What does the monarchy actually do?
370120
Basically they fulfil the same duties of a head of state, with ceremonial and the role as head of the military and the Church of England being important elements in the UK. The Queen also has to give her assent (nowadays a mere formality) to formally bring a law into force. As you may have seen on the recent BBC programmes, she also acts as a sort of confidential 'sounding board' to political leaders.\n\nI agree, I would like to see a Monarch with more power, although our constitution doesn't alas allow this (politicians are increasingly more interested in what's best for them and their popularity than in the country!) . I seriously think we should have an Executive Monarch, like the US has an executive President... and who knows, useless heads might really roll then! :-)
936786
That's an interesting question. Are you referring to Her Majesty's immediate family?\nThe list of successors to the throne is very long. (Too long to list them all here, in fact.) So, unless every person on the list died, someone would succeed Queen Elizabeth to the throne.\nIf all the successors somehow died, it would be tragic, to be sure. But the British government would continue to function, without missing a beat. This is because the royal family no longer wields any real political power.
1162451
The power of the royal family in England has been declining steadily ever since the Magna Carta.  Nowadays, the royal family has almost no say in anything whatsoever.  They can, however, make speeches to appeal to the masses, although this tactic for control has almost never been used.  The queen can suggest things to the prime minister, and in certain cases it would be impolite for him to refuse (like asking him over for tea), but the monarch cannot order the prime minister to do anything.
1157934
How much money do they generate in tourist dollars??? Do you remember Princess Diana's funeral and the days leading up to it???Remember the flowers??? Do you remember the recent death of HRH the Queen Mother? Do you rember all the Royal Weddings, even the most recent between Prince Charles and Camillia? Even when no Royal function is on, there are things like "The Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace", the many events surrounding Royal tradition...even visitations to the Bloody Tower and seeing the Crown Jewels. Yearly we are talking Millions...with or without a major Royal Function taking place...thier mere presense generates cash like no other individual action in the UK. Although the upcoming Olympics might generate more cash for a bit, it will also generate more money still because with or without the games...the Royal Family will still be there.\n\nGod Save the Queen!!!\n\nBp. David
576222
The queen (elizabeth)
350864
It's not just about England, but any "commonwealth" country.\n\nQueen Lizardbreath II earns her living by dressing in outrageous clothes, walking around in public, lying on her back and fcuking to produce children.  She's an overpaid prostitute.\n\nThe only kings in the world who don't have their heads up their asses and do some good are those in Bhutan and Thailand.
321603
a dictator comes to power from the outside,military or sometimes elected and then thake total control, a monarchy come to power through bloodlines, kings ,queens, princes,etc. and hands it down to the next generation. Most believe the were given the absolute rigt to rule from god. the outcome from both is always the same, the rule through fear
667314
Below is a link to the official website of the British Monarchy, specifically a page that gives you the whole history of all it's monarchs. Have fun.\n\nMore importantly, Prince Harry is not the next in line. First is Prince Charles, the current Queen's eldest child. \nNext is his eldest child, Prince William. \n\nLike the person above said, seeing as how the members of the house of Windsor are quite long-lived, it's quite possible that Charles may never be king, even if he wanted to. It could very well pass directly to William if the Queen lives long enough and Charles doesn't.
1028107
A Monarch is usually not affiliated with any Political party.\n\nIn fact over in Britain the Queen and immediate members of the British Royal Family do not vote in Parliamentary Elections at all.
673863
well i am not a very big supporter of monarchy no matter whatever country it is in.\nbut you guys in britain should be glad that your royal family atleast doesnt messes with the government and its running.\n\nthough i agree with you that spending so much money on the royal family serves no purpose but sometimes somethings are just part of your history and you cant do away with them.\n\nmaybe you could try abolishing the monarchy after her death.
464529
Officially they hold none.  Most royals in England hold the same sway as top celebrities in the U.S. do.  The Queen's job is to entertain diplomats and world leaders who visit England.  Except for those in line for the throne English royals have no official royal duties.
981535
Storting, It is run by the people (Parliament) however the King HM King Harald has this power, after all the ministers are appointed by him.
404268
The Queen actually has no ruling power & her position exists merely due to our (UK) Constitutional Law. The Government could remove her power simply by stopping her income (but she & her family would still have a vast private income). The power she seems to hold is an illusion and only in existence because of historical precedence!\nIf she actually has no 'real' power we might ask why she even exists - this is an individual thing.\n\nThe simple fact is that the Queen & the Royal Family are excellent envoys & create more revenue than it costs the UK tax payer to maintain them!
445325
I'm the American son of a British father, so I hold dual national status and carry both US and UK passports. I am thus able to view this from both perspectives, I think, so I'll toss in my two cents/pence.\n\nThe Royals are indeed pointless in terms of actual power and general usefulness (the Queen is only the titular head of state and wields no real power that I can see -- and quite right too!) and they cost the British taxpayer an absolute fortune to house, clothe, feed and protect in the almost obscene luxury and style to which they are accustomed. \n\nThat said, they also bring in mega tourist dollars/pounds/euros and all the media attention associated with prestige, pomp and circumstance. I sometimes wonder if they are more beloved in the former British colonies than at home. Odd, that. Still, there are very clearly many Britons who remain loyal and supportive of the titular monarchy, even as there are many who would love nothing better than to see them deposed and made to work for a living. It is quite a conundrum, isn't it?\n\nAs to your query about why they interest people so much, your guess is as good as mine. I expect it's because we live in such a celebrity culture (on both sides of the pond and in most other modern, westernized nations, as well) and people just can't get enough of this sort of thing. It goes without saying that I am made nauseous by this fact, but I am hardly representative of either my fellow countrymen or those in the land of my forebears. \n\nFor what it's worth, I think the much-maligned Prince Charles is actually an intelligent and generally decent man with sound ideas regarding the environment, architecture, etc. His father is a complete jackanapes who puts his foot in his mouth on a regular basis. The Queen herself is okay with me, albeit as pompous and dowdy as a modern monarch could even dream of being. I always liked the late Princess Diana and was sorry for her tragic loss. I like Fergie, as well. Prince William seems a decent and responsible sort but Harry is trouble and will doubtless remain so, his training at Sandhurst notwithstanding.\n\nI'll not bother with the rest of the Royals and I expect you have your own well-formed views in any case. I think the best and fairest thing to do would be for the British people to hold a referendum on the desirability of the monarchy, literally a popular vote with an up or down verdict. I confess I would be very intrigued to see the end result. Please keep me posted, ok?
1095667
The native Australians think the same thing. The monarchy is a tradition, and a very expensive one at that. I would like to know why that tradition is upheld because they have no power. they are basically useless.
173947
No- Technically the Queen is the head of State, but she has no real power.\n\nIn Britain, the power lies in Parliament. When a General Election is called(every 5 years) we elect in each constituency a Member of Parliament who sits in the House of Commons on that constituency's behalf. Then the party that has an overall majority of members there is entitled to form a government (currently the Labour Party). The leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister (Tony Blair) and he/she forms a Cabinet, which deals with all of the major responsibilities, and proposes bills to Parliament.
764141
the Prince Consort\n\nor King if he is the ruler