the UK makes money from the tourism but the queen doesn't have very much power
they bring in more money with the queen than they spend
No, there is no real need for a King or a Queen anywhere. Some countries are just stubbornly loyal to traditions, so they cling to such long outmoded things as royalty.
It's a constitutional monarchy so it kind of does
not if they CHANGE the constitution... it isn't NEEDED... we need air, water, food and shelter... govt? well there are many diff kinds... so the answer to "Does England NEED a King or Queen?" is no... no, they do not NEED one. they could change the constitution, set up another type of govt and NOT die... therefore it is NOT needed...
The U.K. has a written and unwritten constitution that uses customs from over a thousand years ago as laws today with one of those being that the current sovereign appoints the PM, royal assent, leader of the state religion, appease foreign leaders and throw parties, and the people there love them (most of them). By deciding to no longer have any royalty in their government would probably mean that the people no longer like any of the government and stage a revolution and since England isn't really liked by the Scottish they would split, same with northern Ireland. It's true that they are not a fundamental life source, but the same could be said about all government officials. The sovereign has A LOT of influence there so I'm sure they wouldn't be easy to get rid of
The people of U.K. seem to like it a lot (87% was the last figure I saw). They are not needed, but sometimes it's not about need, but rather wants and desires. Do you need your phone or computer? No, but do you want them? You tell me.
I'm not pro-Monarchy but prefer a Constitutional Monarchy to the alternatives I've seen. Republics don't seem to work any better, and sometimes seem to have even more problems
Constitutional Monarchy, no doubt in my mind
Isnt she like a symbol that provides morale to the people. Other than that...why kerp those freeloading knobs around
They spend millions on them every year for no reason.
Nope, it is all an exercise in futility and a colossal waste of tax payer money
Makes them feel good, gives continuity to their history, pulls in the tourists
First, every country has to have a head of state. We have the Queen. You once had G.W. Bush!<br />
The queen is the most experienced diplomat alive in the world today.<br />
In the circles that she works in she is respected by almost every other head of state, and love as an old friend by many. She smooth's the way to endless trade agreements that would otherwise never happen. <br />
She is cutting back now, but has worked tirelessly for this country al of her life.<br />
I am not a royalist, but I do believe in giving credit where it's due.<br />
Lastly, if we had to elect a head of state, we could end up with someone like Tony Blair, and worst, in the past we might have had Thatcher the evil old corpse.
The Queen is never involved in any trade or political machinations. It is due to the respect that most foreign heads of state have for her, and the facilities she has to make any visitor feel happy contented spoiled and very special, that when they meet our Prime minister next day, things are much easier to negotiate.
You may not like it, or want to admit it, but it's a fact.
This tiny group of islands have not been among the top ten most successful countries in the world, for most of our 2,000 year history by being stupid and needlessly wasteful.