Originally Posted by jjwales:
“
That's more true of the past than the present. And after the Queen's passing it will probably be even less true.”
Not necessarily. These things are very often cyclical, depending upon who is on the throne and what is going on elsewhere.
After WW1, there were concerns about the future of the British monarchy, in light of the events of WW1 and the fact that many European monarchs were deposed. There was a very real fear of revolution spreading from elsewhere in Europe.
King Edward VII had been a very popular monarch despite his reputation for womanising and free spending. After his death in 1910, his son George V was not so well-liked, albeit that he was a conscientious and far more frugal sort of King than his father had been. After WW1, he had to take steps to modernise and re-establish the monarchy's relationship with the British people and secure it for the future. He did this with quite a lot of success and ended up becoming a well-regarded King after all.
His own successor Edward VIII messed things up spectacularly, with his numerous affairs with married women and then made his decision to abdicate and it fell to his brother to deal with the crisis this created. George VI was another safe pair of hands, despite not originally destined to be King and and the present Queen has followed her own father's example in carrying out her duties conscientiously.
None of them have been perfect and there have been things they could each have done better but nor have any of them been tyrants - or profligate, without giving something in return.
I am not particularly a monarchist but I can see how a well-respected head of state can transcend politics and serve as a stable figurehead in times of national or international crisis. It remains to be seen what sort of King Charles will be. I don't expect him to be King for a very long reign but that is likely to be due to his age, rather than because the monarchy will be abolished. I think William looks to have the potential to be a very different and very modern monarch.
Apparently it costs the British taxpayer the princely sum of around 56p per head per annum to fund the monarchy. It's really not that much per head of population and there is ample evidence to show that the Royal Family does stimulate tourism, which generates a great deal of revenue for the country. As has been intimated already by others, it is worth reading about the revenue generated from the Crown Estates and paid by the Queen and what is paid as the Sovereign Grant to her.