WD-40 wrote:I sorta wonder why there is even the resemblance of a Monarchy then. They have no power. They're like a hood ornament on a big car. Sad thing, is that the Brits line the 'Royal's' pocketbooks with Hundreds of Millions of wasted money. I hope after she dies in another 30 years, William gets the throne. At least William seems grounded thanks to Diana...God rest her soul
We have had a Constitutional Monarchy since the 1688 and the King or Queen can dissolve parliament if the become incapable of making political decisions.
The following is applicable to the King or Queen:
* Sign a treaty with other recognised governments.
* Can appoint high ranking officials.
* Can declar war without the need or consent of parliament.
* Approves Parliament to run the country based upon the decision of the people.
* Is the Head of State.
* Is the Head of the Church of England since 1530's.
* Is the Head of the armed forces.
* Is the head of 15 (i think) commonwealth realms across the globe.
* They are involved in Royal events and ceremonies.
* They are involved with over 3000 charities and patronages worldwide.
* They are involved in a 600 year old honour system.
Many of the Royals are involved in the points above.
In the UK we are classed as subjects and not as Citizens.
The British monarchy is restricted by laws such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, although limits on the power of the monarch ('A Limited Monarchy') are much older than that (see Magna Carta).
The Monachry brings in over £500 million a year in tourist revenue or around $800 million US dollars.
I am not a Royal follower but just thought you should all understand the facts before saying their role is pointless.
Regards,
Kren