Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Now I know that there are a diversity of opinions here on Dakka, all the way from me being a strong proponent of constitutional monarchy too all sorts of ideas. I personally, as aforementioned, am a strong proponent of constitutional monarchy, which in my mind will create a healthy balance between the will of the people, ie the Commons, and experience ie the Sovereign and Lords. I believe that the prime minister should be able to be a lord or a commoner, just as long as he/she is the most qualified. Also I do believe the Sovereign should be allowed to keep their conscience in mind when ruling. I am and idealist I admit that, but hey I live in a free country and can be. So please let me know what type you would find to be ideal and why. I will be happy to further clarify and outline my ideas on constitutional monarchy if any of you so desire, all you have to do is ask.

As an addendum I must also say that I do not believe that this form, or any one form for that matter, is ideal for every country. I am very much an adherent to Montesquieu's idea that each country is suited for one type of government, but not all types. So please keep that in mind, and please don't accuse me of wanting to bring a king/queen to the US as I have know that will never work, nor would I want it to.

Constitutional monarchy. Aka. pointless ceremonial bs while others run the country.

If the queen were ever to actually seriously use her suposed political powers in this country there would be so much of a gak storm royal ascot would look like a bomb had just dropped on it.

whatwhat wrote:Constitutional monarchy. Aka. pointless ceremonial bs while others run the country.

If the queen were ever to actually seriously use her suposed political powers in this country there would be so much of a gak storm royal ascot would look like a bomb had just dropped on it.

I'm reminded of Londo's statement to a friend, who was talking about the good old days-paraphrased: "These are not the good old days. If you tried that you would be dead before morning."

So answer the question? Or at least provide reasons why it wouldn't work, just saying it doesn't is not exactly a good response.

The irony of someone with the user name of Jeb Stuart defending monarchy is, well, ironical.

JEB_Stuart wrote:So answer the question? Or at least provide reasons why it wouldn't work, just saying it doesn't is not exactly a good response.

No, why don't you tell me why a ceremonial head of state is a good idea?

Good for tourism? Reason to have a "crown jewels" exhibit at the museum? Excuse to play Shakespeare?

Those are all GREAT reasons but nothing a giant Ferris Wheel couldn't substitute for.

Of course you forgot the all important "for Queen and Country" drinking salute. That right there is worth a couple of million of something.

Frazzled wrote:The irony of someone with the user name of Jeb Stuart defending monarchy is, well, ironical.

Maybe, he did fight for the "Aristocratic South" and the South was the bastion of Loyalists, but I digress. While it may be ironic, I don't mind, considering the fact that my life is one big irony....

whatwhat wrote:
No, why don't you tell me why a ceremonial head of state is a good idea?

Well there are quite a few good reasons.
1.He/She acts as a point of unity and commonality among the people. ie: the people have someone they can cling too that isn't bound by polls or politics.
2. He/She can help guide the current government, whatever its party, with his/her experience and broader scope.
3. Parliament passes a bill that isn't popular for the people, but they claim it is for their own good, the Sovereign can withhold royal assent in order to help protect the interests of the people.

These are just a few scenarios where such a position is good, and there are many more. Why do you, or Brits for that matter, have such a problem with the idea of a monarch being active in politics? The Queen has shown herself to be nothing if not professional and dedicated, as have your past several monarchs, minus Edward VIII, and many prime ministers have indeed claimed that her advice is never taken lightly. Why should the Monarch, as is right now, have less, that's right I said less, rights then any other person. The monarch currently can't express opinions, use their conscience or even try to do their job, ie help rule the country, because her own subjects are so terrified of the prospect that someone other then themselves might have power. Please don't say that you are afraid that she might become a tyrant or abuse her power, because that obviously isn't the issue considering your Parliament, your voice of the people, has turned Britain into a nanny state where its own people are more monitored then any other society on Earth. If abuse of power was what you were afraid of you would have booted Labour long ago. So please tell me why it can't work, because I am having trouble understanding why.

Just a note, I am not angry so please don't take it that way. I am frustrated because I am tired of people making blanket statements about my beliefs and not offering good rational arguments as a counter-point.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well there are quite a few good reasons.
1.He/She acts as a point of unity and commonality among the people. ie: the people have someone they can cling too that isn't bound by polls or politics

YES! And where would I and the most of the British public be where it not for the commonality between us and the queen.

JEB_Stuart wrote:2. He/She can help guide the current government, whatever its party, with his/her experience and broader scope.

Of course, and this happens all the time over here. It's ashame her "broader scope" only extends to etiquette and horse racing.

JEB_Stuart wrote:3. Parliament passes a bill that isn't popular for the people, but they claim it is for their own good, the Sovereign can withhold royal assent in order to help protect the interests of the people.

Did you know our queen had a choice to swear in gordon brown, some protection of our interests that was.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Why do you, or Brits for that matter, have such a problem with the idea of a monarch being active in politics?

Same problem I have with anyone who inherits power and is not elected in a democratic manner.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Why should the Monarch, as is right now, have less, that's right I said less, rights then any other person. The monarch currently can't express opinions, use their conscience or even try to do their job, ie help rule the country, because her own subjects are so terrified of the prospect that someone other then themselves might have power.

Well if she wasn't the monarch she wouldn't have that problem would she.

WHATWHAT for the win!

Live free or die baby.

Because with the US system, we can have a bloodless revolution every 4 years. 2 years if you overturn the House.

Anytime someone is appointed to anything For Life, is usually bad. You shouldn't even be elected Dogcatcher for Life. What happens if your old and your hip gives out? Then who catches the dogs?

Look at the US Supreme Court, some of them hang on way too long. And some of them stick around just because they're the opposite political views of the current President and don't want their seat on the highest court in the land (which, in theory is unbiased in its decisions) turned over to someone of the opposite political idealogy.