What is the point of the British royal family?
541184
The continued existence of the "royal" family, is a way for he British people to hold on to an institution that has been a part of the history of their country for hundreds of years. Its figurehead status aside, it strengthens the pride of the average citizen and re-establishes patriotism
129026
The Sultans play more of a "ceremonial" role- Very similary to the Queen of England.  In England, parliment and the Prime Minister make the decions but the Queen and the Royal Family serve as a figure head.
1028107
A Monarch is usually not affiliated with any Political party.\n\nIn fact over in Britain the Queen and immediate members of the British Royal Family do not vote in Parliamentary Elections at all.
866855
George see the andswer to the previous questions - HM the Queen is given her role as a heridatary birth right. It passes to her first born son should she die or adbdicate. The preople have no say in the Monarch and it is done solely by position of birth.
429183
I doubt it, although it's not a bad idea.\nI think modern day royals are less into being royal nowadays, and it's just not practical to be so far removed from society and clueless as to how regular people live their lives. Queen Elizabeth's younger children, Andrew and Edward, have really strayed from the typical royal routine and are fairly "normal" people. I think this trend is likely to continue in the future, which is good!\nAnyhow, as to marrying outside the royal circle, I think because these younger royals are more involved in a normal everyday style of living (as far as a royal CAN be, that is) I think the more at ease they are with so-called commoners and have more in common with them, personality-wise. Fifty years ago, NO ONE in the royal family would have considered marrying someone like Sarah Ferguson or Sophie Rhys-Jones, who worked for a living and so forth.\n\n(As for the "inbreeding" comment, royals all over the world have been inbreeding for as long as the concept of royalty has existed.)\n\nI think if the Queen had had her way, none of her children would have been allowed to marry any of the people they did. Ok, well, MAYBE Diana. ...MAYBE.
97932
The monarchy is for show.  It is tradition, nothing more.  Right now it is not really exciting.  There are no dynamic or charismatic people to watch.  People liked Princess Di, but Prince Charles and Camille, they are ugly and boring.  The young princes maybe interesting when they get a little older, we will see.
971265
What's the point in getting married?
733948
sounds like the american Revolution?  \n\nYou need to find out all the things that are good about England and being part of british empire.   Talk about loyalty to king....talk ahat bout how the "patriots" are traitors that will be hung for their treason.  (you have to embrace and see it from the perspective of the loyalists)
654724
Kennedy, space race, cold war, arms race, being a ladies man, getting sniped, being the centerpeice in the biggest, most confusing cover-up the United states has ever seen.  I'd say thats pretty good, still to this day when people compare Britains royal family to a family over here, most people think the Kennedys are the closest thing we have to a royal family.  thats a long lasting legacy
993640
dropped dead is a bit harsh. How about tripped up and decided it was time to knock it on the head?\nAs I am in favour of getting rid of the entire collection of Royals I am probably not the best person to answer this...\nI think we should all have a  go at being monarch for a week and it could be televised, if youa re rubbish you get voted straight out if you are good you get an extra week.\nIt could be called One's Big Brother.
689830
royalty is always great, not necessarily England only. I'll try and say why i think so:\ntradition \nstability \nblood-linkage with other royal families of the world, that would make state unions or treaties easier to sign. \nthe idea of something worthy to sacrifice for\netc (you think of something)\nI am a firm supporter of royalty, although I live in a semi-presidential republic. my country has been for over 40 years under communism, but before that it has been a constitutional monarchy. maybe i haven't lived under the monarchic rule and maybe i am a little over-romantic, but that is how i feel. ban me if you don't like it
548765
The previous answer is correct. For more information, visit www.royal.gov.uk. This is the official website of the British Monarchy and has a wealth of information.
358508
vote. What a pointless waste of time, get rid of this Head Of State rubbish, you need one democratically elected leader and that's that.  The Yanks do it, and it seems to work for them.  I guess you can tell I'm a Brit who wants a republic, but I wouldn't replace the queen with a president, just keep the role of PM
901073
I am a  royalist, but I am also a realist. I love the Royal Family for the way that they have gone on for over a thousand years. However, I am a realist in that I realize that in this day and age, they are mere figureheads, while in the days of old, their ancestors weilded great power, and helped shape England.
968179
Firstly and most crucially, the royal family DOES NOT live off the taxpayer. HRH Queen Elizabeth II is the owner of crown property (ie the Duchy of Lancaster). The tax which the government receives from the residents and businesses in the duchy itself is collected and a portion of that tax money is given to the queen herself. In essence, it is the monarchy which subsidizes the government NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.\nFrom this income, she must pay her staff and the other royals who are on the Civil List.\nThis nonsense that the British royal family lives off the taxpaying public is mere tripe. You can debate the merits of giving any portion of the taxes the government receives frmo the Duchy of Lancaster to the British Royal Family but you can't debate what constitutes fact.\nHope that helps.
309963
His position as Prince is exclusively because of his birth and as such is largely symbolic. He does not actually have a stipulate position of authority, such as his father who is the Pince of Wales, or his uncle who is the Duke of York or his mother who is the Queen of England and Defender of the Realm.
1051068
America did have a royal family of its own. It was called the House of Hanover, and they fought a little something called the American Revolution to get rid of it. \nAre you seriously suggesting that you would like to have a royal family to sit around as nothing more than figureheads, and putting a tremendous drain on the public purse, or do you want them to be ruling royalty, and throw out the democratic process? \nI somehow don't think either of those options would be very popular.