Charles just be happy with the person he wanted to they prolonged it for years and it turned out worse.\n\nI think Diana was the sacrifical virgin. I mean it's sad she got sucked into it.  I'm not to sure what she saw in him at all but maybe it is the fairytale thing.\n\nI think that it has bought more dissent and unpopularity to the Royal Family in the way they handle things. Instead of being a little disgraced and letting him marry the divorcee he wanted they totally and utterly disgraced themselves in the way that the Diana facade was handled and all the adultery etc and then lets him do it anyway.\n\nI think if they'd succumbed and let him marry her first there would not be such a downcast on the Royals.
936786
That's an interesting question. Are you referring to Her Majesty's immediate family?\nThe list of successors to the throne is very long. (Too long to list them all here, in fact.) So, unless every person on the list died, someone would succeed Queen Elizabeth to the throne.\nIf all the successors somehow died, it would be tragic, to be sure. But the British government would continue to function, without missing a beat. This is because the royal family no longer wields any real political power.
801464
I have to ask, who, in the world that is 'celebrity', do you think is of a higher social standing. Most of them are complete no-bodies, junkies alkies adulterers, the z-listers who reduce our news papers to gutter rags. They probably dont bother wiping their butts, there no better than us, infact, probably a damn site worse. A bit like the royal family.