Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Queen of England appoints governors general to act as heads of state on behalf of the British Crown (but not heads of governments) in many Commonwealth nations, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Bermuda, etc. These positions exist for ceremonial purposes.
True for the most part.... except not all of the governors' duties are for only ceremonial purposes.
But the point is, in all of those countries or territories the Queen only appoints as Governor whoever each country's elected head of government has chosen and suggested or advised her to appoint to be their governor. The Queen only does the appointing on the behest of that country's head of government, she doesn't pick and choose their governors at her own discretion.
The Brits are the kings of the world in a way. No other country can claim they controlled 1/3 the globe and their island is so tiny. I think people are all interested in Britain with their history. I could care less about them myself, but I am a guy. It is mostly women that like to watch that soap opera.
IMO---the British royal family is completely useless and a financial drain on their over-burdened taxpayers. I'm not going to bother to look up how much the royals cost the taxpayers, but its a lot that could do a lot of good elsewhere.
You do know the US State Department has a $27.1 billion budget. The £41.9 million ($55.3 million) royal household budget barely registers in comparison (less than 2%). Much of that budget also goes to maintain the buildings, which the government must maintain even if the UK becomes a republic.
The royal household £4.5 million travel budget is nowhere near even the cost of maintaining the US Secretary of State's Boeing 757 (C-32A) in full time service.
Among the duties of the British royal family is in service of the British equivalent of the US State Department (Foreign and Commonwealth office). In that particular regard they are a very valuable asset for the money.
Also the Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it the "Sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate. The Crown Estate is one of the largest property managers in the United Kingdom, overseeing property worth £12.418 billion, with urban properties valued at £9.1 billion. Since this arrangement dates back to 1760 it is not clear what would happen to the Crown estate should the UK become a kingdom. At the very least the former monarch would probably get Windsor Castle worth £280.8 million, and quite possibly considerably more.
Firstly, it's important to note that they are not just the Royal Family of Britain, they are the Royal Family of over a dozen nations around the world, this includes countries such as Canada and Australia. They also have close ties to Commonwealth nations that constitute a large proportion of the world's population. Aside from the this, they are also the Royal Family that represent the culturally dominant English-speaking world.
A reinforcing factor is that they operate a very formidable PR machine, and have an amazing talent for pageantry.
Firstly, it's important to note that they are not just the Royal Family of Britain, they are the Royal Family of over a dozen nations around the world, this includes countries such as Canada and Australia. They also have close ties to Commonwealth nations that constitute a large proportion of the world's population. Aside from the this, they are also the Royal Family that represent the culturally dominant English-speaking world.
A reinforcing factor is that they operate a very formidable PR machine, and have an amazing talent for pageantry.
I'm pretty certain that the Royal Family doesn't represent the world's most dominant English-speaking culture.
A friend of mine who had a very crisp British accent once explained how the monarchy works to the average person. British politics are very direct and often beneath the carefully polite tone, very nasty. Their parties are as wide as ours are trying to become. People vote for the politicans, and may end up with someone they detest.
But the Queen and family are not political. They stand for the State, for everyone and all parties. The queen and her family does not indulge in politics. When she travels as an ambassador to other nations she stands for all Britan, not one faction.
He was neither a fan of the Queen or against her and her establishment. But he did see the continuity as useful.
A friend of mine who had a very crisp British accent once explained how the monarchy works to the average person. British politics are very direct and often beneath the carefully polite tone, very nasty. Their parties are as wide as ours are trying to become. People vote for the politicans, and may end up with someone they detest.
But the Queen and family are not political. They stand for the State, for everyone and all parties. The queen and her family does not indulge in politics. When she travels as an ambassador to other nations she stands for all Britan, not one faction.
He was neither a fan of the Queen or against her and her establishment. But he did see the continuity as useful.
It is a crucial difference. Where you have an elected head of state, as in the USA or France, that individual very often becomes a very divisive figure. In the UK, the monarch represents the nation but no political party. That allows her to become a unifying figure.
The British royal family is highly skilled at marketing and branding itself. The others, not so much.
This, plus the Brit tax payers still maintain several palaces for the royals to live in high style. Do Holland's, Belgium's, Spain's and Sweden's royals live off the tax payers to that grand an extent? I read ages ago that Sweden's king lives in an apartment, and wanted to be more of a regular Joe.
This, plus the Brit tax payers still maintain several palaces for the royals to live in high style. Do Holland's, Belgium's, Spain's and Sweden's royals live off the tax payers to that grand an extent? I read ages ago that Sweden's king lives in an apartment, and wanted to be more of a regular Joe.
The Swedish Royal Estates and gardens are pretty much self-sufficient as most are regularly rented for corporate seminars, tourist tours and other activities. I believe the situation is the same in Britain. And, would you spend a day as a tourist watching the Finnish president's house? No. Would you do that for Windsor Castle. Many do.
Andhow about Versailles? France is a Republic and nobody lives there, but does it still cost a lot in maintenance. Yes.
And no, the Swedish king lives in Drottningholm's castle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
