What Exactly Does the Modern Monarch Do?

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

In my opinion they have grown stagnant and now achieve little. I'm all for a monarchy, if it is progressive and takes the reins in control of a nation, however in my eyes the royal titles are only ceremonial now. It's hardly logical to pay them more than the real leaders of the modern monarchies, the politicians. If there is something important that monarchs do, could somebody explain it to me? I'd appreciate a lack of answers like "upholding tradition" etc.. It'd be just dandy if the money spent on their expenses were used for much more benevolent things, such as cancer research, orphanages and such things.

[Stavroforos]

Same thing I'm doing right now.

Scratching my man parts.

(ie, nothing)

[Squiggle]

They take taxpayer money.

[Tiberios]

Saying the Monarch does nothing is stupid. Of course they don't do as much as in previous times, but they aren't sitting around doing nothing.

They hold state visits, attends charities, donates to charities and loads of other things.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/Home.aspx

[Squiggle]

Saying the Monarch does nothing is stupid. Of course they don't do as much as in previous times, but they aren't sitting around doing nothing.

They hold state visits, attends charities, donates to charities and loads of other things.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/Home.aspx

Yeah, so nothing but taking tax payer money. As Stav and I said...

[Tiberios]

Yeah, so nothing but taking tax payer money. As Stav and I said...

Yes when you say it, it must be true

I see you somehow managed, quite deliberately I presume, to ignore the post just about yours:

There is also the issue of the Crown Estate which is the main money-maker that our Monarch provides us, the revenues of which go straight to HM Treasury.

[Squiggle]

Yes when you say it, it must be true

In what conceivable sense are any of the 'duties' you outlined helpful to Britain, Canada, Australia or anywhere else at all? There irrelevant fluff. The Monarch is a quasi celebrity on the Public doll.

I see you somehow managed, quite deliberately I presume, to ignore the post just about yours:

The Crown estates have almost nothing to do with the Monarch. They dont control it, they never have, they dont make any decisions in regards to it, its accountable to Parliament...

[Adrian]

They take taxpayer money.

this.





the monarchy put their head on a pike.

[nce_wht_guy]

They take taxpayer money.

No, actually, they don't.

[Squiggle]

No, actually, they don't.

Yes, actually, they do. I'm Canadian, I actually have a Monarch, I'm not speaking from complete ignorance [a revolutionary notion for you I'm sure]. Parilament pays Crown expenses, not to mention the Governor General and Lieutenant Generals of Canada, Australia etc. Which are extremely costly, and utterly worthless. Even their role as holder of executive power is a facade, and has been since the bing affair. Governor Generals do what the Prime Minister tells them to do, all the powers could be given to the Prime Minister and nothing meaningful would change [not that I'd want that, if your going to reform the Government, do it right].

[Dr. Croccer]

They don't eat up my tax money and make dumbass decisions so they're already better than parliament or any theoretical president.

[Ahlerich]

banging models, hoockers and hoockers that model

[Treize]

Most monarchies generate more money than what they cost. So it is a worthwhile investment. And in my country them seem to be an essential part of the checks and balances.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Most monarchies generate more money than what they cost. So it is a worthwhile investment. And in my country them seem to be an essential part of the checks and balances.

I don't know whether that is true or not. If it is, why are they the ones getting the luxurious lifestyle. There are plenty of people who could do the job better (like actually taking an active part in decision making) and who deserve it more, such as nobel prize winners and other (justifiably) prestigious figures. In my opinion if there is going to be a monarch, needs to be something like the Venetian doge.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

There are plenty of people who could do the job better and who deserve it more, such as nobel prize winners

I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't think your average nobel prize winner would be a very good monarch, nor do I think your average politician would be either. It takes a special breed to be completely neutral and not have any strong political opinions.

(like actually taking an active part in decision making)

the monarch does have executive functions,, but making a monarch a politician removes their purpose.

[Denny Crane!]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't think your average nobel prize winner would be a very good monarch, nor do I think your average politician would be either. It takes a special breed to be completely neutral and not have any strong political opinions.

the monarch does have executive functions,, but making a monarch a politician removes their purpose.

It takes a special breed. Oh god that cracked a smile. So the monarchy are more appropriate because of genetics.

Please please continue on this line of thought. I want to hear more.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

It takes a special breed. Oh god that cracked a smile. So the monarchy are more appropriate because of genetics.

Please please continue on this line of thought. I want to hear more.

no they aren't, but your average nobel prize winner has some pretty strong political beliefs. So do most politicians.

I think most regular people who aren't members of political parties and don't have particularly strong political views could do a monarch's job though.

[Treize]

I don't know whether that is true or not. If it is, why are they the ones getting the luxurious lifestyle.

Part of the game although it is not really a nice thing to be a monarch or anything.

There are plenty of people who could do the job better (like actually taking an active part in decision making) and who deserve it more, such as nobel prize winners and other (justifiably) prestigious figures. In my opinion if there is going to be a monarch, needs to be something like the Venetian doge.

Now why would you want that, the power is already in the hands of the government (with their figurehead the prime minister).

[RomanSoldier9001]

Most monarchies generate more money than what they cost. So it is a worthwhile investment. And in my country them seem to be an essential part of the checks and balances.

They cost less than Republics. So on other hand what Modern Politicians do?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

contrary to popular belief the monarch of the UK actually has quite a bit of power. They can unilaterally dissolve parliament, appoint or dismiss prime ministers, appoint or dismiss certain members of the upper house, and refuse to pass bills. They can also pardon people or instruct the director of public prosecutions not to prosecute them.

Of course such powers were used unilaterally only once since the act of union, in 1835 when William IV forced a government out of office. It's also interesting to note that the monarch cannot vote in elections.

So long as the monarch has the best interest of the country at heart (which they have done since the Renaissance), it's a very effective check on say, a British Hitler. Of course, Mussolini got past the Italian king when he came to power.