For the royal family experts here, a few 'royal family questions'

[godders]

Can we bring this around to this present for just a moment? I don't fully understand what a constitutional monarchy is. I'm aware that the royal family doesn't actually run things, that's the Prime Minister and the Parliament. But what do they actually do, other than make public appearances and I guess serve as the face of the UK? In other words, what if anything are they responsible for in regards to public life/legal stuff/whatever for their citizens? (Happy to hear from people in other places with a constitutional monarchy as well).

They have some technical powers with regards to the government i.e. the monarch has to give permission to the leader of the largest party in parliament to form a government, dissolve the government ahead of an election for example. Technically the Monarch has the power to refuse either of these but since their existence as royals exists on the understanding they won't exercise this power we will never see this happen.
Additionally, our laws when they have passed through Parliament must be signed by the Monarch as the final stage of passing into force in a process called Royal Assent. In the development of laws, civil servants must consider impacts upon the crown/crown estates and either seek permission for changes from the crown or include an exemption.

I'm sure there are other examples

 

[mousefan73]

Royalty is a product of feudalism and basic human behavior.. Safety in numbers, strongest survive and take over lands. Once you have lands to rent lands and make money you grow. Human behavior this stronger person is the "leader". Leader spawns and spawn has resources to take more land or discover more land. Same thing might be happening unknown thousands of miles away until this leader sets sail.. finds shiny pretty things or more fertile land and wants and takes. And becomes new leader and spawns.

I would say royalty as we know it is a combination of the above and religion.

 

[dcassetta]

Charles SHOULD rent out rooms in Buckingham Palace to the public. There are plenty of tourists worldwide bonkers over anything Royal Family who’d pay top dollar (pound) for the opportunity to stay there.

Tea and crumpets with Fergie an extra fee!! I’d do it.

While you cannot stay at Buckingham Palace (yet!), you can stay at Hampton Court Palace - https://www.landmarktrust.org.uk/search-and-book/properties/georgian-house-7805/#Overview

 

[FigmentSpark]

Oh, my. Charles just let his chief of staff do something very, very stupid. He issued pink slips to a large contingent of Clarence House staff, distributing them in the middle of the televised memorial service airing from Scotland yesterday. If Charles knew about the timing, it won't do much for his popularity, that's for sure.

While I agree that it definitely makes sense not to duplicate staff roles when the Sovereign's office has many of the same jobs, this really should have waited until after the funeral. Doing it now, while so many of these people are working extra shifts in order to deal with all the special events, was particularly tone-deaf.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ndancy-notice-during-church-service-for-queen

My thought was that this gives all the affected people the heads-up to start applying for jobs within the Firm. I expect there is some seniority where they might be moving to other jobs or even to apply to follow the new King and Queen, but those just aren't the jobs they hold now. It also gives them a chance to make plans, knowing they are the ones affected. This is a time of change for everyone and like any civil servant, yes, they likely expected it. It's the media that's jumping on the timing.

 

[mom2rtk]

It's the media that's jumping on the timing.

Because the timing was quite tone deaf.

 

[FigmentSpark]

Because the timing was quite tone deaf.

Unless you're the one sitting at your desk wondering if you should apply for that job that just came up in another department. For some people, as much advanced notice is a good thing. Also, I don't think they were let go. I think they were told they might be let go as a warning so they could prepare and job hunt.

 

[Adelle Dazeem]

Funny, I've started rewatching the Tudors because all of this

So historically inaccurate, but the eye candy in that show?? Henry Cavill in seasons 2-3?? Wowzers. It also gave me a girl crush on Natalie Dormer. I loved her as Anne Boleyn.

 

[ford family]

Because the timing was quite tone deaf.

No. I believe the timing is that required by employment law.

ford family

 

[Tink-osophy]

The monarch is expected to remain politically neutral and to help keep our system of government on track. In many ways, its very ceremonial and the monarch seen as more of a figurehead, However, there were times, it would seem, that the Queen quietly made points or encouraged certain general directions. She couldn't directly influence, but she might have said to a few that she hoped people would think carefully about something and that would be relayed and a kind of overtly 'grandmotherly, but subtly strong and unifying', influence was the result.

As political leaders come and go, she was a consistent presence and one we didn't know we relied on so much, because it's not an easy role to convey here, let alone abroad! I think she did more than we realised -- and we're realising more of that now.

She believed strongly in her duty to serve the union of the UK and to do what she could to hold it together. Not all her offspring (or their offspring) have necessarily understood that, but, hopefully, enough have and do!

There's a lot of talk that Charles, and then William, will streamline the 'institution' more. That's, probably, a good thing (financially and otherwise). I'm sure there needs to be some modernisation, but the Queen did understand that a lot of the tradition and ceremony are vital, too.

 

[meggiebeth]

I think the reason that the monarchy is still so popular and generally supported by the British public is that for many centuries there has been a separation of the monarchy from government. The monarch’s powers are in reality purely ceremonial and the monarch is expected to be politically neutral. It’s a similar neutrality to what is expected of civil servants working for the government.

Monarchs haven’t been able to exercise unrestrained power for many centuries. Gradually the powers that they do have have been whittled down to practically nothing. The Queen played a huge part in shaping the duties of the modern monarch (i.e. serving the country, being bound by duty) - we’ve come a long way from the days of the divine right of kings and all that!

 

[Karin1984]

I also think that for monarchies people (subconsciously) think, you are not getting anything in return when you remove a monarchy. Politics will stay more or less the same. The bickering between parties won't stop. And you can bet that the money that a monarchy costs won't solve problems in the country. Areas like healthcare or education that can always use more money will still have problems as the money would probably be divided over a thousand little areas.
As it only takes things away, history, tradition, stability, international relations change, and you get not much in return, why change it?


Speaking about the actually countries the royal family is in and not commonwealth-type countries and overseas territories. That is a different story.

 

[NotUrsula]

Unless you're the one sitting at your desk wondering if you should apply for that job that just came up in another department. For some people, as much advanced notice is a good thing. Also, I don't think they were let go. I think they were told they might be let go as a warning so they could prepare and job hunt.

No, they weren't let go immediately, I'm sorry if I implied that. I know that it is legally required to give a certain number of days' notice before a layoff in the UK, but surely that number of days *could* have started from next Tuesday.

These folks are being asked to work almost around the clock from now until the funeral to coordinate all these extra events and speeches and expenses, and thus it *is* rather insulting to be reminding them that they are expendable right when they are in the middle of such a demanding situation. I'm sure that they were expecting to hear it, but I'm also fairly sure that they weren't expecting the notice period to begin quite so soon. It's not like the Duchy cannot afford to pay them for one more week, especially in light of all the extra work they are presently putting in.

 

[RedAngie]

I think the reason that the monarchy is still so popular and generally supported by the British public is that for many centuries there has been a separation of the monarchy from government. The monarch’s powers are in reality purely ceremonial and the monarch is expected to be politically neutral. It’s a similar neutrality to what is expected of civil servants working for the government.

Or maybe it’s still so popular because despite the enormous cost of maintaining it, the British monarchy is a huge money making machine, bringing billions £ to the UK economy.

One thing I found amusing. During a London trip in 1987, scanners weren’t yet all that common in British shops. But the Tower of London had them, and even scanned postcards individually, instead of the usual 10 for a pound like Picadilly Circus tourist shops and kiosks.

Apparently Elizabeth wanted to know EXACTLY how each penny was being earned.

 

[Karin1984]

Interesting topic to look at. According to Google:
The royal family costs 345 million GBP a year, wiith 67 million UK citizens alone, it's 5 GBP per person per year.
But what they bring in in tourism and all, it is worth 19 billion GBP.

Seems like a good reason to keep them ;-)