Does the UK royal family have a jester?
489220
I don't think they do, but they certainly need one.
901073
I am a  royalist, but I am also a realist. I love the Royal Family for the way that they have gone on for over a thousand years. However, I am a realist in that I realize that in this day and age, they are mere figureheads, while in the days of old, their ancestors weilded great power, and helped shape England.
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! :-)
125237
ruled by a queen, Queen Elizabeth...What are u trying to ask nyway???
1030271
Katie P. you are one confused lady. First of all, it is miscenegation and it doesn't happen, secondly you are on the Royalty page, and I fail to see how this applies in any way shape or form to the royals.
846554
Is it fair that Prince William gets to be king and I don't?\n\nIs it fair to everyone else in the UK that their tax dollars go to support a family of unelected morons?\n\nLife isn't fair.  From where I'm sitting, Prince William is one of the luckiest of us.
1137290
Charles is heir to throne and I don't think he'd abdicate.  I think its wrong to say that nobody likes him, so he's made a few mistakes in life, haven't we all!  In my opinion this should make it easier for the public to relate to him and make him the peoples monarch.  I can't blame him if he wants to be George after his coronation, Kings named Charles don't really have a good track record in this country!  I hope that the public do accept Camilla as Queen, she is so supportive to Charles and makes him look happy and relaxed, isn't this what a Queen should do for the King?  It annoys me that people go on about how she's not the prettiest woman alive but as long Charles and Camilla and happy it doesn't really matter and they have my support!
812931
This is the crown\n\nhttp://24carat.co.uk/2002crownsgoldenjubileeframe.html\n\nThis is a sovereign\n\nhttp://www.taxfreegold.co.uk/2002goldenjubilee.html\n\nfrom your description I think you have a sovereign
634353
Interesting question. Now, we know that Prince Charles has someone who puts his toothpaste on his toothbrush for him, and hold the cup he pees into when he has to provide a sample, so it does follow that Her Maj does have a royal bumwiper.\n\nMaybe they get a Grace and Favour apartment at Buckingham Palace, and have a title like The Lady of The Anal Cleanliness.\n\nOr, more likely, some squaddie from the Household Division who has offended his Sargeant pulls the duty for punishment.
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!
529970
Got to be in Royal Family.
420072
The Royal family has certainly done a bang-up job to convince everyone that Royalty is an awful idea. For all the money the Royal family reportedly receives from the UK taxpayers, you would think there would be some way of keeping some sort of leash on them, especially when the nation is involved in a not too terribly popular war.\n\nNot that we are all that much better. During the Hostage Crisis, Billy Carter was photographed peeing on the tarmac at Dulles Airport. You have the whole Reagan family either prancing around or posing topless or saying that they hate each other. You have Barbara Bush, who was always much more popular than her husband, saying that black people should be happy to be able to live in the Oiler Dome. Don't even get me started on the Clintons from both sides of the family. And of course, who can forget the Bush twins?\n\nMaybe ... naw!
958597
Kings and Queens of which country??\n\nIn the olden days in some countries even brothers or cousins would seek to wrest the throne from each other.\n\nMany years ago the passage of the Monarchy became more civilised, following normal Line of Succession. Since 1700/1701 the Line of Succession follows that set down in the Act of Settlement as recently revised.\n\n>Can Royalty be evicted into the streets and some one else rule?\n\nWell, not necessarily into the streets. Just check what actually happened in Russia about 1918.\n\nAnd it might be said that "William the Conqueror" (also known by less flattering names) did take the Throne of England by conquest and crowned himself as King.\n\nUsually, though, there is an orderly succession. This is good. It provides stability for the country. Unlike countries who have a new head of state every four or eight years.\n\nThe UK's Royal Family has been in the "business" for over 1,000 years.
286969
They are just exotic enough to be interesting and not so exotic to be off-putting.  \n\nWe don't have anything like royalty in our country.  (The current Kennedys just aren't that glamorous and Hollywood stars come and go)  The trappings of royalty and the nobility fascinate a lot of Americans, probably because we don't have knighthoods and huge fairy tale TV weddings. \n\nBut we don't really pay attention to anybody else's royals either. I think we're comfortable with the English because we share a language and a history with you.  Nobody really wants Queen Elizabeth as a figurehead at the top of our government, but we can't help but feel we have some claim to her too.
968179
Firstly and most crucially, the royal family DOES NOT live off the taxpayer. HRH Queen Elizabeth II is the owner of crown property (ie the Duchy of Lancaster). The tax which the government receives from the residents and businesses in the duchy itself is collected and a portion of that tax money is given to the queen herself. In essence, it is the monarchy which subsidizes the government NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.\nFrom this income, she must pay her staff and the other royals who are on the Civil List.\nThis nonsense that the British royal family lives off the taxpaying public is mere tripe. You can debate the merits of giving any portion of the taxes the government receives frmo the Duchy of Lancaster to the British Royal Family but you can't debate what constitutes fact.\nHope that helps.
652927
yes.  Depending on the country you are interesred in, the royals have studiously compiled geneological tables, pedigrees, if you will.  In England, Debreet's; Germany, Almanac de Gotha; Spain, something medieval sounding;  also,  Italy, Russia, and what was once Catholic Hambsburg Austria do not correspond to the title prepecedence of contemporary England.  For example, a Russian Arch-Duke will out-rank an Italian Prince, it's more semantical/translative in nature than hierachical.   But then Queen Victoria did allow herself to become Empress of India before her daughter was crowned Empress of Prussia.  One could surmise she wanted to ride in the first coach,first.   But, yes the royality of Europe, irrespective of position is well documented and easily located on the web.
151620
An officer formerly attached to a king's household, whose business it was to amuse the court by ludicrous actions and utterances, the absurdity being attested by his motley costume. The king himself being attired with dignity, it took the world some centuries to discover that his own conduct and decrees were sufficiently ridiculous for the amusement not only of his court but of all mankind. The jester was commonly called a fool, but the poets and romancers have ever delighted to represent him as a singularly wise and witty person. In the circus of to-day the melancholy ghost of the court fool effects the dejection of humbler audiences with the same jests wherewith in life he gloomed the marble hall, panged the patrician sense of humor and tapped the tank of royal tears.\n\nThe widow-queen of Portugal\nHad an audacious jester\nWho entered the confessional\nDisguised, and there confessed her.\n\n"Father," she said, "thine ear bend down —\nMy sins are more than scarlet:\nI love my fool — blaspheming clown,\nAnd common, base-born varlet."\n\n"Daughter," the mimic priest replied,\n"That sin, indeed, is awful:\nThe church's pardon is denied\nTo love that is unlawful.\n\n"But since thy stubborn heart will be\nFor him forever pleading,\nThou'dst better make him, by decree,\nA man of birth and breeding."\n\nShe made the fool a duke, in hope\nWith Heaven's taboo to palter;\nThen told a priest, who told the Pope,\nWho damned her from the altar!\n—Barel Dort