Monarchy Answers
What are your opinions/critiques about the nowadays monarchy?
Q. All efforts during the history period, to take the absolute power off the monarchy and establish a political democracy have occurred, although, the royal traditions still remains intact, and also their national and international influence. What are your opinions about the XXI century monarchy style and if it's a positive government way in our contemporary society?
Asked by Leon - Thu Apr 28 19:25:13 2011 - Royalty - 7 Answers - Comments
A. I think its good we have a monarchy. Yeah they spend money but they also bring in a lot of it, through tourism. The monarchy is thousands of years old and steeped in tradition, it is so much of Britain's culture and history but I think at the moment it can be seen as out of touch. I think a younger King or Queen would make a difference and people would see that the royals don't just sit around and play polo, they represent Britain on an international scale.
Answered by equinegirl21 - Thu Apr 28 20:02:06 2011
Q. All efforts during the history period, to take the absolute power off the monarchy and establish a political democracy have occurred, although, the royal traditions still remains intact, and also their national and international influence. What are your opinions about the XXI century monarchy style and if it's a positive government way in our contemporary society?
Asked by Leon - Thu Apr 28 19:25:13 2011 - Royalty - 7 Answers - Comments
A. I think its good we have a monarchy. Yeah they spend money but they also bring in a lot of it, through tourism. The monarchy is thousands of years old and steeped in tradition, it is so much of Britain's culture and history but I think at the moment it can be seen as out of touch. I think a younger King or Queen would make a difference and people would see that the royals don't just sit around and play polo, they represent Britain on an international scale.
Answered by equinegirl21 - Thu Apr 28 20:02:06 2011
Would Canadians support the abolition of the Canadian monarchy with replacement of the office with a president?
Q. A president would be Canada's head of state, subordinate to the Prime Minister, and have no ties to the British monarchy, unlike the Governor General of Canada.
Asked by sweiland75 - Wed Mar 31 23:57:53 2010 - Other - Politics & Government - 5 Answers - 1 Comments
A. 1. There is no link to the British monarchy, since the Statute of Westminster in 1931, Canada has it's own separate monarchy. 2. There is hardly any support for a republic in Canada; and amongst those there are support, they are split up on whether Canada should become a presidential/semi-presidential republic or a parliamentary republic. 3. A head of state can never be subordinate to a head of government (who in Canada's case, is a Prime Minister), the head of state must always be above the head of government (who in Canada's case, is a Monarch; or as proposed by the question - a president). 4. Technically speaking, it is the Queen and not the Governor General who is Canada's head of state, although the GG acts as head of state most of… [cont.]
Answered by Knowzilla - Thu Apr 1 09:38:20 2010
Q. A president would be Canada's head of state, subordinate to the Prime Minister, and have no ties to the British monarchy, unlike the Governor General of Canada.
Asked by sweiland75 - Wed Mar 31 23:57:53 2010 - Other - Politics & Government - 5 Answers - 1 Comments
A. 1. There is no link to the British monarchy, since the Statute of Westminster in 1931, Canada has it's own separate monarchy. 2. There is hardly any support for a republic in Canada; and amongst those there are support, they are split up on whether Canada should become a presidential/semi-presidential republic or a parliamentary republic. 3. A head of state can never be subordinate to a head of government (who in Canada's case, is a Prime Minister), the head of state must always be above the head of government (who in Canada's case, is a Monarch; or as proposed by the question - a president). 4. Technically speaking, it is the Queen and not the Governor General who is Canada's head of state, although the GG acts as head of state most of… [cont.]
Answered by Knowzilla - Thu Apr 1 09:38:20 2010
Why did the bourgoisie supported monarchy in the 15 and 16th centuries?
Q. The bourgeoisie in the 15 and 16th centuries caused the establishment of absolute monarchy and even supported it. Why didnt they establish a new kind of political regime ? Why did they supported monarchy?
Asked by ece D - Sat Jan 10 05:21:55 2009 - History - 3 Answers - Comments
A. Two reasons: 1. Support for the monarchy meant a reduction in the power of both local aristocrats (who could be very arbitrary and capricious in their rule) and the power of the Church, which in many instances levied heavy taxes on businesses for the support of religious institutions. The monarchs represented a more modern and uniform style of government that was good for business. In short, "One Nation, One King, One Law." 2. The economic policies of monarchs during this period was marked by the theory known as "Mercantilism." This policy favors the creation of wealth at home, and so favors the establishment of tariffs on imported goods that compete with domestic made products. The protectionist policies of absolutism… [cont.]
Answered by Jack - Sat Jan 10 05:45:48 2009
Q. The bourgeoisie in the 15 and 16th centuries caused the establishment of absolute monarchy and even supported it. Why didnt they establish a new kind of political regime ? Why did they supported monarchy?
Asked by ece D - Sat Jan 10 05:21:55 2009 - History - 3 Answers - Comments
A. Two reasons: 1. Support for the monarchy meant a reduction in the power of both local aristocrats (who could be very arbitrary and capricious in their rule) and the power of the Church, which in many instances levied heavy taxes on businesses for the support of religious institutions. The monarchs represented a more modern and uniform style of government that was good for business. In short, "One Nation, One King, One Law." 2. The economic policies of monarchs during this period was marked by the theory known as "Mercantilism." This policy favors the creation of wealth at home, and so favors the establishment of tariffs on imported goods that compete with domestic made products. The protectionist policies of absolutism… [cont.]
Answered by Jack - Sat Jan 10 05:45:48 2009
What is the difference between Absolutism and Absolute monarchy?
Q. What is the difference between Absolutism and Absolute monarchy?
Asked by Terri - Wed Oct 6 20:58:25 2010 - Politics - 1 Answers - Comments
A. about 10 points
Answered by Liberals Are Weak - Thu Oct 7 15:55:11 2010
Q. What is the difference between Absolutism and Absolute monarchy?
Asked by Terri - Wed Oct 6 20:58:25 2010 - Politics - 1 Answers - Comments
A. about 10 points
Answered by Liberals Are Weak - Thu Oct 7 15:55:11 2010
How does a constitutional monarchy work for the king/queen?
Q. As in how much power does the king/queen have in a constitutional monarchy over the country? Also if anyone can tell me the use of power by the king or queen in a semi-constitutional monarchy it would please me greatly!
Asked by Morgan Weissbach - Mon Jun 20 19:12:01 2011 - Royalty - 3 Answers - Comments
A. NON-Constitutional absolute Monarchy: All Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers is invested in the Monarch to use at his/her descretion SEMI-Constitutional limited Monarchy: Monarch is able to held reasonable accountable by a legislative body which has some legislative power and a semi-independent judiciary. constitutional executive Monarchy: Executive power is wielded by the sovereign while most legislative power although promulgated by the sovereign has to have the consent of parliament and an independent judiciary. Semi-Executive: Has the same features as a executive monarchy but executive power held by the Monarch (the chief executive) and a member (Prime MInister) of that has the support of the legislator jointly form policy.… [cont.]
Answered by Josh - Tue Jun 21 16:06:35 2011
Q. As in how much power does the king/queen have in a constitutional monarchy over the country? Also if anyone can tell me the use of power by the king or queen in a semi-constitutional monarchy it would please me greatly!
Asked by Morgan Weissbach - Mon Jun 20 19:12:01 2011 - Royalty - 3 Answers - Comments
A. NON-Constitutional absolute Monarchy: All Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers is invested in the Monarch to use at his/her descretion SEMI-Constitutional limited Monarchy: Monarch is able to held reasonable accountable by a legislative body which has some legislative power and a semi-independent judiciary. constitutional executive Monarchy: Executive power is wielded by the sovereign while most legislative power although promulgated by the sovereign has to have the consent of parliament and an independent judiciary. Semi-Executive: Has the same features as a executive monarchy but executive power held by the Monarch (the chief executive) and a member (Prime MInister) of that has the support of the legislator jointly form policy.… [cont.]
Answered by Josh - Tue Jun 21 16:06:35 2011
How do these particular people view the monarchy?
Q. I'm interested in how young British people (ages 18-40) feel about the monarchy. Is the younger generation more or less supportive than the older generation? How will this affect the long-term future of the institution of monarchy in the UK?
Asked by Carpe Diem - Mon Apr 4 19:34:26 2011 - Royalty - 5 Answers - Comments
A. I am just outside your demographic, but pray the days of this farce will be over before I kick the bucket!!! Think attitudes are changing. Who wants a King Charles for starters??
Answered by TSK - Tue Apr 5 11:47:57 2011
Q. I'm interested in how young British people (ages 18-40) feel about the monarchy. Is the younger generation more or less supportive than the older generation? How will this affect the long-term future of the institution of monarchy in the UK?
Asked by Carpe Diem - Mon Apr 4 19:34:26 2011 - Royalty - 5 Answers - Comments
A. I am just outside your demographic, but pray the days of this farce will be over before I kick the bucket!!! Think attitudes are changing. Who wants a King Charles for starters??
Answered by TSK - Tue Apr 5 11:47:57 2011
What was the death(metaphorical) of the monarchy in the colonies?
Q. I have to do a Eulogy for the death of the monarchy in the colonies but i don't know anything about it.any help? The death is obviously metaphorical.so what i mean is the end of the monarchy in the colonies.
Asked by Shennen - Wed Sep 30 18:55:52 2009 - History - 1 Answers - Comments
A. Which colonies? In many case, they kept the monarchy after they became independent (Australia, Canada, Jamaica for example). Some former colonies decided to not keep the Queen, but it was less the death of monarchy in those cases and more a wish to have a person of their own culture and from their own country to be head of state. I'm sorry if this isn't very helpful.
Answered by Medea's biggest fan - Thu Oct 1 11:03:47 2009
Q. I have to do a Eulogy for the death of the monarchy in the colonies but i don't know anything about it.any help? The death is obviously metaphorical.so what i mean is the end of the monarchy in the colonies.
Asked by Shennen - Wed Sep 30 18:55:52 2009 - History - 1 Answers - Comments
A. Which colonies? In many case, they kept the monarchy after they became independent (Australia, Canada, Jamaica for example). Some former colonies decided to not keep the Queen, but it was less the death of monarchy in those cases and more a wish to have a person of their own culture and from their own country to be head of state. I'm sorry if this isn't very helpful.
Answered by Medea's biggest fan - Thu Oct 1 11:03:47 2009
Does the Monarchy and the Royal Family actually MAKE money for Great Britain?
Q. We know that the Monarchy does use some public money to operate. There are countless expenses like security, Royal Weddings, monuments, etc etc. But the Monarchy also attracts tourism, raises moral, and sells all sorts of memorabilia. This is a cost that is probably hard to calculate. But would't you say that the Monarchy actually pays for itself, and probably even brings a financial profit to the country?
Asked by WOODSEY NILES - Sat Apr 30 09:45:54 2011 - Royalty - 9 Answers - Comments
A. The Royal Wedding did. It cost 25m gbp and the TV rights were sold for 100m. Not to mention the b oost in tourism that the country received.
Answered by Frances - Mon May 2 11:27:39 2011
Q. We know that the Monarchy does use some public money to operate. There are countless expenses like security, Royal Weddings, monuments, etc etc. But the Monarchy also attracts tourism, raises moral, and sells all sorts of memorabilia. This is a cost that is probably hard to calculate. But would't you say that the Monarchy actually pays for itself, and probably even brings a financial profit to the country?
Asked by WOODSEY NILES - Sat Apr 30 09:45:54 2011 - Royalty - 9 Answers - Comments
A. The Royal Wedding did. It cost 25m gbp and the TV rights were sold for 100m. Not to mention the b oost in tourism that the country received.
Answered by Frances - Mon May 2 11:27:39 2011
What were the weaknesses of the French monarchy which contributed to the Revolution of 1789?
Q. I'm having trouble coming up with some ideas for an essay, I need at least three topics to write about on the subject. So what three weaknesses did the French monarchy have which caused the Revolution of 1789?
Asked by Jedi Knight - Thu Sep 30 16:56:17 2010 - History - 2 Answers - Comments
A. Basically, it was the fact that Louis wasn't a strong leader and his wife held a strong hand on him. And then there's the fact that his heirs were produced later than originally hoped.
Answered by Michelle King - Thu Sep 30 17:01:55 2010
Q. I'm having trouble coming up with some ideas for an essay, I need at least three topics to write about on the subject. So what three weaknesses did the French monarchy have which caused the Revolution of 1789?
Asked by Jedi Knight - Thu Sep 30 16:56:17 2010 - History - 2 Answers - Comments
A. Basically, it was the fact that Louis wasn't a strong leader and his wife held a strong hand on him. And then there's the fact that his heirs were produced later than originally hoped.
Answered by Michelle King - Thu Sep 30 17:01:55 2010
What would happen if an American woman married into the monarchy of the following areas?
Q. Luxembourg Liechtenstein Denmark Norway Also, you should know I'm Catholic. Would that have any effect on whether or not I would be able to marry into the monarchy? Ever since Kate and William's engagement announcement, I've been fascinated by the idea of royalty!
Asked by Alex - Sat Apr 23 15:09:14 2011 - Royalty - 5 Answers - Comments
A. Nothing really except that she would have to take citizenship in her new country (giving up her US citizenship), and she would have to meet whatever religious requirements the country had. That might mean converting to the country's established faith. More than one Central/South American woman has married royalty. The wife of the heir to the throne in the Netherlands is from Argentina, and one of the princes in Liechtenstein is married to a native Panamanian. The US actress Grace Kelly married the Prince of Monaco. Kelly was Catholic, and so were the Prince and most Monegasques. However, different countries have different rules about this. The Netherlands princess is Catholic, but there, she was able to keep her faith. Her husband is… [cont.]
Answered by Lili - Sat Apr 23 15:23:37 2011
Q. Luxembourg Liechtenstein Denmark Norway Also, you should know I'm Catholic. Would that have any effect on whether or not I would be able to marry into the monarchy? Ever since Kate and William's engagement announcement, I've been fascinated by the idea of royalty!
Asked by Alex - Sat Apr 23 15:09:14 2011 - Royalty - 5 Answers - Comments
A. Nothing really except that she would have to take citizenship in her new country (giving up her US citizenship), and she would have to meet whatever religious requirements the country had. That might mean converting to the country's established faith. More than one Central/South American woman has married royalty. The wife of the heir to the throne in the Netherlands is from Argentina, and one of the princes in Liechtenstein is married to a native Panamanian. The US actress Grace Kelly married the Prince of Monaco. Kelly was Catholic, and so were the Prince and most Monegasques. However, different countries have different rules about this. The Netherlands princess is Catholic, but there, she was able to keep her faith. Her husband is… [cont.]
Answered by Lili - Sat Apr 23 15:23:37 2011
When and under what circumstances did the British Monarchy go from being the ruling power to figureheads?
Q. I would like to know more of the history. When we won our independence, they were still a ruling monarchy. Then what? Anyone know when the civil war occurred?
Asked by lucy - Fri Apr 29 11:45:42 2011 - Royalty - 6 Answers - Comments
A. The English civil war was in the 1640s-1650s, it resulted in a period called the interregnum when we had no monarch, that lasted about a decade until people got sick of the puritan dictatorship and Charles II returned to the country. After the Restoration the loss of power was a gradual thing as Parliament took over as the governing authority. By 'we' I'm guessing you mean the US, by the time of the Hanoverian monarchs they'd lost most of their power, they still had a lot of influence but had long lost the absolute power of people like the Tudors. The decline in power continued through to Victoria and really since then they've had only symbolic power.
Answered by Pheemz2 - Fri Apr 29 12:04:11 2011
Q. I would like to know more of the history. When we won our independence, they were still a ruling monarchy. Then what? Anyone know when the civil war occurred?
Asked by lucy - Fri Apr 29 11:45:42 2011 - Royalty - 6 Answers - Comments
A. The English civil war was in the 1640s-1650s, it resulted in a period called the interregnum when we had no monarch, that lasted about a decade until people got sick of the puritan dictatorship and Charles II returned to the country. After the Restoration the loss of power was a gradual thing as Parliament took over as the governing authority. By 'we' I'm guessing you mean the US, by the time of the Hanoverian monarchs they'd lost most of their power, they still had a lot of influence but had long lost the absolute power of people like the Tudors. The decline in power continued through to Victoria and really since then they've had only symbolic power.
Answered by Pheemz2 - Fri Apr 29 12:04:11 2011
Is a average modern household a monarchy or a democracy?
Q. I need to write a paper on what kind of government my household is. What is an average household government? A democracy or monarchy?
Asked by Ef Gallagher - Wed Nov 3 19:15:37 2010 - Government - 4 Answers - Comments
A. My house is a monarchy, with kids able to earn independence through responsible behavior.
Answered by Cargo Pilot II - Wed Nov 3 19:17:33 2010
Q. I need to write a paper on what kind of government my household is. What is an average household government? A democracy or monarchy?
Asked by Ef Gallagher - Wed Nov 3 19:15:37 2010 - Government - 4 Answers - Comments
A. My house is a monarchy, with kids able to earn independence through responsible behavior.
Answered by Cargo Pilot II - Wed Nov 3 19:17:33 2010
Why did Queen Victoria become the heir when the monarchy could have gone to her uncle?
Q. She inherited the monarchy after her uncle, William IV died, but he had a brother, Earnest. Earnest inherited Hanover, so why didnt he inherit the British monarchy too?
Asked by flannellette - Fri Mar 6 09:01:20 2009 - History - 5 Answers - Comments
A. Why did Victoria became Queen of Great Britain if she was not the daughter of a king but of a simple duke, who was only the fourth son of King George III? It was quite simple. In 1817 there was not a legitime youg heir to the British throne. King George III had reigned for 57 years, he was 75 years old, was senile and mentally insane. His eldest son, Prince George, Regent and Heir to the throne, was 55 years old and he had just lost his only legitime daughter, Princess Charlotte, who had died in childbirth. Besides, he had repudiated his wife, Caroline, and there was no chance of having another heir. King George' second son, Frederick, Duke of York, a year younger than his brother, was married but childless; the third one, William, Duke of… [cont.]
Answered by staisil - Fri Mar 6 09:13:01 2009
Q. She inherited the monarchy after her uncle, William IV died, but he had a brother, Earnest. Earnest inherited Hanover, so why didnt he inherit the British monarchy too?
Asked by flannellette - Fri Mar 6 09:01:20 2009 - History - 5 Answers - Comments
A. Why did Victoria became Queen of Great Britain if she was not the daughter of a king but of a simple duke, who was only the fourth son of King George III? It was quite simple. In 1817 there was not a legitime youg heir to the British throne. King George III had reigned for 57 years, he was 75 years old, was senile and mentally insane. His eldest son, Prince George, Regent and Heir to the throne, was 55 years old and he had just lost his only legitime daughter, Princess Charlotte, who had died in childbirth. Besides, he had repudiated his wife, Caroline, and there was no chance of having another heir. King George' second son, Frederick, Duke of York, a year younger than his brother, was married but childless; the third one, William, Duke of… [cont.]
Answered by staisil - Fri Mar 6 09:13:01 2009
who overthrew the French Monarchy during the French Revolution?
Q. Also after they overthrew the monarchy government, what was the government afterwards? Was a democracy, republic, or what?
Asked by Skater09 - Mon May 30 10:50:16 2011 - History - 2 Answers - Comments
A. The initiative was taken by the Paris mob, that, led by their (revolutionary)leaders destroyed everything old and made all efforts to create something new, where the commons would have the upper hand. Unfortunately in the process, they could only agree on eliminating the enemies of the revolution and not on creating anything new. The result was anarchy and reign of terror, that caused the death of many. At the end they gave shape to a republican form of government that they called the 'Directory' (Five elected Directors at the head of the government). It was this Directory that Napoleon overthrew to make himself the Consul and later, the Emperor.
Answered by peevee - Mon May 30 11:16:56 2011
Q. Also after they overthrew the monarchy government, what was the government afterwards? Was a democracy, republic, or what?
Asked by Skater09 - Mon May 30 10:50:16 2011 - History - 2 Answers - Comments
A. The initiative was taken by the Paris mob, that, led by their (revolutionary)leaders destroyed everything old and made all efforts to create something new, where the commons would have the upper hand. Unfortunately in the process, they could only agree on eliminating the enemies of the revolution and not on creating anything new. The result was anarchy and reign of terror, that caused the death of many. At the end they gave shape to a republican form of government that they called the 'Directory' (Five elected Directors at the head of the government). It was this Directory that Napoleon overthrew to make himself the Consul and later, the Emperor.
Answered by peevee - Mon May 30 11:16:56 2011
What are the advantages of a constitutional (parliamentary) monarchy over a republic?
Q. Some European countries have this type of monarchy. What's the reason? Is it just something traditional or are there some good things that come when having a king? Please, I don't want the definition of parliamentary monarchy I just want pros and cons and what people in this countries who defend it say about it. Thanks in advance.
Asked by Charline - Wed Mar 9 22:38:34 2011 - Royalty - 8 Answers - Comments
A. Canadian answer: (a constitutional monarchy) Stability is one of the biggest advantages. We know who our Head of State will be probably for the next 60 to 80 years, and when William and Kate have children, even longer. And, our Head of State is above politics, so does not have to cater to one side or the other to get voted in. E.g., in the USA, the Republicans pretty much range from dislike to outright hatred of Obama, no matter what he does, good, bad, or otherwise. In Canada, the Queen is not "for" nor "against" any of the parties. It is also a lot cheaper. Elections cost a great deal! While we elect MP's, we do not have to elect a President, and this alone saves a lot of money. There is also a huge "coolness" [cont.]
Answered by capitalgentleman - Thu Mar 10 00:27:34 2011
Q. Some European countries have this type of monarchy. What's the reason? Is it just something traditional or are there some good things that come when having a king? Please, I don't want the definition of parliamentary monarchy I just want pros and cons and what people in this countries who defend it say about it. Thanks in advance.
Asked by Charline - Wed Mar 9 22:38:34 2011 - Royalty - 8 Answers - Comments
A. Canadian answer: (a constitutional monarchy) Stability is one of the biggest advantages. We know who our Head of State will be probably for the next 60 to 80 years, and when William and Kate have children, even longer. And, our Head of State is above politics, so does not have to cater to one side or the other to get voted in. E.g., in the USA, the Republicans pretty much range from dislike to outright hatred of Obama, no matter what he does, good, bad, or otherwise. In Canada, the Queen is not "for" nor "against" any of the parties. It is also a lot cheaper. Elections cost a great deal! While we elect MP's, we do not have to elect a President, and this alone saves a lot of money. There is also a huge "coolness" [cont.]
Answered by capitalgentleman - Thu Mar 10 00:27:34 2011
As a Canadian what benefit is there to be under a monarchy?
Q. I really dont get why we are still under a monarchy. Are there are any benefits to Canadians because of this? Just as an example, I am currently planning to undertake studies in the UK. But regardless of being Canadian, I still have to apply for a student visa like any non-Commonwealth citizen and still pay the same international fees as say someone from the US. Were I to consider British citizenship, as far as I know there is no difference made between someone from the Commonwealth and someone who isnt. So what are the benefits to Commonwealth countries?
Asked by Vampie - Tue Jun 9 15:17:04 2009 - Royalty - 8 Answers - 1 Comments
A. You get to have that pretty old lady on all your money. That's something, isn't it?
Answered by CLR - Tue Jun 9 15:24:47 2009
Q. I really dont get why we are still under a monarchy. Are there are any benefits to Canadians because of this? Just as an example, I am currently planning to undertake studies in the UK. But regardless of being Canadian, I still have to apply for a student visa like any non-Commonwealth citizen and still pay the same international fees as say someone from the US. Were I to consider British citizenship, as far as I know there is no difference made between someone from the Commonwealth and someone who isnt. So what are the benefits to Commonwealth countries?
Asked by Vampie - Tue Jun 9 15:17:04 2009 - Royalty - 8 Answers - 1 Comments
A. You get to have that pretty old lady on all your money. That's something, isn't it?
Answered by CLR - Tue Jun 9 15:24:47 2009
Should Australia become a republic or remain a monarchy?
Q. Republic or Monarchy? List your opinions and in detail. I would like to know what people think. And why you think so. I personally think we should stay a monarchy.
Asked by Hearts<33 - Tue May 12 07:54:25 2009 - Royalty - 9 Answers - Comments
A. Not wishing to upset my friend Moyra D,I would say that it is up to the Australian people to decide what form of government that they want to have.The Queen has said that it is up to the people of Australia to decide and she would respect their wishes.One cannot be fairer than that.
Answered by Dude - Wed May 13 05:24:10 2009
Q. Republic or Monarchy? List your opinions and in detail. I would like to know what people think. And why you think so. I personally think we should stay a monarchy.
Asked by Hearts<33 - Tue May 12 07:54:25 2009 - Royalty - 9 Answers - Comments
A. Not wishing to upset my friend Moyra D,I would say that it is up to the Australian people to decide what form of government that they want to have.The Queen has said that it is up to the people of Australia to decide and she would respect their wishes.One cannot be fairer than that.
Answered by Dude - Wed May 13 05:24:10 2009
What is the purpose of the modern monarchy?
Q. Back in the day, the monarchy actually ruled the land, King and Queen said what went on, and it went on, simple as that. The King used to get involved in defending his land by going to war at the drop of a hat. BUT, what does the modern monarchy actually do? The government run the land, it seems that the Queen and the royal family do NOTHING for this country and its people, except live lavish lives at the taxpayers expense. So, can someone tell me what is the purpose of the royal family?
Asked by Ragtime - Sat Sep 26 17:12:25 2009 - Royalty - 6 Answers - Comments
A. It keeps me and my family in a job. Would you rather see us on the streets? I do very important things like wave at people, shake hands with commoners and ask them what they do.
Answered by Queen Elizabeth II - Sat Sep 26 19:49:14 2009
Q. Back in the day, the monarchy actually ruled the land, King and Queen said what went on, and it went on, simple as that. The King used to get involved in defending his land by going to war at the drop of a hat. BUT, what does the modern monarchy actually do? The government run the land, it seems that the Queen and the royal family do NOTHING for this country and its people, except live lavish lives at the taxpayers expense. So, can someone tell me what is the purpose of the royal family?
Asked by Ragtime - Sat Sep 26 17:12:25 2009 - Royalty - 6 Answers - Comments
A. It keeps me and my family in a job. Would you rather see us on the streets? I do very important things like wave at people, shake hands with commoners and ask them what they do.
Answered by Queen Elizabeth II - Sat Sep 26 19:49:14 2009
What do Brits think about the Royal Family and about Monarchy?
Q. I'm not British, so it is very interesting for me. I can't imagine Great Britain as a Republic. I think there is a special charming in Monarchy. And in my opinion British Royal Family is the most famous of the Royal Families in the world. I heard that some British people are against the Monarchy and I don't understand why. Of course it's not my business, it's internal business of British people. But I'm very curious of it. So I will be grateful for your answers. And sorry for my mistakes in English.
Asked by Dinara - Wed Jan 5 13:17:42 2011 - Royalty - 7 Answers - Comments
A. I had a great sense of pride when I explained to my girlfriend's young niece that there are indeed real-life princes and princesses and knights and an old Queen who lives in a palace and wears a crown. Even in this modern age, it is not a fairy tale in my country. I love the thought that things that others consider fantasy and myth have a real and valid place in modern society. Constitutionally they have a very important job to do. The armed forces owe their allegiance to the Queen, not the Prime Minister. This means that if the electorate are duped into electing a tyrant determined to abolish democracy and give him or her absolute power, the Queen is there with the Army, Navy and Air Force to stop this happening. In fact, our Governments… [cont.]
Answered by Elmbeard - Wed Jan 5 13:37:21 2011
Q. I'm not British, so it is very interesting for me. I can't imagine Great Britain as a Republic. I think there is a special charming in Monarchy. And in my opinion British Royal Family is the most famous of the Royal Families in the world. I heard that some British people are against the Monarchy and I don't understand why. Of course it's not my business, it's internal business of British people. But I'm very curious of it. So I will be grateful for your answers. And sorry for my mistakes in English.
Asked by Dinara - Wed Jan 5 13:17:42 2011 - Royalty - 7 Answers - Comments
A. I had a great sense of pride when I explained to my girlfriend's young niece that there are indeed real-life princes and princesses and knights and an old Queen who lives in a palace and wears a crown. Even in this modern age, it is not a fairy tale in my country. I love the thought that things that others consider fantasy and myth have a real and valid place in modern society. Constitutionally they have a very important job to do. The armed forces owe their allegiance to the Queen, not the Prime Minister. This means that if the electorate are duped into electing a tyrant determined to abolish democracy and give him or her absolute power, the Queen is there with the Army, Navy and Air Force to stop this happening. In fact, our Governments… [cont.]
Answered by Elmbeard - Wed Jan 5 13:37:21 2011
What are the benefits of a republic over a constitutional monarchy?
Q. The only reasonable answer is because a president is elected, and is therefore more accountable. I think the British royalty is highly accountable already. The monarchy certainly brings in considerably more money than it spends. I also don't buy the one on being to well off - that's just a silly comment (would a president not get pampered too?). So what other reasons are there?
Asked by Magic Mim - Tue Jun 12 20:18:13 2007 - Royalty - 3 Answers - 1 Comments
A. Well, I guess that by a whisker I'm anti-monarchist, but I agree with you. Finland's a republic and Sweden is a constitutional monarchy, and both are civilised places. Afghanistan is a republic and Nepal is a monarchy and both are looneybins. The only thing I've got against a monarchy is that nobody should have a special status just because of their ancestry. But if a constitutional monarchy like the Netherlands became a republic, nothing much would change. Monarchists argue that the value of a king is the power it prevents others acquiring. Maybe they've got a point. When the Nazis occupied countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, the queen and king respectively very bravely stood up to the invaders and succeeded in making them look… [cont.]
Answered by zee_prime - Tue Jun 12 20:35:00 2007
Q. The only reasonable answer is because a president is elected, and is therefore more accountable. I think the British royalty is highly accountable already. The monarchy certainly brings in considerably more money than it spends. I also don't buy the one on being to well off - that's just a silly comment (would a president not get pampered too?). So what other reasons are there?
Asked by Magic Mim - Tue Jun 12 20:18:13 2007 - Royalty - 3 Answers - 1 Comments
A. Well, I guess that by a whisker I'm anti-monarchist, but I agree with you. Finland's a republic and Sweden is a constitutional monarchy, and both are civilised places. Afghanistan is a republic and Nepal is a monarchy and both are looneybins. The only thing I've got against a monarchy is that nobody should have a special status just because of their ancestry. But if a constitutional monarchy like the Netherlands became a republic, nothing much would change. Monarchists argue that the value of a king is the power it prevents others acquiring. Maybe they've got a point. When the Nazis occupied countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, the queen and king respectively very bravely stood up to the invaders and succeeded in making them look… [cont.]
Answered by zee_prime - Tue Jun 12 20:35:00 2007
From Yahoo Answer Search: 'monarchy'
Wed Nov 16 04:29:52 2011