Does the Queen do anything?

ElRazur · 23 Mar 2006 at 17:26

I once read an article about things the queen is capable of doing - hopefully someone will dig it out.

One of my favorite was the bit that said "she owes the navy, army and police, so she can declear war on any country she wants"!

Oh it also mentioned, if she post a letter she dosent need to put a stamp on it as her head is on the stamp of the country - meaning she owes the post office anyway!

Maybe this is true i do not know though.

dragonflyy · 23 Mar 2006 at 17:38

Clerkin said:
yep she has pretty much no power over the government at all. i think she swears in new pm's but i think its only for tradition purposes.

She put her foot down when they were going to take her head off the stamps!

Von Smallhausen · 23 Mar 2006 at 17:58

The Monarchy is around a thousand years old and from William the Conqueror to the present day Elizabeth II there has been a rich history in this country that few, maybe none, can match and the Monarchy has been an intrinsic part of that.

Take a few from history such as Elizabeth 1st. She was Queen when Britain really emerged as a world power and the Royal Navy was the most awsome fighting machine on earth and able to project British influence and power anywhere in the world.

Take the reign of Queen Victoria, the longest reigning Monarch in British history who ruled for 64 years. Under her reign, Britain was nigh on invincbile and the small dot in the Atlantic had colonial rule over a quarter of the world and her population. It is a subject I read a bit on and I think such history makes this country the envy of the world in most cases.

There are a lot of hangers on it can be argued and these are the ones that are the fly in the ointment.

Take away the Monarchy and what then ? They may cost a lot to run, but it is not a cliche that they also bring in a lot of money as well. If you remove the Queen then the Prime Minister will not be both head of state and head of government. You would have to bring in a President, even as a figurehead and how much do you think that would cost ? That wouldn't be cheap either.

As for the art treasures, they are priceless and a part of our history and if they are linked to the Monarchy then so be it. Also, and I specifically mention Prince Charles, a lot of charities benefit and when there were devastating floods in Cornwall, Charles gave a substantial donation from the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall to help. He didn't have to do this.

I think the mainstream Royals do a far better job at projecting this country and it's interests than some I could mention.

Luseac · 23 Mar 2006 at 19:17

royal.gov.uk

Until the end of the 17th century, British monarchs were executive monarchs - that is, they had the right to make and pass legislation. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarch has become a constitutional monarch, which means that he or she is bound by rules and conventions and remains politically impartial.

On almost all matters he or she acts on the advice of ministers. While acting constitutionally, the Sovereign retains an important political role as Head of State, formally appointing prime ministers, approving certain legislation and bestowing honours.

The Queen also has important roles to play in other organisations, including the Armed Forces and the Church of England.

I'd say she has quite a wide role in today's society. She also does a good job of representing the country in the commonwealth and elsewhere around the world.

MR_Punk · 23 Mar 2006 at 19:20

Why did it all change then?

+44

JohnnyG · 23 Mar 2006 at 19:21

Don't really care if she does nowt, if I were King I'd do less

zain · 23 Mar 2006 at 19:28

She does lots such as:

Visiting children and saying "im not going to answer that" when a kid said "who are you"
She spends spends spends
Does nothing

Nah seriously though, theyre only alive because they generate a fair bit of £££ for the mafia I mean government as theyre a popular tourist attraction here.

Imo she has no power at all, they just say she does for some reason or other, kings and queens powers went out the window a long time ago because of corruption and power abuse, slowly it moved over to the house of lords? not too sure but they have all the power now (wow history lessons coming back

) but what do they do now? power abuse too lmao, hahahha *ok walks off*

Nix · 23 Mar 2006 at 19:28

She's supposed to be the Commander in Cheif of the British Armed Forces.
Really, the Royal family are just for show. It's good for tourism. They bring more money into the economy than they take. Their visits to other nations are also good for public and foreign relations.

Aliboy · 23 Mar 2006 at 19:53

She's a right lazy cow tbh

Von Smallhausen · 23 Mar 2006 at 19:56

Old No.7 said:
She's a right lazy cow tbh

The trouble with Scotland .... is that it's full of Scots.

Aliboy · 23 Mar 2006 at 20:00

Von Smallhausen said:
The trouble with Scotland .... is that it's full of Scots.

Wrong!

It's full of English

MaxPower · 23 Mar 2006 at 20:02

I think I read somewhere that she has the power to turn invisible at will.

Pebbles · 23 Mar 2006 at 20:12

Old No.7 said:
She's a right lazy cow tbh

Your head will be on a pike by morning!!

Nozzer · 23 Mar 2006 at 20:13

For Queen and country!

And she keeps those roustabouts in the colonies in check.

Von Smallhausen · 23 Mar 2006 at 20:13

Old No.7 said:
Wrong!

It's full of English

Beggin' your pardon Sire, but won't we hit our own troops ?

Yes ..... but we'll hit some of theirs as well.

tb2000 · 23 Mar 2006 at 20:17

Nix said:
She's supposed to be the Commander in Cheif of the British Armed Forces.
Really, the Royal family are just for show. It's good for tourism. They bring more money into the economy than they take. Their visits to other nations are also good for public and foreign relations.

Meh, people would come whether they were there or not. People come to look at the buildings, etc, not the Queen. I don't see her outside waving at everyone who turns up.

Old No.7 said:
Wrong!

It's full of English

Yeah all the Scots are down here running the country. Blair, Brown, etc. etc.

Etaqua · 23 Mar 2006 at 20:40

There was a thread like this a while ago, and the answer to the tax issue was that she costs ~38p/year from each of us. So she isn't really THAT much of a financial burden.

I don't have a problem with having a Queen, due to the amount of money she makes from tourists just by being alive, but it is her family that I don't think we should be paying for.

teaboy5 · 23 Mar 2006 at 20:57

I cant understand, all you saying that she costs a few pound to keep each year. When you think the amount of money that is wasted each year by the government, her bill is nothing really.

Psyk · 23 Mar 2006 at 21:00

AJUK said:
/Hums Lands of Hope and Glory and, chin quivering, stands to attention as I click on the link.

Not the sort of site that gets me going, but whatever floats your boat.

+44 said:
Why did it all change then?

I'd guess the revolution.

Nix · 23 Mar 2006 at 21:07

tb2000 said:
Meh, people would come whether they were there or not. People come to look at the buildings, etc, not the Queen. I don't see her outside waving at everyone who turns up.

Yeah all the Scots are down here running the country. Blair, Brown, etc. etc.

Yes, but would Windsor or Buckingham Palace be such a draw without the Queen or the Queen's Guard? No. The royal family are the draw. People don't goto Buckingham expecting to definately see the Queen.