What is the purpose of monarchy in England...?
921765
The Monarchy serves as head of State in Great Britain (which includes England, Scotland and Wales), and Northern Ireland as well as several Commonwealth Countries, including Canada, Australia and several others.  Technically, the monarch is also the head of government as well (by constitution) but by tradition, it has evolved that the Prime Minister is head of government and the monarch is head of state.  The current monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, and she performs some of the same functions as the President of the United States as head of state (as opposed to head of government) which would include many ceremonial functions, as well as proclaiming bills into law.  It offers a different form of "checks and balances" that isn't available under the US system.  For instance, should a US President should fall as head of government, the head of state is also gone and government comes to a halt. In Britain, should the government fall, the monarch can come forward and ask another party to form government or call a general election.  If it is the former, then government can continue as before.  In countries like Canada (where I am), the monarch is represented  by the Governor General at the Federal Level, and the Lieutenant Governor at the Provincial Level (as opposed to a Lt Gov in the states, which is the state equivalent to a VP).  The person holding those offices perform the monarch's duties in its stead at the appropriate level of government.
791160
The state opening of parliament is the formal beginning of a new legislative session. It's when the government sets out its agenda for the next year. The queen - as head of state - reads out a speech written by the governing party describing what the government hopes to accomplish over the next year. The queen reads it because the governing party (currently the Labor Party because they control a majority of seats in Parliament), technically, governs in her name. The ceremony dates back to pre-tudor times when the king (or queen) had the power to call and dissolve parliament. The king (or queen) would start off each parliamentary session by telling the members what legislation he wanted parliament to act upon. Parliament would debate and then either pass or not pass the requested legislation, but the items on the agenda that parliament would vote on was decided by the king. Mainly, kings called Parliaments when they wanted to raise taxes to pay for wars or other expenses. If the king didn't like what parliament was doing or if they started considering matters he didn't want them to consider, he could dissolve Parliament and send them home. \n\nNowadays political power is firmly in the hands of elected Parliament, but the ceremony of the sovereign reading out the government's agenda continues.\n\nThe queen's family has nothing to do with the state opening of parliament.
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!
733948
sounds like the american Revolution?  \n\nYou need to find out all the things that are good about England and being part of british empire.   Talk about loyalty to king....talk ahat bout how the "patriots" are traitors that will be hung for their treason.  (you have to embrace and see it from the perspective of the loyalists)
381095
Constitutionally, the Queen is an essential part of the legislative process of her Realms. The Queen-in-Parliament (the Queen, acting with the advice and consent of Parliament), in each country, is an integral part of Parliament, along with the upper and lower houses. In all of her realms outside of the United Kingdom, her participation is limited to the appointment of representatives within the realm in question, usually a Governor-General, who exercise executive power in a fashion closely resembling her own exercise of power within the United Kingdom.\n\nIn practice, much of the Queen's role in the legislative process is ceremonial, as her reserve powers are rarely exercised. For example, the Queen may legally grant or withhold Royal Assent to Bills, but no monarch has refused his or her assent to a Bill since 1708. In realms outside of the United Kingdom the Queen will only grant assent to a bill when personally present within the realm, otherwise delegating the power to her designated representative in the realm. The Queen, or her Governors-General in the realms outside the United Kingdom, also gives a speech at the annual State Opening of Parliament, outlining the government's legislative agenda for the year, but the speech is written by government ministers and reflects the view of the elected government.\n\nThe Queen also has a functional role in executive government. In the United Kingdom, she chooses her prime minister in accordance with constitutional requirements. In her realms outside the United Kingdom, this power is exercised by her representatives. In reality no actual choice is required as the issue of whom to ask to form a government is clear from who controls the House of Commons, except in exceptional circumstances. She also decides the basis on which a person is asked to form a government. That is, whether a government should be formed capable of surviving in the House of Commons — the standard requirement — or capable of commanding majority support in the House of Commons — i.e., a requirement to form a coalition if no one party has a majority. This requirement was last set in 1940, when King George VI asked Winston Churchill to form a government capable of commanding a majority in parliament. This necessitated a coalition. The requirement is normally only made in emergencies or in wartime, and happened only three times in the 20th century: with Andrew Bonar Law and David Lloyd George in 1916 (Bonar Law declined and recommended King George V ask Lloyd George to form a government) and Churchill in 1940. To date Elizabeth has never set it. All her prime ministers have had to meet the lower requirement of simply surviving in the House of Commons. The Queen also appoints ministers of the United Kingdom and all government is carried out legally in her name.\n\nTheoretically she stills holds a large proportion of power in international affairs. The Queen, as Head of State, has the power to declare war and make peace, to recognise foreign states, to conclude treaties and to take over or give up territory on behalf of the United Kingdom. In her other realms she leaves the exercise of these powers to her representatives, who likewise exercise it at the behest of elected governments.\n\nUK Orders-in-Council are issued only when approved by her at Privy Council meetings, Canadian Orders issued only when approved by her Governor General-in-council. She has access to all government minutes and documentation from all her Realms, and has a weekly meeting with the British Prime Minister when the British parliament is in session. In the UK she also signs executive orders, financial and treasury papers, with her signature required on all major financial transactions of state (countersigned by the relevant minister). The role of Commander-in-Chief is held in each realm either by the Queen or by her Governor-General as her representative.\n\nOn three occasions during her reign the Queen has had to deal with cons
977628
The monarchy is larglely symbolic, so what does it matter if she is there or not?  As a matter of historical pride I don't think it would be a good thing to get rid of her.  They still have a democracy so what is the problem?
1041062
There has been talk in the past of doing away with royalty in the UK.  They no longer have any say in government affairs but they do serve a purpose, as good will ambassadors and someone for the rest of us to talk about ;-)
790685
yes all countries should be a republic\nwhy any one wants to be ruled by a king or queen is beyond me.\nlook how much it costs to keep them the are the biggest waste of money ever.\nin england you have a fair idea who will sit in the throne for the next 100 years. do you not think you should decide who is the head of your country.
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.
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?
734435
The title "Prime Minister" refers to the days when the Prime Minister's job was to minister to the Monarch who ruled the country. It's actually quite a derogatory title in its way! Nowadays, whilst the Prime Minister may be at the head of the government, ruling the country, they're still technically the Queen's Prime Minister, which is why they have to report to her on the political situation of the country. Technically the Queen still has the right to dissolve her government if she chooses, and the Prime Minister is technically still under her rule. I'm sure the country would be happy if she were to sack Tony Blair, dissolve the government and call a general election, but that's not really going to happen. It's more of a keeping of the traditions, because the monarch wouldn't use those powers, democracy being as important a principle to them as it is to the rest of the country.
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! :-)
815632
Yes, she is "the rightful" Queen of England.  No one can lay claim to her throne.  No one in her own family can touch the throne because of her direct descent from Queen Victoria to her father King George VI.  During the Coronation, with all the major heads of the European and Asian nobility there, she was declared the Rightful and Just, true Queen of England, the United Kingdom, etc.  No one interjected or tried to usurp her throne which had been in her family since at least the early 1800's.  If they haven't done it in 200 years now, I think her jobs safe.  Not to mention she was related to everyone there.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom
1037079
Ha Ha! Very funny!\nIf you really want to know, Nelson said, England expects every man to do his duty. \nThe reason England is called the mother country is that it spawned more colonies than any other country. Today, most of those colonies are independent nations and England is a rather insignificant player in international affairs, but it wasn't always that way!
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.
905760
In Britain Government and the parliament have the power Monarchy is just in name only to sign as per the advise of Government and Parliament.
390407
Constitutional Monarchy