What is the Monarchy For?

I'm a Republican, Luckygirl ( in the British sense, not the American) and I have wondered this for some time.

This is just more propogandait reinforces the view of mainly English people that monarchy is essential which clearly it’s not.
I have always been a republican and I,m sick of not being able to pickup a magazine or turn on my TV without some nonsense about Harry and his (apparently) domineering ,lying wife? Or the vile Andrew and the fact that his MOTHER paid millions to prevent him facing justice in the US,
Let’s not forget whether or not Megan is a liar is not proven the rest of the RF are collectively money grabbing ,attention seeking …note Charlie and his late wife wrote tell all books.
Parasites each and every one ….and NO it wouldn’t cost more for an elected head of state and the tourists would still come without them.
The PR is relentless and there’s no such thing as bad publicity so I guess the sheeple will still believe it’s a god given right that they should be there My opinion? The French got it right!,

There is no point in a Monarchy. None at all.

It just seemed quite bizarre to title a programme in this way by posing a question which the programme made no attempt to answer!

No need for them at all just living a very very rich life off our backs

l thought Dimbleby gave an analysis of the influence, wealth and power of the monarchy in order that the viewer had the information to deduce what they thought the monarchy was for.
To stimulate thought and discussion, rather than spoon feed.

I thought it was very well done. I've always liked David Dimbleby and was surprised to see how open minded he was on the subject, given his many broadcasting roles on royal occasions. I wonder if there are any disagreements with his brother on this subject, because Jonathan Dimbleby is very in with the royals.

What I found surprising - and annoying - was the revelation that the royal family has, in effect, complete control over what film footage can be kept by the BBC - don't know if the same applies to other networks. It appears that David Dimbleby was also unaware of this - and was somewhat bemused by it.

The programme illustrated quite effectively that the media is being used as propagandists for the royal family, rather than just as conveyors of news. While it is probably inevitable that different sorts of bias occurs in news reporting, the extent to which it occurs in relation to this family is pretty damning, in my opinion. And, as was reported, there is also a huge PR machine in operation that directs and vets everything which relates to the royal family.

I am a republican but have to accept that many people are great fans of our monarchy (though the younger generations are definitely less enamoured). I certainly think that far too much money is paid to them for the upkeep of far too many homes. I definitely think the whole institution should be pared down, as it is in many other countries.

I think that the question was answered by the very fact there was no answer.

Nothing.

In future, I think that Elizabeth will be looked upon as the last of the old style monarchs, Charles as a transition King and William - if the monarchy survives as the first of new style monarchs.

But - honestly - they serve little purpose.

OldFrill

l thought Dimbleby gave an analysis of the influence, wealth and power of the monarchy in order that the viewer had the information to deduce what they thought the monarchy was for.
To stimulate thought and discussion, rather than spoon feed.

I thought all three programmes were interesting.

Regarding deleted footage, I suppose it’s the Royals way of ‘airbrushing’ stuff they don’t want viewed again, i.e. family being upset at the the late Queen’s funeral.

I think that’s a mistake. Nothing wrong with Edward being seen using his hanky to wipe away tears.

It was his mother’s funeral, monarch or not.

If anything, things like that make them much more relatable to us, the general public.

I am glad to see this raised here. It is appalling to think that the Royal family don't pay inheritance tax and even worse that they charge the NHS to use buildings. Why do we put up with their greed and privilege? I am furious about the advantages they take.

I've not seen the last episode but I thought the second one about their wealth was very interesting. They need to be properly taxed, royals living in properties owned by the state need to pay rent and the Sovereign grant needs to be adjusted down.

Yes but what's the alternative? Trump or Putin style presidency?

If and when I think about it, I feel that a slimmed down Monarchy as we are told happens in Scandinavia would be a step in the right direction.

The purpose the Royals serve is the role of a constant celebrity. When Princess Anne, who is a dutiful person, was visiting my town in Scotland a few months ago, people, including me, lined the street.

When Queen Elizabeth 11 died it was astonishing how people mourned.

Indeed, Grammaretto: the Norwegian monarchy is much loved, but is very low key compared to ours.

Another one who thinks the concept of a royal family is a waste of our money. I just don't get it as to why we still have one. I don't get it why so much newstime is taken up reporting what they're doing (them and other "celebrities"). I'd like the news to be taken up with what is actually happening - rather than reports of how a few people are leading their lives. I'd like our money to be used for us and not used to pay for having a royal family.

They're just people folks - same as we are...only better-known than we are. The only use I'm finding for them are they're a useful object lesson for watching what some people get up to/how they live their lives if they're in that sort of position. Right now I'm refining my knowledge of body language, for instance, with the way I've found a good channel on YouTube for analysing body language and it's useful watching his blow-by-blow analysis of what Me-egan is really thinking/feeling watching her every time she doesn't get her own way again - and watching that the current "saintly one" is more determined and canny than saintly (ie Catherine).

It all just promulgates the idea that some people are "better" than others/more deserving of money and power than others. As that isn't true = they are indeed a waste of our time and money and we could all think of uses for all that money taken up by the institution of royalty.

I am a monarchist, I have seen nothing to warrant me to change my mind.

Charles III is making changes, and when William is King I think there will be a definite shift towards the Scandinavian style of monarchy,

These changes cannot happen overnight, they are already happening with the slimming down of The Firm along with being more open regarding illness, and the expulsion of Andrew, and Harry.

We do have a slimmed down royal family, and the existing members do work. Many of the trappings of wealth they enjoy are not theirs to do with as they wish. I honestly do not begrudge it to them; envy is not one of my seven deadly sins.

They do remain a buffer between the state and the country and the prospect of an elected Head of Government turning into a Trump or Putin is very real. In his dealings with Trump Charles displayed his diplomatic skills, very similar to those of Edward VII keeping the Kaiser in check. It was not his fault that his actions were undone retrospectively, by the BBC.

People who imagine repossession of royal property and wealth would see it redistributed for the benefit of The People need to read history.

I suppose the question for me is, do you need a Head of State?

If the answer is yes, I’d rather have someone trained to the position than elected.

I think it’s a bit naive to imagine that an elected Head of State doesn’t take advantage of the position to enjoy and amass wealth and privilege. There’s a wealth of evidence to show that they do.

And it doesn’t seem so easy to get rid of them either, because of that wealth and influence they have acquired.

The trouble with elected people is that they are people who want and scheme for personal power and wealth and influence. It can’t ever bode well🤔

I was not asking to be spoon fed. But asking a question as a title and then making no attempt at all to think that through seems crazy. I am sure they could have come up with some purposes for the monarchy, some counter arguments to those claims, and some conclusions based on evidence.
We just got a rehash of the ups and downs of recent royal history, which we all know well, and one "revelation" about royal control of media which we could all have surmised anyway. I was hoping to hear some assorted viewpoints.
Why not call the programme The State of the British monarchy.

I think theur main purpose is to prevent superannuated politicians becoming President or Life President. Thatcher, Blair, Truss, anyone?

When I was doing A-Levels, back in 1960, I led a debating team against the local art college team. We were for "The Monarchy has little value and should be abolished!" I had thought artists were a radical, bohemian lot but the final vote went against us. They were a Conservative bunch it would seem.

The debate was held at the Art College. I have wondered now and then if we would have won, had the debate been held at my College of Commerce!

There’s no logical argument for a person being head of state by virtue of their parentage. There’s always the chance you’ll get a terrible one - King Andrew anyone? They just make a glorified soap opera in pantomime outfits for people to gawp at. The alternative isn’t only a Trump or Putin, it could be a David Attenborough or Mary Robinson type, and at least if on a fixed term they’d be gone in a few years. They don’t have any power anyway, they are just there to wave and host banquets and we shouldn’t have to bow and scrape to them.

Paddyann54

Andrew was never charged with any illegal wrongdoing and never will be. He's a pompous silly unlikeable man but having sex with a 17-year old in London isn't a crime here.

The photograph doesn't show her being afraid or traumatised - and in fact it was taken with her camera and at her request as she said that her 'Mom would be so thrilled to see her with a real English Prince'. All her words from her book that was published after her tragic death.
.

i am a royalist through and through and can't imagine what it would be like to not have a royal family.
who would be head of state if the royal family were abolished - nobody springs to mind and certainly not any prime minister.
the royal family (apart from certain members such as harry and andrew) do a great deal to keep britain in peoples' minds - to my mind they do a brilliant job.
we need the royal family as we've needed them for many hundreds of years.

Despite the negative comments above, one of the points is that they make ME very happy and I am proud to live in a monarchy and I do not begrudge them a penny. And what, exactly, is wrong with inherited wealth? I bet a huge number of Gnetters have benefited from the odd bob or two bequeathed by their parents or other relatives.