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.

So UK lot. What's your thoughts on the Monarchy. Love it or loath it? Keep it or Get rid?

And why?

Don't see the point in changing it the queen's power is symbolic anyways.

Republican here, though actually more of a European federalist.

However have no real objection to keeping the queen, her power is limited, she is rather useful for tourism and perform quite a lot of diplomatic duties.

However i would like to see her purse from the tax payer reduced and i believe she could still perform her official duties on a much cut down estate. One huge residence is enough. Gift the extra royal residences to the people.

Otherwise like was mention on have i got news, since we give her money she is effectively receiving benefits so hit her with the new empty bed room tax.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Don't see the point in changing it the queen's power is symbolic anyways.

In theory this is true, but in a country with an unwritten constitution and a limited bill of rights nothing is concrete

Other: dictatorship. Just for entertainment value you should get an absolute-power dictator.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Don't see the point in changing it the queen's power is symbolic anyways.

Not true. Ask the Australians about the crisis in the 1960s or 1970s (not sure which decade) in which the Queen used her authority to bring down the elected government in a vote of no confidence (or something like that) Australians throw me a bone here!

And recently, in the UK, parliament is trying to get the monarch to push for a Royal prerogative on regulating press freedom in the UK. So it may be symbolic most of the time, but it stills looms in the background.

I'm happy with the Queen. Personaly I think she is quite cheap as heads of state go. Costs much less than a president (Not just USA, but places like France and Germany). She is also alot less of a problem than presidents and politicians can be. IMO there are advantages to having a non political head of state, as long as there power is very limited.

I predict this thread will be full of bickerings over costitutional nuances. Or more likely, people who want to sound worldly and intelligent spontaniously ejaculating redundant information in the guise of an argument.

OT - don't give a gak. I'm fine with a constitutional monarch (who, by the way, does not have any powers at all, not even symbolic ones).

 BryllCream wrote:
I predict this thread will be full of bickerings over costitutional nuances. Or more likely, people who want to sound worldly and intelligent spontaniously ejaculating redundant information in the guise of an argument.

OT - don't give a gak. I'm fine with a constitutional monarch (who, by the way, does not have any powers at all, not even symbolic ones).

Yeah, I kind of expecting that to happen as well.

 BryllCream wrote:
I predict this thread will be full of bickerings over costitutional nuances. Or more likely, people who want to sound worldly and intelligent spontaniously ejaculating redundant information in the guise of an argument.

OT - don't give a gak. I'm fine with a constitutional monarch (who, by the way, does not have any powers at all, not even symbolic ones).

See my above post. The Queen does have powers, she just chooses not to use them.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
I predict this thread will be full of bickerings over costitutional nuances. Or more likely, people who want to sound worldly and intelligent spontaniously ejaculating redundant information in the guise of an argument.

OT - don't give a gak. I'm fine with a constitutional monarch (who, by the way, does not have any powers at all, not even symbolic ones).

See my above post. The Queen does have powers, she just chooses not to use them.

No, the queen is a slave to the constitution. The fact that she *does* things doesn't mean she has a power over them.

I am aware of the money that the royal family generates through tourism and such, and although I dislike the amount of media coverage the family gets, I also understand that it would simply be spent on some other largely overblown celebrity family/group otherwise. I don't really understand the fascination over them. They're just unremarkable people born into remarkable positions.
Really, I'd be filled with complete ambivalence if it weren't for the fact that I find the idea of a monarchy, and nepotism in general, to be distasteful, and that the royal family is a symbol of an era where people were greatly oppressed, romanticism aside.

I like to think it helps distinguish Canada from the US.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
I predict this thread will be full of bickerings over costitutional nuances. Or more likely, people who want to sound worldly and intelligent spontaniously ejaculating redundant information in the guise of an argument.

OT - don't give a gak. I'm fine with a constitutional monarch (who, by the way, does not have any powers at all, not even symbolic ones).

See my above post. The Queen does have powers, she just chooses not to use them.

No, the queen is a slave to the constitution. The fact that she *does* things doesn't mean she has a power over them.

Never thought I would write this, but I need an Australian!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

The governor general, being an agent of the Crown, is acting on behalf of the Queen.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Don't see the point in changing it the queen's power is symbolic anyways.

Not true. Ask the Australians about the crisis in the 1960s or 1970s (not sure which decade) in which the Queen used her authority to bring down the elected government in a vote of no confidence (or something like that) Australians throw me a bone here!

And recently, in the UK, parliament is trying to get the monarch to push for a Royal prerogative on regulating press freedom in the UK. So it may be symbolic most of the time, but it stills looms in the background.

Ehhh sorta, the governor general, Kerr (pronounced like cur, and incidentally a hilarious name for the man who kicked out a quite well loved, at least according to everyone I know, prime minister), it was, I believe, similar to the debt ceiling thing the yanks have, and the opposition kept blocking it in the senate (The second house the bill goes to) trying to force whitlam to call an election, but he didn't, eventually he got dismissed by the governor general. That is a really concise, what-i-vaguely-remember-from-grade-12 description, use wiki for a bit more info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis), but it wasn't the queen who did it, but the queen's 'representative' which doesn't really mean he phoned QE asking 'do I hit him now?', more he just had the power to do that as well as dissolve the parliament pending elections.

I don't believe Kerr conferred with Queen Elizabeth on the subject, but again, this is just recall from grade 12 (what, 5 years ago?)

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
I predict this thread will be full of bickerings over costitutional nuances. Or more likely, people who want to sound worldly and intelligent spontaniously ejaculating redundant information in the guise of an argument.

OT - don't give a gak. I'm fine with a constitutional monarch (who, by the way, does not have any powers at all, not even symbolic ones).

See my above post. The Queen does have powers, she just chooses not to use them.

No, the queen is a slave to the constitution. The fact that she *does* things doesn't mean she has a power over them.

Never thought I would write this, but I need an Australian!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

The governor general, being an agent of the Crown, is acting on behalf of the Queen.

That's not so much a power as a constitutional mechanism.

Has anyone ever found out if the Queen is a reptilian? As that may change my stance in this thread.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
I predict this thread will be full of bickerings over costitutional nuances. Or more likely, people who want to sound worldly and intelligent spontaniously ejaculating redundant information in the guise of an argument.

OT - don't give a gak. I'm fine with a constitutional monarch (who, by the way, does not have any powers at all, not even symbolic ones).

See my above post. The Queen does have powers, she just chooses not to use them.

No, the queen is a slave to the constitution. The fact that she *does* things doesn't mean she has a power over them.

Point is she can not be 'slave' to an unwritten constitution, and one of tenants that we claim make up our uncodified constitution is royal prerogative, and Charles has said on several occasions he would consider using Royal Assent to veto certain bills if he were monarch.

We have an incredibly and sometimes worryingly flexible constitution, thankfully the supremacy of European law has somewhat made it a 'partly' written constitution. But the queen is certainly not a slave to it, now it seem stupid that she would ever use her powers to veto things, but then the idea of an unelected second house is pretty stupid on the same level.

I see it rather simply.

I don't trust politicians to line their pockets as much as they are able during their term in office.
I'd trust the queen to be above scandal more than I'd trust a peesident.

 Salad_Fingers wrote:

Point is she can not be 'slave' to an unwritten constitution, and one of tenants that we claim make up our uncodified constitution is royal prerogative, and Charles has said on several occasions he would consider using Royal Assent to veto certain bills if he were monarch.

We have an incredibly and sometimes worryingly flexible constitution, thankfully the supremacy of European law has somewhat made it a 'partly' written constitution. But the queen is certainly not a slave to it, now it seem stupid that she would ever use her powers to veto things, but then the idea of an unelected second house is pretty stupid on the same level.

The monarch can veto bills, but so what? The Speaker can refuse to open parliament, do you think that means that the Speaker has power or influence? Especially when, like the queen, he is specifically forbidden from doing so?

If Charles IV refused to sign a bill into law, there'd be a constiutional crisis - the end result being either the throne being passed onto William, or the abolishment of the monarchy entirely.

 BryllCream wrote:
If Charles IV refused to sign a bill into law, there'd be a constiutional crisis - the end result being either the throne being passed onto William, or the abolishment of the monarchy entirely.

I'm unfamiliar with the specifics on British government. Does the head of state truly have a veto power they are essentially forbidden to use? Also, is there some... procedure for removing someone from the throne, short of death or abdication?

 Ouze wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
If Charles IV refused to sign a bill into law, there'd be a constiutional crisis - the end result being either the throne being passed onto William, or the abolishment of the monarchy entirely.

I'm unfamiliar with the specifics on British government. Does the head of state truly have a veto power they are essentially forbidden to use? Also, is there some... procedure for removing someone from the throne, short of death or abdication?

Basically every law and bill passed in this country needs 'Royal Assent', in other words the monarch needs to approve it. This is pretty much a given, however there is nothing in law stopping the monarch using Royal Assent to veto legislation

Also there is no current constitutional basis for removing a monarch, hence as BryllCream said it would spark a constitutional crisis

 Salad_Fingers wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
If Charles IV refused to sign a bill into law, there'd be a constiutional crisis - the end result being either the throne being passed onto William, or the abolishment of the monarchy entirely.

I'm unfamiliar with the specifics on British government. Does the head of state truly have a veto power they are essentially forbidden to use? Also, is there some... procedure for removing someone from the throne, short of death or abdication?

Basically every law and bill passed in this country needs 'Royal Assent', in other words the monarch needs to approve it. This is pretty much a given, however there is nothing in law stopping the monarch using Royal Assent to veto legislation

Also there is no current constitutional basis for removing a monarch, hence as BryllCream said it would spark a constitutional crisis

Well there would be a lot of controversy if the queen decided to veto.

In theory the Royal prerogative in our Constitution grants the monarch the powers to...

Appoint the Prime Minister

Dissolve Parliament

Dismiss the Government

Withhold royal assent to legislation passed by the Houses of Parliament




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Salad_Fingers wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
If Charles IV refused to sign a bill into law, there'd be a constiutional crisis - the end result being either the throne being passed onto William, or the abolishment of the monarchy entirely.

I'm unfamiliar with the specifics on British government. Does the head of state truly have a veto power they are essentially forbidden to use? Also, is there some... procedure for removing someone from the throne, short of death or abdication?

Basically every law and bill passed in this country needs 'Royal Assent', in other words the monarch needs to approve it. This is pretty much a given, however there is nothing in law stopping the monarch using Royal Assent to veto legislation

Also there is no current constitutional basis for removing a monarch, hence as BryllCream said it would spark a constitutional crisis

Well there would be a lot of controversy if the queen decided to veto.

Indeed, probably worth noting it was last used in 1708

 Salad_Fingers wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
If Charles IV refused to sign a bill into law, there'd be a constiutional crisis - the end result being either the throne being passed onto William, or the abolishment of the monarchy entirely.

I'm unfamiliar with the specifics on British government. Does the head of state truly have a veto power they are essentially forbidden to use? Also, is there some... procedure for removing someone from the throne, short of death or abdication?

Basically every law and bill passed in this country needs 'Royal Assent', in other words the monarch needs to approve it. This is pretty much a given, however there is nothing in law stopping the monarch using Royal Assent to veto legislation

Also there is no current constitutional basis for removing a monarch, hence as BryllCream said it would spark a constitutional crisis

This often gets miss-read by Americans who don't understand the nature of unwritten constitutions. The monarch cannot deny Royal Assent to a bill, as to do so would destroy the very premise of Constitutional Monarchy. Similarly, there is no constitutional barrier to the Prime Minister instituting a tyranical dictatorship - it is simply not done.

So the monarch has the power to veto bills, the way that I have the power to take a gak on my boss's desk.

Although it is a small comfort to know that their is that barrier if we did have a prime minister try and pass a bill to make him PM for life.
Doubt that would be given royal assent.

I'm in favour of the Monarchy.

Something else interesting I find; even people who don't much like the Royal Family, or are in favour of being a Republic don't actively dislike the Queen.
I mean, it's pretty hard to actively dislike her, she's just a nice old lady; like everyone's favourite grandma.

On the whole, I'd be much happier keeping them around. It's not like they don't bring any benefit; and IMO it's far better than placing everything in the hands of the PM.

 Eetion wrote:
Although it is a small comfort to know that their is that barrier if we did have a prime minister try and pass a bill to make him PM for life.
Doubt that would be given royal assent.

Fair point. I do know the monarchy in Spain re-instated democracy after decades of fascism, and our own royal family does have a history of progressivism.

I have no issue with the Royal Family.
Honestly, as a historian, the fact that there's so much continuity there kind of appeals to me.
Besides, let's be honest; they serve a more or less decorational role these days, and there's something to be said for not becoming too much like France.
(I kid, French Dakkanauts, I kid)

As George Orwell once noted, a system with a separate head of state and head of government makes it very difficult for a Stalin or Hitler to come to power in the UK.

 Flashman wrote:
As George Orwell once noted, a system with a separate head of state and head of government makes it very difficult for a Stalin or Hitler to come to power in the UK.

Orwell would have had his opinion formed somewhat by his time in Spain during the civil war.