What Exactly does the Royal family do?

2007-05-31 16:32:39

#26

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6572|CH/BR - in UK

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
konfusion wrote:
liquidat0r wrote:
Oh, and they, (The Queen), have quite a lot of power to do 'things', they just don't really do anything.
Mainly because she'd be removed if she did, you muppet

-konfusion
Um no, it's happened in teh 1970 when the Gover General of australia (the Queen's representative) dissolved parliament when it couldn't agree.

http://www.australianpolitics.com/parli … tion.shtml

On the other hand, if she dissolved parliament when they all agree on something, or refuses to sign something, she will be removed. That's what I meant. Because she may be the Queen, but the moment she disagrees with the people who represent the people, she's outta there.

-konfusion

2007-05-31 16:39:03

#27

bullit: Tank Troll; +71|6712|London, UK

The Fulham Chairman whos son was the late dodi Al fayad boyfriend of the late princess of wales Diana was killed on the orders of the 'gangsta' Duke of edinburgh married to the queen, so you can say the order 'hits' to.

http://bf3s.com/player/175948227

2007-05-31 16:40:34

#28

Vernedead: Cossack; +21|6256|Albion

Mekstizzle wrote:
What i've always wanted to know is how we managed to get people treated as such in the first place. Let's go back in time, we were all cave dwellers and such. No real hierarchy there i presume. So where the hell, along the line, did a few people manage to get people to follow them and be servants and all that. In the beginning, how did one become the "chief" and all that crap. That eventually lead to the royal family. It just pisses me off, nowadays it's different (obviously) but i always think how the hell did this happen in the first place.

possesion is nine tenths of the law, royalty possessed big sticks hence they were the law. royalty came about because certain people were a cut above the rest at resolving issues with force. if you can't beat them....

2007-05-31 16:49:57

#29

T.Pike: 99 Problems . . .; +187|6305|Pennsyltucky

Kmarion wrote:
rambo43 wrote:
Do USA have a Royal Family?
Not for the last 231 years.

Great question.

Google Hawaiian Royalty, see what u come up with.

2007-05-31 16:52:05

#30

Chou: Member; +737|6813

^*AlphA*^ wrote:
trying to look important, here and there advice, traveling, using their face for public relations/getting stuff done/ Foreign relations

ohh and living from OUR taxes........

(for The Netherlands, House of Nassau)

QFT

2007-05-31 17:12:33

#31

Cheez: Herman is a warmaphrodite; +1,027|6461|King Of The Islands

Fools! The British Royal family is a sham. You should all know an Australian is meant to be King right now. He also has a Windsor caravan. Isn't it ironic? Bwhahahaha

My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.

2007-05-31 17:28:35

#32

IG-Calibre: comhalta; +226|6765|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

Mekstizzle wrote:
What i've always wanted to know is how we managed to get people treated as such in the first place. Let's go back in time, we were all cave dwellers and such. No real hierarchy there i presume. So where the hell, along the line, did a few people manage to get people to follow them and be servants and all that. In the beginning, how did one become the "chief" and all that crap. That eventually lead to the royal family. It just pisses me off, nowadays it's different (obviously) but i always think how the hell did this happen in the first place.

this will explain it

2007-05-31 17:41:01

#33

Skorpy-chan: Member; +127|6367|Twyford, UK

oug wrote:
rambo43 wrote:
WTF?! What makes them so damn royal
God.

Not since the 1600s. We had a civil war and killed Charles I because of his 'divine right to rule' schtick. Now they just do it because of heredity.
And under explicit orders not to try that again, lest we get the axe out again.

2007-05-31 17:45:04

#34

Pinto: Member; +13|6602

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Skorpy-chan wrote:
They Reign, is what they do.

The Queen also rubber-stamps stuff from parliament, provides authenticity to the money, collects art, bets heavily on winning horses, and acts as a moderator on politics.
The royal family also hold high ranks in the Army, draw attention to issues, rule a fair chunk of the world in a fairly direct manner, and perform upkeep on trading relations with the Commonwealth, as the british empire has been known since we deemed them able to govern themselves.

In response, what exactly does the US Congress do, apart from bicker and suck up tax dollars?

Nice, allow me to retort:

2007-05-31 17:53:40

#35

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6245|Escea

Cheez wrote:
Fools! The British Royal family is a sham. You should all know an Australian is meant to be King right now. He also has a Windsor caravan. Isn't it ironic? Bwhahahaha

Come to think of it I've heard that somewhere before. But anyway, I don't really know specifially what they do, more or less the Queen's face gets slapped on currency and Charlie ends up being an Admiral, General and Air Marshal, they must have been Christmas presents .

2007-05-31 17:54:02

#36

Ryan: Member; +1,230|6866|Alberta, Canada

They rock out to emo music.

2007-05-31 21:10:49

#37

sydroost: Member; +1|6263

That is bs about that aussie guy that reckons he should be king history shows us that the bloodline is correct. And that is why no one else can be a royal. It all comes down to the bloodlines of 1 family.

2007-05-31 21:20:09

#38

Andoura: Got loooollllll ?; +853|6661|Montreal, Qc, Canada

its bullshit... can i decide my family will be the royal one ??? they do shit and no one cares about them !

2007-05-31 21:37:00

#39

agent146: Member; +127|6409|Jesus Land aka Canada

rambo43 wrote:
Well? What do they do? Sit all day drinking tea?

well that is why some people say they are now reduced into being just figure heads. to me their are the counter parts of american celebrities/socialite. the Communist side of me says "LETS OVER THROW THEM"
We (canada, other common wealth nations) probabaly can renounce the Royal family and they will not do nothing other then complain that "its tradition". Its not like they are going to send Red coats on to us; at 100 years ago yes but not in 2007.

2007-05-31 21:46:49

#40

cospengle: Member; +140|6509|Armidale, NSW, Australia

M.O.A.B wrote:
Cheez wrote:
Fools! The British Royal family is a sham. You should all know an Australian is meant to be King right now. He also has a Windsor caravan. Isn't it ironic? Bwhahahaha
Come to think of it I've heard that somewhere before.

Yeah, some guy named Hastings, lives out back of Bourke... literally.

2007-05-31 22:23:35

#41

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6794|PNW

rambo43 wrote:
Well? What do they do? Sit all day drinking tea?

Get their dead mom's face plastered all over newspapers for years, join the military...yeah, all that easy stuff.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-31 22:24:00)

2007-05-31 23:27:30

#42

BVC: Member; +325|6718

Tourism for the UK, negotiating with other countries royals who'll only speak to royalty...for those of us in the colonies, a face for one side of our coins and thats about it.

rambo43 wrote:
Do USA have a Royal Family?

Yes, the rebel scum just refuse to acknowledge it!

Last edited by Pubic (2007-05-31 23:27:45)

2007-06-01 06:31:20

#43

=OBS= EstebanRey: Member; +256|6573|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

oug wrote:
fatherted13 wrote:
Figurehead of the nation, a massive part of our traditions too. Its hard for any of you who don't live in a Monarchy country, to understand how important they are.
It's hard for any of you who live in a Monarchy to understand how much better off the rest of us are.

Btw we kicked ours out years ago. Now he's Spain's problem
http://content.answers.com/main/content … Greece.jpg

The Royal Family's exsistence plays no negative part of my life so why would I be better off? And before you say it, the Royal Family costs me 61p a year (about a dollar) and I'm slightly more worried about wars, benefit cheats, illegal immigrants that cost a whole lot more than that! I would also guesstimate that the amount she brings in Tourism puts me in a better position economy-wise if not directly.

2007-06-01 06:45:56

#44

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6604|SE London

They generate a massive amount of tourism revenue. Far more than they cost the tax payer. Meaning the country makes a net profit from having them. Act as a figurehead. All sorts of things. We're certainly better off with a royal family than without one.

2007-06-01 06:48:04

#45

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6469|Chicago, IL

The royal family owns huge tracts of land, which they profit off of, and pay taxes on, so they certainly don't cost the government anything.

2007-06-01 06:53:01

#46

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6604|SE London

S.Lythberg wrote:
The royal family owns huge tracts of land, which they profit off of, and pay taxes on, so they certainly don't cost the government anything.

Actually, they don't have to pay tax, although they voluntarily pay some taxes, like VAT. They also have a head of state allowance and get paid for state functions, by the state. This amounts to some 100s of millions of pounds a year. But is outweighed by the revenue they generate.

2007-06-01 06:56:25

#47

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6469|Chicago, IL

Oh well, I paid $63.14 in state taxes, and only owed $63.13, so I gave the state more than they deserved anyway.

As for the UK, just having Buckingham Palace generates hundreds of millions in tourism dollars, so don't complain about royalty.

2007-06-01 06:58:25

#48

=OBS= EstebanRey: Member; +256|6573|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

I like how some Americans are complaining that the Royals aren't voted in, as if anyone can become the president of the USA. Do you think an athiest would ever get in the White House?

2007-06-01 06:59:12

#49

jord: Member; +2,382|6701|The North, beyond the wall.

They also Knight people.

If i spelt it right.

2007-06-01 07:00:32

#50

=OBS= EstebanRey: Member; +256|6573|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

Bertster7 wrote:
S.Lythberg wrote:
The royal family owns huge tracts of land, which they profit off of, and pay taxes on, so they certainly don't cost the government anything.
Actually, they don't have to pay tax, although they voluntarily pay some taxes, like VAT. They also have a head of state allowance and get paid for state functions, by the state. This amounts to some 100s of millions of pounds a year. But is outweighed by the revenue they generate.

Actually, the Royal family costs 37 million a year (hence the 61p figure), I don't where you're getting this "100s of millions bit" although we are actually agreeing,

BF2S Forums What Exactly does the Royal family do?

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

konfusion wrote:

liquidat0r wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

rambo43 wrote:

^AlphA^ wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

oug wrote:

rambo43 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Skorpy-chan wrote:

Cheez wrote:

rambo43 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Cheez wrote:

rambo43 wrote:

rambo43 wrote:

oug wrote:

fatherted13 wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Board footer