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.

What exactly does the queen do? Does she have a place in parliment or does she just sit there and look pretty(if you take offense i dont mean too suggest someother thing more apporpriate). my teacher says that she intentionally stays out of parliment so her people dont hate when she decides on something.
OMG wrong place please move.

Our Queen (yes, Australia is part of the Commonwealth too) is mostly in a ceremonial role, but I don't really know the fine details of it. I know she can confer knighthoods and stuff.

The Queen's role is purely ceremonial.

She is head of state and head of the Church of England.

There are various things she does, such as opening and closing Parliament, inviting the winner of a general election to form a government, appointing peers and signing bills into Law. She does all these things at the request of Parliament. If she refused to do something, it would cause a Constitutional Crisis!

(Although Americans may think Britain is a bit fuddy-duddy in its constitutional arrangements, we did start the process of grinding down the monarchy in the 13th century and essentially completed it in the 1640s by becoming a republic.) We then invited them back on our terms, and had to forcibly exchange them (Glorious Revolution of 1688) when they didn't give proper satisfaction.)

The Queen is also head of state of a number of Commonwealth countries.

For myself I'm a republican, though Brenda has done such a good job I am happy to let her carry on for life. I would get rid of the royal family then.

I think most people are either pro-royals or don't care. Princes William and Harry have done The Firm a lot of good by appearing not to be dickish wasters.

If you are interested in constitutional monarchies you could also look at Norway, Spain and the other European ones, and at countries like Italy and Greece who canned their royal families in the course of the 20th century.

My understanding is the Queen stands between the mortals and God All Mighty. She keeps the sun shinning, the wheat growing and the sky from falling on our heads.

God save our gracious queen!

Um, she naps a *lot* then from what I recall of weather over the UK

I see, so she's essentially a really expensive pet.

Yes.

That's part of my complaint.

Places like Holland and Sweden manage to have a nice, middle-class royal family with much less expense incurred.

What do you think of the Danish royals?

Manchu wrote:What do you think of the Danish royals?

Cheese or Raspberry Danish?

As I see it the Queen is someone mostly ceremonial but she does have a moderately important role. She is the focus for patriotism for many groups and organisations such as the army who swear allegiance to her, this stops the prime minister from completely owning England and being able to just wage war with the army, the Queen gets to control them, they follow her orders over his.

The Queen is actually required to confirm any and all laws passed in the UK. If she says "no", it can't become law. However, if she says "no" she can also be removed, so she doesn't have much choice.

Interesting story I heard (not certain it is 100% true) is that back in Victorian times, so between 1850-1902, they passed a law banning gay and lesbian sex. However, whilst Queen Vic was willing to believe that two men might fiddle with each other's willies, it offended her sense of decency too much to accept that women might make love to one another and refused to ratify the law. Rather than have the constitutional crisis mentioned above, and have to get rid of a fairly popular monarch, Parliament re-wrote the law to refer only to gay sex between two men. Thus, apprently, lesbianism was legal for an awfully long time when male homosexuality was not.

I don't know the details of the above story, but if true it casts a light on the monarchy's role.

Fifty wrote:The Queen is actually required to confirm any and all laws passed in the UK. If she says "no", it can't become law. However, if she says "no" she can also be removed, so she doesn't have much choice.

Interesting story I heard (not certain it is 100% true) is that back in Victorian times, so between 1850-1902, they passed a law banning gay and lesbian sex. However, whilst Queen Vic was willing to believe that two men might fiddle with each other's willies, it offended her sense of decency too much to accept that women might make love to one another and refused to ratify the law. Rather than have the constitutional crisis mentioned above, and have to get rid of a fairly popular monarch, Parliament re-wrote the law to refer only to gay sex between two men. Thus, apprently, lesbianism was legal for an awfully long time when male homosexuality was not.

I don't know the details of the above story, but if true it casts a light on the monarchy's role.

Not quite, she just couldn't work out how they could have sex, since she liked to go mad on a certain german sausage and produce litters of children, the notion of scissor sisters was entirely alien.

The Queen actually still retains ultimate command over the armed forces and can technically overthrow and dissolve any government she sees fit. (I don't fancy her chances if she ever tried any of that though, although I've pondered her rising up to overthrow a fascist government, leading the troop against a V for Vendetta regime).

Technically she still put the boot in, but as mentioned this would cause no end of problems, which might not be so bad, as it would force people to reflect on why she'd got involved. his could then force a rethink on the issue that caused the problem. Kinda like the House of Lords, but with more effect.

Something else to remember is that the armed forces and the police swear allegiance to the "crown", this technically keeps them out of the control MP's, thus potentially stopping any dictatorships arising.

As an aside, there was a program a few years back that looked at the class system, which through up some interesting facts. The main one for me was about about Lords of the land. Using the Norman period as the time when Lords as we know them, the presenter pointed out that to become a Lord you had to be a ruthless SOB. You weren't some weak chinned prat, but a leader of men, who was ruthless in getting what they wanted and had a good grasp of the new emerging political system. These people also knew about breeding in a basic sense. Obviously over the years these lines have weakened and you get those chinless wonders, but I think you will find that the most of the top 10 Lords in this country still have these same qualities.

It used to be that being the son of a King didn't mean you'd get the throne automatically, it would go to the person who was thought best for the job.

Although I am not a Brit, my own political beliefs have led me to do much research and study on the legal question of the British Sovereign. Technically the Sovereign is not ceremonial at all. According to British Law, tradition and the major documents that make up their "constitution" the Sovereign is THE source of power and legitimacy in the United Kingdom. She is not just a person who sits there, in theory. Oh the days I could spend writing about the authority that the Sovereign really has at their disposal and how the government would probably function better and be more balanced...and yes, I suspect many people are going to trash this statement, but that is my opinion. All of you naysayers who complain about, "well she isn't elected," or, "its not fair," I have just three words: come off it. The PM isn't elected by the people, and besides, the current system as it is run is essentially a tyranny of the majority. If the British system were run properly, I think it would be much more balanced and effective... I wish the internet was a better medium to communicate my stances more clearly, but alas it is not. I just know this is going to piss people off...

Edit: I might also add that I am an ardent believer in many of Montesquieu's ideals and philosophies, which means that I don't endorse any one form of government in every country. I am also a romantic....

As a practical-minded American cynic, I officially wash my hands of this outdated demi-tyranny.

More to the point, however, as a naive and idealistic American (and a Virginian to boot), I find a lot more to fight for in a personal sovereign than an abstract one.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I just know this is going to piss people off...

Probably. I think its important to look past form and into practice, and account for the importance of tradition and culture, not just the letter of the law. While the Queen might be technically the head of state, she wields no power and determines no policy. If she were to pass away tomorrow there'd be much ceremony but policy wouldn't change at all. This makes her a figure head and nothing else.

I actually think having the figure head and symbol of the state seperate from the actual power of the state is a good thing. Much of the pride and nationalism of the US is tied up in the office of the President, and this leads to that debate about criticising the president versus respecting the office of the President. In constitutional monarchies, where the head of state is a non-political figurehead, we feel no qualms about getting stuck in and criticising the Prime Minister.

There's no doubt the Queen inspires a lot of affection and loyalty, even in people like me.

Being above party politics the royal family only draws opposition on class or democratic accountability grounds. That's why there is such a fuss when Prince Charles makes one of his edgy speeches.

As for the Danish royals, I don't know much about them. I assume they are another of the low-key royal families like most of the Europeans.

The Queen is simply a figurehead for our country. I'm happy to have a Royal Family, it instills a sense of pride and righteousness into the country (I find, when people see it), and overall is harmless. It is a tourist attraction, the Japanese love Buckingham Palace. It's also an ingrained part of our culture, which would be impossible to get rid of.

sA

Aye, good for tourism it is.

But until the late 1800's the monarchy had a LOT more power than they do now. The support of the monarchy was crucial if you where a PM and wanted decisions to be passed smoothly. Apparently Queen Victoria (coupled with the reign of Mad King George earlier) quite simply handed over a lot of power back to parliament.

Kilkrazy wrote:
As for the Danish royals, I don't know much about them. I assume they are another of the low-key royal families like most of the Europeans.

Their Princess is from Tasmania (where I live), and went to the same school that I'm attending now. That's all I know.

And so the Tasmanians slowly spread their corruption from one country to the next...

I feel very sorry for the tasmanian devils atm.

That is all.

I'm Pro-royal. Yes, they are expensive - but how much money does our royal history bring into the economy via tourism? A lot judging by the price of visiting the Tower of London (which IS brilliant, by the way...).The monarchy is part of the focus of our national pride - I say keep 'em.

God Save The Queen.

I like the queen, myself. She's harmless enough. Don't much rate her children though - not sure I could look at King Charles in the same way.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes.

That's part of my complaint.

Places like Holland and Sweden manage to have a nice, middle-class royal family with much less expense incurred.

Soudns like a good gig if you can get it. Where do I sign up? Can I be King of Williamson County?

Whilst the Queen (and by extension the rest of the Royal family) is largely there for ceremonial duties she also forms an integral part of the way the country is ruled and governed.

The Queen does indeed have the right to disolve parliament, rufuse and overturn laws, and to seize any and all land in the country in the name of the crown.

These rights are held by the monarch to ensure that her government does not step out of line, to back this up she is Comander in chief of all the armed forces, who are and always will be loyal to the Crown. When you join the Army you are required to swear an oath of alegience to the Crown, not the government.

The Queen does indeed instil a great deal of national pride in her subjects this is good for the morale of the country.

Although a small country in terms of geographical size, Britain is the 6th most popular country to visit in the world. A large part of this is due to the monarchy and the pomp and ceremony which surround them. For many a visit to Buckingham Palace to see the changing of the guard is essential.

So in terms of how much they cost us in taxes, it is relatively cheap when you consider how much we would lose in tourism were we not to have them

Long live the Queen!

Nope, she just sits with her family and nom's our monies

The Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 69p per person last year - an increase of 3p, Buckingham Palace accounts showed today.


The total cost of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5 million to £41.5 million during the 2008-09 financial year.



Palace accounts also showed that the Queen dipped into a reserve fund to boost her Civil List by £6 million.


This is the highest amount ever drawn from the reserve which comes from surplus Civil List money accumulated in the 1990s.






The total cost of the Queen's Civil List - which pays for the running of the Royal Household including staff salaries - was £13.9 million in 2008.

It was made up of £7.9 million from the Government and £6 million from the reserve.


The boost from the reserve accounted for 43% of the total.


This prompts speculation as to how much the Queen will ask the Government to increase the Civil List by when the current financial deal runs out in December 2010.


If she continues drawing on the reserve at the current rate, she will run out of funds by the start of 2012 - the year of her Diamond Jubilee.


The pot of money has gone down from £35 million to £21 million over the last decade.


The current deal - in which the Queen gets £7.9 million a year - was agreed by Sir John Major in 1990

most recent article I could dig up on the issue.

...so..costs us each about the cost of a can of coke... and the country pootles along alright still.... and it would, at the very least, be a long and very involved process to amputate and replace their essential Cons. role.... better things to worry about/spend money at the moment really IMO.

All in all the gradual shifting and alteration of their role as an ongoing project seems to be working well enough. If it aint broke etc etc.

The Queen is costing me a can of coke?


DEATH TO THE QUEEN!

Lord-Loss wrote:The Queen is costing me a can of coke?


DEATH TO THE QUEEN!

How dare you sugest Regicide, you sir are a bounder and a cad, upon my honour I shall call you out and demand satisfaction! Cricket bats at dawn!