What Is a "Royal" & What's the Point Of Them?

[SophieChloe]

What is an actual "Royal" - what's their purpose? 

Considering they all go AWOL during the month of August (Tourist heaven) and the Country continues to rake in the money  :shrug:   Doesn't add up to me.

I've lived here my whole life and seen HM once.  Fireworks in Windsor Great Park on my Dad's shoulders.   

That was me +30 years ago.  Imagine doing that for William?  - No, me neither. 

[TLLK]

Good Question!!! I guess it is up to the individual. Almost 70 years ago the Japanese Emperor was considered a god and the King of Thailand is held in nearly the same esteem. The monarchs in the Middle East hold far more personal power than their European and Japanese peers which includes control of the press.  From reading what people in constitutional monarchies have posted on a variety of forums I gather that most have some respect for the monarch and are fine with the system if the economy is strong and the country is peaceful.  I've had the impression that the monarch is a national representative that some EU members would like to keep as a form of independence from the EU. (Denmark comes to mind as it has a stable government and economy compared to other European states.) Sometimes the return of a former monarch can signal a return to stability ie: former boy Kings Michael of Romania and Simeon of Bulgaria. CP Alexander of Serbia has offered to play that role too.   However, I gather that could change if the monarchy is associated with a unstable or corrupt system. I noticed that the Jordanians chose to stay home from the 2011 W & K wedding due to unrest in the region and the Moroccans chose to only send Lalla Salma. 

At times I wonder if the U.S. would be better off with a separate HoS to be the nation's representative while the political power was held with the leader of the main party. Maybe I am a parliamentarian at heart.

[HistoryGirl]

To be honest, this term personally makes me uneasy.

[Curryong]

But SophieChloe, you're not an admirer of royalty and so I don't suppose you would go out of your way to see any of them. Thousands would, and do on big occasions. I admire the Queen for many things, including being a fixed point in an ever-changing world. I like the idea of constitutional monarchy because it is apolitical, and I find politicians an uninspiring bunch. I particularly wouldn't care for one as my Head of State. 

[Limabeany]

The Queen may appear apolitical but Charles appears to consider himself more of a politician and he's next.

[Curryong]

The key words there, Limabeany, are 'considers himself'! I would bet there's probably quite a lot of eye-rolling goes on in Whitehall and  in the offices of Ministers and MPs' after one of the POW's visits, by people who, although deferential to his face, may well  regard Charles as a well-meaning, but not particularly bright, meddler.

Personally, I wish he wouldn't meddle, even now. The opportunities for trouble when he becomes King will become a thousand times more likely, and I don't approve of it. However, if he restricts himself to advising, consulting and warning, in private conversation, then there will be no harm done.

At least I suppose you could say he cares about various issues. Apart from wildlife and poaching, (vital though they are) I'm blowed if I know what William is passionate about.

[Sandor]

What is an actual "Royal" - what's their purpose? 

Considering they all go AWOL during the month of August (Tourist heaven) and the Country continues to rake in the money  :shrug:   Doesn't add up to me.

I've lived here my whole life and seen HM once.  Fireworks in Windsor Great Park on my Dad's shoulders.   

That was me +30 years ago.  Imagine doing that for William?  - No, me neither.

Forgive me if this is intrusive, but I'm curious:  You seem to loathe the entire concept of royalty.
In that case, why spend time in a forum devoted to discussing them?

(I'm not questioning your right to do so;  just wondering why you would want to?  Believe me, I'm not being snarky, just, as I say, curious).    :flower:

[tiaras]

What is an actual "Royal" - what's their purpose? 

Considering they all go AWOL during the month of August (Tourist heaven) and the Country continues to rake in the money  :shrug:   Doesn't add up to me.

I've lived here my whole life and seen HM once.  Fireworks in Windsor Great Park on my Dad's shoulders.   

That was me +30 years ago.  Imagine doing that for William?  - No, me neither.

Lol I agree , as an Australian I dont see the point of them  :shrug:
Its the modern world , all this business about curtseying and someone being higher up because of a title is bullocks .
I have nothing against the wealthy , its wrong to be on TP money and then consider yourself above them , the whole point of royalty now in todays world seems useless waste of money imo .


^^Some of us were fans and slowly over time we got out of the adoration stage and moved on to questioning why they should be born into privilege that makes them head of state without having yo work for it ?
P S ifs not the same as having parents who are lawyers, doctors or bankers

[Curryong]

Tiaras, has the Queen not worked all her life for her country and the Commonwealth?

[tiaras]

I find the Queen is the only reason people keep quiet about the monarchy nowadays .. the queen has done what she was raised ti do in her time . What is her "job" ? Cutting ribbons , giving speeches and waving , yes ... :orchid:

[HistoryGirl]

I agree with tiaras. That deference to someone simply because they have a title that wasnt earned just leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me.

[Curryong]

 No, tiaras, the Queen does a great deal more than ribbon cutting and waving, and I believe you know that!

[tiaras]

I agree with tiaras. That deference to someone simply because they have a title that wasnt earned just leaves a bad taste in the mouth for me.

Exactly , as a former fan of royals etc I just feel there is no longer a need for one family to rule over their "subjects"  <_<

The queen does not run the country on a day-to-day basis as this is left to the prime Minister and Parliament.  Although the Prime Minister and his government run the country on a day-to-day basis, all laws must go to a second chamber called the House of Lords which consists of aristocracy, bishops, and people such as former prime ministers of all parties (e.g. Margaret Thatcher - later Baronet Thatcher), which acts as a buffer amending laws that they feel are not appropriate. And amend they do. As they are not bound by a party agenda, they often throw out laws that they feel overstep a mark or go against the wishes of the people.
So laws in the UK are formulated in the House of Commons by elected members of parliament within the government, but are then be passed on to the upper chamber of parliament called the House of Lords. If the House of Lords passes a law formulated by the house of Commons, it then has to go to the Queen for reading and signing. No law can become a law of the land until the Queen has allowed it by royal charter and signing it.
So, in theory, she could veto a law if she needed to. In practice, though, she usually agrees with the government as the government was elected by the people, her subjects, and therefore she is more likely to defer to the wishes of her people. Every law in the UK has to be passed by Her, republicans in the UK regard her as a 'figurehead' and nothing more, she is very much involved and nothing can take place in the UK law without her permission. That even goes for the appointment of Prime Minister. After a democratic election, the leader of the elected party has to make an appointment to visit the Queen at Buckingham Palace, to ask her permission to form a government. Although her disagreeing with the British people's choice has never happened since she came to the throne ( and, knowing Her majesty's commitment to her subjects probably never would) , the UK monarch still holds the right to veto that choice of government and any law passed by the government if she felt it went against all that the UK stood for. In theory, if she was unhappy with an election and choice of prime minister ( for example, if the UK elections were rigged as happened in Zimbabwe under Mugabe's rule) she could dissolve parliament instantly, and appoint her own prime minister.
Double post auto-merged: August 23, 2014, 03:01:55 PM

Her "job" is solely ceremonial . And I find that ridiculous ..

[Orchid]

What is an actual "Royal" - what's their purpose? 

A fabulously open and enquiring question for us, sophiechloe.  :thumbsup:
I need to give this some thought, but I think I’d begin to tackle this question by separating the abstract connotations of the *word* “royal” from their applied functions.  This is because the former has, I believe, presupposed values - social, political, historical and ideological - which affect the way we react to the word itself as distinct from its human, practical associations and acts.

For a start "royal" is inarguably a by-product of human-manufacture therefore because we've made it, we can unpack it/change it. It's underpinned by manipulating perceptions.  It is the conscious act of aggrandizing and separating a subset to create mass perceptions of a gulf between a few and the many.  "Royal" is the product of developing visual propaganda to inflate perceptions of separation, difference and power (think art, architecture, ceremony, costumes, jewels, guards) - if Elizabeth drove herself to parliament in a Volvo, parked in a metered bay and walked in wearing an M&S dress suit without the aggrandizing symbolisms woven throughout the ceremonial robes, jewels, guards, processes and TV crews, would perceptions of power, difference and splendour abound to perpetuate the myth of royalty?  Would her function be as widely revered as necessitous?

By extension, the idea of what it means to be "royal" has classified itself over the centuries as a fixed political power class, one which is predicated on *rights* of heritage and leadership. I often read comments by known supporters of the monarchy and apart from appreciating their right to perceive things as they wish I despair over the lack of independent thought/analysis. It often seems as though arguing for monarchy as that which is irrevocably "right, "good, fixed" takes precedence of evaluating [it] flexibly, independently and with fresh eyes rather than Bagehot's outmoded pair.  As I began by saying, "royal" is merely a human construct embodying artificial values, imagery and hierarchies. Perceptions, acceptance and inertia sustain it as something other than conceptual.

Then of course there are the functions that the dynasty has created for itself in the more recent past to develop a social sense of utility....

But -I admire the Queen for many things, including being a fixed point in an ever-changing world.

I'd be interested to better understand what you mean by a *fixed point* and what the perceived benefits are (and to whom)?

I like the idea of constitutional monarchy because it is apolitical, and I find politicians an uninspiring bunch. I particularly wouldn't care for one as my Head of State. 

An established argument which brings to mind lingering questions…
You say you like *the idea* of a constitutional monarchy because it’s “apolitical”. Do you feel the *idea* is an applied practice or merely a symbolic one given monarchy operates within and in response to our sociopolitical environment?

I also noted that you parallel/compare an inspiring apolitical monarchy with uninspiring politicians.  I think this is very interesting.  If the premise is that a monarchy is apolitical, do you feel it's workable to compare monarchy and politicians if their makeup is so disparate?

Forgive me if this is intrusive, but I'm curious:  You seem to loathe the entire concept of royalty. In that case, why spend time in a forum devoted to discussing them?

It stands to reason that one doesn't have to *support* monarchy to feel inclined to discuss [it], particularly in consideration of the variances and complexities of people's reactions to the institution, both in the UK and globally?  Notably Royal Insight isn’t a “fan” site. There have been many occasions over the years where this has needed to be stressed. I think the nature of this forum is sometimes lost. As our name suggests, we are a platform for *insight* into royalty which includes all [its] debatable components, be it their makeup, history, function, utility, future, political and ideological complexity etc. The debates which emerge here are reflective of the disparate positions people hold on institutions of monarchy. As with any platform which invites discussions on politics of difference and best practices/models for the future it's both encouraged and important. Generally speaking, societies need platforms to openly discuss their political and cultural makeup: it's a crucial social responsibility.