Do we actually need the Royal family?

[Pearls18]

Plus not forgetting all the work they do for charity.......

They could do that regardless, they don't need to be 'royal' to do charity work.

Some how I don't think their influence in charity work would be so great if they weren't royal, their money, power and influence is what makes their charity work so successful.

 

[porkypig]

thanks for all of your replies, have learnt lots! im still not that convinced that we need them, yes they may bring in money and work for it etc, but so can and do other people. Im not against the Royals but i think that the fact that we still have them still shows that there is no way of getting away from the class system and all the snobbery that goes with it which other countries dont have x

 

[smokey]

Many Republics have good tourist industries without a monarchy and surely if the monarchy was abolished then tourists would actually have more access to historically important sites. Although the Queen may have not really used her powers, there is always a chance that someone could in the future.

What extra historical sites are you referring to? there is very few places that are royal related places that are not public and those few are because they are lived in residence. Would you want people trapsing through your home taking photos?

I was referring to the lived in residences, and obviously they shouldn't be open whilst they are occupied, but i'm not sure they should be lived in at all.

Out of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only 1 is anything royal, so I don't really know how or where all these figures come from.

So they should just live under a bridge rather then homes their family has owned for hundreds of years that they pay for themselves or through historical grants set up in bonds and shares of business to pay for them.

Aren't a lot of the main ones state owned? Why do they deserve that privilege? I'm not saying that though, but the argument of tourism seems to come up time and time again with no real evidence, and going by other popular attractions, if these places were empty then it would really be a boost for tourism. I really don't understand why they are entitled to all of this, it's not even a case of it just being in the family...they are exempt from any inheritance tax on the privately owned residences.

Not all are exempt, I think its just the queen as there are different laws for monarch and heir same as paying taxes.
Im not too sure what your referring to though with houses being empty.
Places like Buckingham palace, Kensington palace among others are open to the public and the family just own apartments in them and of course those apartments are not public access.
Places like balmoral are not public but that's because they are owned by the family and are funded through personal money and stock funds set up to pay for them so again I don't see why they shouldn't live in those houses they own.
I cant remember how Windsor castle is set up, I thik its a case off a apartment is own personaly yet the castle itself is funded by tourism and stock funds.
I still don't understand the argument of if a house is passed down in the family and is payed for by themselves why they should have to give it up and not live in it.
Is any other person in the world asked to give up their inherited home to the public?

 

[Pearls18]

Plus not forgetting all the work they do for charity.......

They could do that regardless, they don't need to be 'royal' to do charity work.

Yes but as prominent figures they are more likely to raise money from the public.

Also lets not forget that William and Harry both have jobs.

But their charities spend just as much on fundraising as any other charity, and they would still be famous even in a Republic.

Having a job and doing a little bit of charity work shouldn't mean that they get all of those privileges ahead of other people, they are paid a ridiculously high amount for what they actually do. A head of state should not be be based on how much charity work someone does or the fact they have a job, and if it was then there are many more people that would be more entitled to be head of state than them.

Sorry who do you mean paid by? they are "paid" by their employers, business deal, stocks and bonds, land rent they own, property rents .
They are not "paid" by the government apart from state and public affaires ie business trips to other countries for functions and state business which is fair enough (there are over 3000 every year)
Things like the royal train, the brittania and the aeroplane where all done away with years ago because she decided they where too costly.
But their actual income is money thay make for themselves.
The queen own loads of land and rents it out for farming, Prince Charles has his own farms one of which he actually works himself a lot of the time and sells his own produce of meat, dairy, fruit and veg (along with a huge supply of local farms and produce from small farmers) from the farm in his shop he owns near us called Windsor farm shop.
That's just a tiny example of how they make their own money, same way everyone else does its just that they have had hundreds of years of making businesses and passing them down along with inherited funds

I thought any money they make is put back into the government, or wherever, and then they are given an allowance out of a sovereign grant? A lot of their businesses are quite unethical as well, a complete contradiction of all this charity work they do.

To me, it's not even about whether they make money for the country, whether they do a bit of charity work or whether or not they cost the taxpayer more than they make or whether they are good people or not...it's the fact it's undemocratic, and no unelected individual should have access to that power (even if it is not used, she has directly given those powers to the government and do bi-passing the usual procedures) and no individual elected or not should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act or exempt from prosecution/arrest.

The Freedom of Information Act only applies to public bodies, banks, private businesses etc are not affected by it. The royal family only cone under FoI when public money is involved eg wanting to know how much security cost for the wedding, their private businesses are not subject to FoI just as my own business isn't up for FoI.

I think your argument about democracy is a fair one and I understand why people would dislike the institution as they're not elected, however, you can not denounce everyone else's "tourism" or whatever argument for being infactual when they have been more factual and correct in their reasonings than you have tried to be in counter arguing.

 

[hayz_baby]

One other thing tho.. I can't remember it all fully and tbh this doesn't have much to do with the question but i find it interesting.. There is a certain time when the queen is allowed into parliament/commons. During that time there is a ceremonial door shut in her face as a sign that she has no right in parliament. Obviously it is staged as such but still.. What a funny country we live in!

Its called opening season, its not actually the queen that gets it slammed in her face but Black rod, her messenger.
The monarch hasn't been into the house of commons since 1642 so sends their messanger to to open the season of commons which gathers all the mps and lords together.
The door is slammed as a reminder that they have the right to exlude anyone but then is reopened to show acknowledgment that that exlusion doesn't apply to the soveriegns messengers.

The Queen does attend for ceremonial purpuses but doesn't actualy go int to the house of commons but instead remains elsewhere.
The part of the ceremony I find funny is when she travles their each year they have to send a MP as hostage to Buckingham palace to be flogged and beheaded if the monarch isn't returned
Its back from when the government and monarch didn't get along

Thanks I couldn't remember it all but I knew it was something like that.. Tbh I find stuff like that fascinating! Imagine an mp getting beheaded these days lol.... We are such a funny country at times no wonder all the tourists want to come..

 

[porkypig]

This is me going off on one now, but I wonder hundreds/thousands of years ago, how a monarchy was started off? who decided, right, youre going to be King/Queen etc? or does it go so far back, that this is unanswerable? (slightly off on a tangent now)

 

[Pearls18]

This is me going off on one now, but I wonder hundreds/thousands of years ago, how a monarchy was started off? who decided, right, youre going to be King/Queen etc? or does it go so far back, that this is unanswerable? (slightly off on a tangent now)

I would assume strength, people would battle for the throne.

 

[fantastica]

Many Republics have good tourist industries without a monarchy and surely if the monarchy was abolished then tourists would actually have more access to historically important sites. Although the Queen may have not really used her powers, there is always a chance that someone could in the future.

What extra historical sites are you referring to? there is very few places that are royal related places that are not public and those few are because they are lived in residence. Would you want people trapsing through your home taking photos?

I was referring to the lived in residences, and obviously they shouldn't be open whilst they are occupied, but i'm not sure they should be lived in at all.

Out of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only 1 is anything royal, so I don't really know how or where all these figures come from.

So they should just live under a bridge rather then homes their family has owned for hundreds of years that they pay for themselves or through historical grants set up in bonds and shares of business to pay for them.

Aren't a lot of the main ones state owned? Why do they deserve that privilege? I'm not saying that though, but the argument of tourism seems to come up time and time again with no real evidence, and going by other popular attractions, if these places were empty then it would really be a boost for tourism. I really don't understand why they are entitled to all of this, it's not even a case of it just being in the family...they are exempt from any inheritance tax on the privately owned residences.

Not all are exempt, I think its just the queen as there are different laws for monarch and heir same as paying taxes.
Im not too sure what your referring to though with houses being empty.
Places like Buckingham palace, Kensington palace among others are open to the public and the family just own apartments in them and of course those apartments are not public access.
Places like balmoral are not public but that's because they are owned by the family and are funded through personal money and stock funds set up to pay for them so again I don't see why they shouldn't live in those houses they own.
I cant remember how Windsor castle is set up, I thik its a case off a apartment is own personaly yet the castle itself is funded by tourism and stock funds.
I still don't understand the argument of if a house is passed down in the family and is payed for by themselves why they should have to give it up and not live in it.
Is any other person in the world asked to give up their inherited home to the public?

I'm not overly sure on how all of them work tbh, have only recently started to properly look into it. I don't see why they should leave their homes either, if they're privately owned..but they should be subject to Inheritance Tax.

 

[fantastica]

Plus not forgetting all the work they do for charity.......

They could do that regardless, they don't need to be 'royal' to do charity work.

Yes but as prominent figures they are more likely to raise money from the public.

Also lets not forget that William and Harry both have jobs.

But their charities spend just as much on fundraising as any other charity, and they would still be famous even in a Republic.

Having a job and doing a little bit of charity work shouldn't mean that they get all of those privileges ahead of other people, they are paid a ridiculously high amount for what they actually do. A head of state should not be be based on how much charity work someone does or the fact they have a job, and if it was then there are many more people that would be more entitled to be head of state than them.

Sorry who do you mean paid by? they are "paid" by their employers, business deal, stocks and bonds, land rent they own, property rents .
They are not "paid" by the government apart from state and public affaires ie business trips to other countries for functions and state business which is fair enough (there are over 3000 every year)
Things like the royal train, the brittania and the aeroplane where all done away with years ago because she decided they where too costly.
But their actual income is money thay make for themselves.
The queen own loads of land and rents it out for farming, Prince Charles has his own farms one of which he actually works himself a lot of the time and sells his own produce of meat, dairy, fruit and veg (along with a huge supply of local farms and produce from small farmers) from the farm in his shop he owns near us called Windsor farm shop.
That's just a tiny example of how they make their own money, same way everyone else does its just that they have had hundreds of years of making businesses and passing them down along with inherited funds

I thought any money they make is put back into the government, or wherever, and then they are given an allowance out of a sovereign grant? A lot of their businesses are quite unethical as well, a complete contradiction of all this charity work they do.

To me, it's not even about whether they make money for the country, whether they do a bit of charity work or whether or not they cost the taxpayer more than they make or whether they are good people or not...it's the fact it's undemocratic, and no unelected individual should have access to that power (even if it is not used, she has directly given those powers to the government and do bi-passing the usual procedures) and no individual elected or not should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act or exempt from prosecution/arrest.

The Freedom of Information Act only applies to public bodies, banks, private businesses etc are not affected by it. The royal family only cone under FoI when public money is involved eg wanting to know how much security cost for the wedding, their private businesses are not subject to FoI just as my own business isn't up for FoI.

I think your argument about democracy is a fair one and I understand why people would dislike the institution as they're not elected, however, you can not denounce everyone else's "tourism" or whatever argument for being infactual when they have been more factual and correct in their reasonings than you have tried to be in counter arguing.

Right okay, so they do have to release anything spent by the tax payer? I thought they were technically not regarded as a public body though. Being exempt from arrest and prosecutions is still absurd - where I live the Crown Prosecutor is exempt from arrest or prosecution and there has been a pretty big backlash, but no-one seems to phased by it with regards to the royal family. (although I think it only applies to the Monarch and Heir? As i've said, i'm not completely clued up on it all though). I'm not saying the tourism argument is not a valid one, but everywhere i've looked I cannot find anything to back it up, except for rough estimations.

 

[smokey]

Plus not forgetting all the work they do for charity.......

They could do that regardless, they don't need to be 'royal' to do charity work.

Yes but as prominent figures they are more likely to raise money from the public.

Also lets not forget that William and Harry both have jobs.

But their charities spend just as much on fundraising as any other charity, and they would still be famous even in a Republic.

Having a job and doing a little bit of charity work shouldn't mean that they get all of those privileges ahead of other people, they are paid a ridiculously high amount for what they actually do. A head of state should not be be based on how much charity work someone does or the fact they have a job, and if it was then there are many more people that would be more entitled to be head of state than them.

Sorry who do you mean paid by? they are "paid" by their employers, business deal, stocks and bonds, land rent they own, property rents .
They are not "paid" by the government apart from state and public affaires ie business trips to other countries for functions and state business which is fair enough (there are over 3000 every year)
Things like the royal train, the brittania and the aeroplane where all done away with years ago because she decided they where too costly.
But their actual income is money thay make for themselves.
The queen own loads of land and rents it out for farming, Prince Charles has his own farms one of which he actually works himself a lot of the time and sells his own produce of meat, dairy, fruit and veg (along with a huge supply of local farms and produce from small farmers) from the farm in his shop he owns near us called Windsor farm shop.
That's just a tiny example of how they make their own money, same way everyone else does its just that they have had hundreds of years of making businesses and passing them down along with inherited funds

I thought any money they make is put back into the government, or wherever, and then they are given an allowance out of a sovereign grant? A lot of their businesses are quite unethical as well, a complete contradiction of all this charity work they do.

To me, it's not even about whether they make money for the country, whether they do a bit of charity work or whether or not they cost the taxpayer more than they make or whether they are good people or not...it's the fact it's undemocratic, and no unelected individual should have access to that power (even if it is not used, she has directly given those powers to the government and do bi-passing the usual procedures) and no individual elected or not should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act or exempt from prosecution/arrest.

Soveraign grant is only really used for travel on state affaires, official business and housing (on some of the property apartments) which is money they made in the first place and put into it so why shouldn't they have access to it, it doesn't go to personal living such as clothes, cars, and day to day stuff (that's their own money) and is subject to the same audits as any other company funding.
As for the powers she has its nothing like what people assume, these where laws written hundreds of years ago that cant be changed and havnt been acted on since 1700's to act on some of these "powers" would mean the forced abdication by the governemt, neither one has more power then the other so cant officialy act alone, the PM acts on her interests as a safe guard to her subjects but the government can overrule her and force a abdication as happened with Edward VIII (and many others) because he married a divorced American called Wallis Simpson, the government forced him out so his younger brother Albert (George V, queens father) had to take the throne.
No member of the royal family is exempt from arrest or prosecution.

 

[smokey]

One other thing tho.. I can't remember it all fully and tbh this doesn't have much to do with the question but i find it interesting.. There is a certain time when the queen is allowed into parliament/commons. During that time there is a ceremonial door shut in her face as a sign that she has no right in parliament. Obviously it is staged as such but still.. What a funny country we live in!

Its called opening season, its not actually the queen that gets it slammed in her face but Black rod, her messenger.
The monarch hasn't been into the house of commons since 1642 so sends their messanger to to open the season of commons which gathers all the mps and lords together.
The door is slammed as a reminder that they have the right to exlude anyone but then is reopened to show acknowledgment that that exlusion doesn't apply to the soveriegns messengers.

The Queen does attend for ceremonial purpuses but doesn't actualy go int to the house of commons but instead remains elsewhere.
The part of the ceremony I find funny is when she travles their each year they have to send a MP as hostage to Buckingham palace to be flogged and beheaded if the monarch isn't returned
Its back from when the government and monarch didn't get along

Thanks I couldn't remember it all but I knew it was something like that.. Tbh I find stuff like that fascinating! Imagine an mp getting beheaded these days lol.... We are such a funny country at times no wonder all the tourists want to come..

Look up ceremony of the keys at the tower of London, That's one of my faverites

 

[fantastica]

Plus not forgetting all the work they do for charity.......

They could do that regardless, they don't need to be 'royal' to do charity work.

Yes but as prominent figures they are more likely to raise money from the public.

Also lets not forget that William and Harry both have jobs.

But their charities spend just as much on fundraising as any other charity, and they would still be famous even in a Republic.

Having a job and doing a little bit of charity work shouldn't mean that they get all of those privileges ahead of other people, they are paid a ridiculously high amount for what they actually do. A head of state should not be be based on how much charity work someone does or the fact they have a job, and if it was then there are many more people that would be more entitled to be head of state than them.

Sorry who do you mean paid by? they are "paid" by their employers, business deal, stocks and bonds, land rent they own, property rents .
They are not "paid" by the government apart from state and public affaires ie business trips to other countries for functions and state business which is fair enough (there are over 3000 every year)
Things like the royal train, the brittania and the aeroplane where all done away with years ago because she decided they where too costly.
But their actual income is money thay make for themselves.
The queen own loads of land and rents it out for farming, Prince Charles has his own farms one of which he actually works himself a lot of the time and sells his own produce of meat, dairy, fruit and veg (along with a huge supply of local farms and produce from small farmers) from the farm in his shop he owns near us called Windsor farm shop.
That's just a tiny example of how they make their own money, same way everyone else does its just that they have had hundreds of years of making businesses and passing them down along with inherited funds

I thought any money they make is put back into the government, or wherever, and then they are given an allowance out of a sovereign grant? A lot of their businesses are quite unethical as well, a complete contradiction of all this charity work they do.

To me, it's not even about whether they make money for the country, whether they do a bit of charity work or whether or not they cost the taxpayer more than they make or whether they are good people or not...it's the fact it's undemocratic, and no unelected individual should have access to that power (even if it is not used, she has directly given those powers to the government and do bi-passing the usual procedures) and no individual elected or not should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act or exempt from prosecution/arrest.

Soveraign grant is only really used for travel on state affaires, official business and housing (on some of the property apartments) which is money they made in the first place and put into it so why shouldn't they have access to it, it doesn't go to personal living such as clothes, cars, and day to day stuff (that's their own money) and is subject to the same audits as any other company funding.
As for the powers she has its nothing like what people assume, these where laws written hundreds of years ago that cant be changed and havnt been acted on since 1700's to act on some of these "powers" would mean the forced abdication by the governemt, neither one has more power then the other so cant officialy act alone, the PM acts on her interests as a safe guard to her subjects but the government can overrule her and force a abdication as happened with Edward VIII (and many others) because he married a divorced American called Wallis Simpson, the government forced him out so his younger brother Albert (George V, queens father) had to take the throne.
No member of the royal family is exempt from arrest or prosecution.

Okay that makes sense. For me, i'm not bothered how they are paid for as I know they do put money back, that isn't the issue...so i've only briefly looked into it. Thanks for explaining it!

The Queen has sovereign immunity?

 

[smokey]

This is me going off on one now, but I wonder hundreds/thousands of years ago, how a monarchy was started off? who decided, right, youre going to be King/Queen etc? or does it go so far back, that this is unanswerable? (slightly off on a tangent now)

Basicly it was whoever survived a war, if you where the one left standing after cutting everyones head off you where king (until someone came and cut your head off)
It started with land owners taking other peoples lands then that grew into armies of subject swearing loyalty and self proclaimed lords taking over other lords and just grew and grew until it wasn't just one farm fighting the next farm for land but the English fighting the Scotts then other countries wanted a go.
Inherited thrones where not heard of it was literally who had the bigger sword.
It wasn't until about 1400's that it became political and the assention to the throne was generaly done by what was known as kingmakers, they would back a popular lord and it would be part fighting part government then the idea of a son and heir came into it and started being a case of only another could come onto the throne if a heir wasn't around (Richard iii being one of the more famouse to do away with heirs to the throne)

 

[smokey]

The Queen has sovereign immunity?

Its another one of those loophole things.
In the beginning the queen would have immunity because she is head of state so therefore owns the crown Prosecution, prisons and courts but if it was something really bad the government can force a abdication and with public backing that the media has no heir would assend and the crown courts would revert to the government and the government can prosecute her.
Like I say its all done in a way that no one has more power over the other and either can act in extreme circumstance to protect the country.

 

[Feltzy]

Thanks for the lesson Smokey I feel like I've learnt a lot today! Very interesting subject.

 

[hayz_baby]

One other thing tho.. I can't remember it all fully and tbh this doesn't have much to do with the question but i find it interesting.. There is a certain time when the queen is allowed into parliament/commons. During that time there is a ceremonial door shut in her face as a sign that she has no right in parliament. Obviously it is staged as such but still.. What a funny country we live in!

Its called opening season, its not actually the queen that gets it slammed in her face but Black rod, her messenger.
The monarch hasn't been into the house of commons since 1642 so sends their messanger to to open the season of commons which gathers all the mps and lords together.
The door is slammed as a reminder that they have the right to exlude anyone but then is reopened to show acknowledgment that that exlusion doesn't apply to the soveriegns messengers.

The Queen does attend for ceremonial purpuses but doesn't actualy go int to the house of commons but instead remains elsewhere.
The part of the ceremony I find funny is when she travles their each year they have to send a MP as hostage to Buckingham palace to be flogged and beheaded if the monarch isn't returned
Its back from when the government and monarch didn't get along

Thanks I couldn't remember it all but I knew it was something like that.. Tbh I find stuff like that fascinating! Imagine an mp getting beheaded these days lol.... We are such a funny country at times no wonder all the tourists want to come..

Look up ceremony of the keys at the tower of London, That's one of my faverites

As with many events of ceremony in the United Kingdom, it takes some significant outside influence to interrupt the Ceremony of the Keys. The one time when the ceremony was interrupted was during the Second World War, when there was an air raid on London, and a number of incendiary bombs fell on the old Victorian guardroom just as the Chief Yeoman Warder and the escort were coming through the Bloody Tower archway. The shock and the noise of the bombs falling blew over the escort and the Chief Yeoman Warder, but they stood up, dusted themselves down, and carried on. The Tower holds a letter from the Officer of the Guard apologising to King George VI that the ceremony was late, along with a reply from the King which says that the officer is not to be punished as the delay was due to enemy action

taken from wiki.. How British! Very interesting thanks for that never heard of that.. Speaking of which the "keep calm" thing.. They were originally war posters from the 2nd? World war in reference to the bombs in London.. Simply stating that if u heard the siren and bombs would go you woul keep calm (go to bunkers etc) and afterwards carry on. Part of the great British spirit

 

[fantastica]

The Queen has sovereign immunity?

Its another one of those loophole things.
In the beginning the queen would have immunity because she is head of state so therefore owns the crown Prosecution, prisons and courts but if it was something really bad the government can force a abdication and with public backing that the media has no heir would assend and the crown courts would revert to the government and the government can prosecute her.
Like I say its all done in a way that no one has more power over the other and either can act in extreme circumstance to protect the country.

Even though they can force abdication, she still technically has immunity, which is not right. And surely if a king or queen had enough sway with the government then they wouldn't force it anyway. I guess if it was extreme then there would be some kind of revolution and we'd overthrow them, but surely it kind of prevents her being prosecuted for anything else? You'd have to have enough evidence to force an abdication to even allow her to be charged, which for more minor things would never happen.

 

[smokey]

One other thing tho.. I can't remember it all fully and tbh this doesn't have much to do with the question but i find it interesting.. There is a certain time when the queen is allowed into parliament/commons. During that time there is a ceremonial door shut in her face as a sign that she has no right in parliament. Obviously it is staged as such but still.. What a funny country we live in!

Its called opening season, its not actually the queen that gets it slammed in her face but Black rod, her messenger.
The monarch hasn't been into the house of commons since 1642 so sends their messanger to to open the season of commons which gathers all the mps and lords together.
The door is slammed as a reminder that they have the right to exlude anyone but then is reopened to show acknowledgment that that exlusion doesn't apply to the soveriegns messengers.

The Queen does attend for ceremonial purpuses but doesn't actualy go int to the house of commons but instead remains elsewhere.
The part of the ceremony I find funny is when she travles their each year they have to send a MP as hostage to Buckingham palace to be flogged and beheaded if the monarch isn't returned
Its back from when the government and monarch didn't get along

Thanks I couldn't remember it all but I knew it was something like that.. Tbh I find stuff like that fascinating! Imagine an mp getting beheaded these days lol.... We are such a funny country at times no wonder all the tourists want to come..

Look up ceremony of the keys at the tower of London, That's one of my faverites

As with many events of ceremony in the United Kingdom, it takes some significant outside influence to interrupt the Ceremony of the Keys. The one time when the ceremony was interrupted was during the Second World War, when there was an air raid on London, and a number of incendiary bombs fell on the old Victorian guardroom just as the Chief Yeoman Warder and the escort were coming through the Bloody Tower archway. The shock and the noise of the bombs falling blew over the escort and the Chief Yeoman Warder, but they stood up, dusted themselves down, and carried on. The Tower holds a letter from the Officer of the Guard apologising to King George VI that the ceremony was late, along with a reply from the King which says that the officer is not to be punished as the delay was due to enemy action

taken from wiki.. How British! Very interesting thanks for that never heard of that.. Speaking of which the "keep calm" thing.. They were originally war posters from the 2nd? World war in reference to the bombs in London.. Simply stating that if u heard the siren and bombs would go you woul keep calm (go to bunkers etc) and afterwards carry on. Part of the great British spirit

Completely off topic but when I was in labour with LO the nurse said to me "you don't shout and scream much like most of them do you?" to which I replied with a growl "im British dammit, I just get on with it" (gotta love gas n air, makes you say the most stupid of things)

 

[smokey]

The Queen has sovereign immunity?

Its another one of those loophole things.
In the beginning the queen would have immunity because she is head of state so therefore owns the crown Prosecution, prisons and courts but if it was something really bad the government can force a abdication and with public backing that the media has no heir would assend and the crown courts would revert to the government and the government can prosecute her.
Like I say its all done in a way that no one has more power over the other and either can act in extreme circumstance to protect the country.

Even though they can force abdication, she still technically has immunity, which is not right. And surely if a king or queen had enough sway with the government then they wouldn't force it anyway. I guess if it was extreme then there would be some kind of revolution and we'd overthrow them, but surely it kind of prevents her being prosecuted for anything else? You'd have to have enough evidence to force an abdication to even allow her to be charged, which for more minor things would never happen.

Yeah ok but come on whats the queen going to do to begin with that would threaten her entire family history and future heirs that wouldn't be severe enough to warrant forced abdication, shoplift?
Also it doesn't have to be that bad, like I say her uncle was forced to abdication just for wanting to marry a divorced American, he choose her over being king in the end.

 

[hayz_baby]

One other thing tho.. I can't remember it all fully and tbh this doesn't have much to do with the question but i find it interesting.. There is a certain time when the queen is allowed into parliament/commons. During that time there is a ceremonial door shut in her face as a sign that she has no right in parliament. Obviously it is staged as such but still.. What a funny country we live in!

Its called opening season, its not actually the queen that gets it slammed in her face but Black rod, her messenger.
The monarch hasn't been into the house of commons since 1642 so sends their messanger to to open the season of commons which gathers all the mps and lords together.
The door is slammed as a reminder that they have the right to exlude anyone but then is reopened to show acknowledgment that that exlusion doesn't apply to the soveriegns messengers.

The Queen does attend for ceremonial purpuses but doesn't actualy go int to the house of commons but instead remains elsewhere.
The part of the ceremony I find funny is when she travles their each year they have to send a MP as hostage to Buckingham palace to be flogged and beheaded if the monarch isn't returned
Its back from when the government and monarch didn't get along

Thanks I couldn't remember it all but I knew it was something like that.. Tbh I find stuff like that fascinating! Imagine an mp getting beheaded these days lol.... We are such a funny country at times no wonder all the tourists want to come..

Look up ceremony of the keys at the tower of London, That's one of my faverites

As with many events of ceremony in the United Kingdom, it takes some significant outside influence to interrupt the Ceremony of the Keys. The one time when the ceremony was interrupted was during the Second World War, when there was an air raid on London, and a number of incendiary bombs fell on the old Victorian guardroom just as the Chief Yeoman Warder and the escort were coming through the Bloody Tower archway. The shock and the noise of the bombs falling blew over the escort and the Chief Yeoman Warder, but they stood up, dusted themselves down, and carried on. The Tower holds a letter from the Officer of the Guard apologising to King George VI that the ceremony was late, along with a reply from the King which says that the officer is not to be punished as the delay was due to enemy action

taken from wiki.. How British! Very interesting thanks for that never heard of that.. Speaking of which the "keep calm" thing.. They were originally war posters from the 2nd? World war in reference to the bombs in London.. Simply stating that if u heard the siren and bombs would go you woul keep calm (go to bunkers etc) and afterwards carry on. Part of the great British spirit

Completely off topic but when I was in labour with LO the nurse said to me "you don't shout and scream much like most of them do you?" to which I replied with a growl "im British dammit, I just get on with it" (gotta love gas n air, makes you say the most stupid of things)

Love it! You earned you cup of tea! when I got my belly pierced I was told to "lie back and think of England" apparently they used to tell that to Victorian girls before they lost their virginity as obv it can be a little uncomfortable...