Happy Birthday Queen Elizabeth!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrashaholic

So what if it was 300 years ago, the power is still there, and, to be fair, the royal assent sentence wasn't really the main thrust of my argument, or even a secondary or tertiary thrust.

---

A power which cannot be used, is not a power. Blair's government, to date, has passed 19 bills which have restricted or dissolved ancient rights of liberty and the Queen hasn't so much as coughed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrashaholic

All republicans seem to like doing is ignoring the good the royals actually do for us and continue to incorrectly and hilariously spout the same old turgid garbage arguments for abolishion like: "all she does all day is sittin' on 'er fat arse doing nuffink", or "she don't have no power, so what's the point?". Unfortunately they never seem to grasp that a president would end up doing exactly the same job, except that they'd cost a lot more, do vastly less of the charity work and we'd have to have yet another load of elections that large swathes of the population can not turn up to and Labour can commit postal vote fraud for.

---

I think the fundamental argument that republicans would put forward is to challenge the idea that one person, born in the right place, has constitutional power (however limited) unavailable to anyone else. Being born should not confer exclusive rights over others. In addition, powers such as the Royal Prerogative which accrue from the Crown, but are exercised by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Crown, give him sweeping powers over the subjects of the Crown. The PM is in effect, a monarch without the good bits. It's also the reason no party in power wants to discuss a republic - they would lose all the wonderful benefits of wielding monarchial power.

Very few British republicans of my acquaintance would level the charge that Her Majesty does nothing. Indeed, her industriousness is the biggest bulwark against republican feeling, or indeed serious constitutional discussion. But many Brits (even monarchists) seem to have a problem with Charles. Why is that, when he is born to be king?

You also seem to think a president can only be modelled on the executive post seen in the US. In Ireland, our president does lots of charity work and all the functions you ascribe to the British Queen. She's just a figurehead - but she wasn't born to it, she was elected to it. Your objections to the elective part are objections to democracy, which is not uncommon practice for monarchists - until they take a hard look at the character of the majority of kings you get through heredity.

Some people yearn for a strong, autocratic leader who will cut out the democratic process and make everything better for them. Maybe Aristotle was right when he asserted that many people are just 'natural' slaves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haruchai

You also seem to think a president can only be modelled on the executive post seen in the US. In Ireland, our president does lots of charity work and all the functions you ascribe to the British Queen. She's just a figurehead - but she wasn't born to it, she was elected to it. Your objections to the elective part are objections to democracy, which is not uncommon practice for monarchists - until they take a hard look at the character of the majority of kings you get through heredity.

---

I'd say royalty is still better for international appearances (diplomatic and trade missions) than a president. However, the first born gets the crown rule is just a pain, because you don't always get capable people that way. A better way, perhaps, would be to appoint a king or queen (from the royal family, or not) for life.

BTW everyone talks about the privilege of being a royal, but in belgium, the king can not make a public comment without the (sometimes implicit) consent of the government, so he has to be very careful about what he says. The slightest objectional comment leads to talks about getting rid of the monarchy.
I wouldn't trade the freedom to speak my mind for their wealth.

The Queen has no real power when it comes to passing laws. She could veto a bill, then her right to veto would be repealed by the parliament in the next sitting. Then finally the bill would be tabled again and approved without needing her consent. So her sanity check seems like a one-shot weapon.

What exactly is the lowdown of the amount of money that the British royalty is getting per anum from the civil list. On one hand, I hear that spongers have a vast amounts of personal wealth, the Queen is worth more than 1billionGBP alone. Then on the other hand, monarchists say the royal family is self supporting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haruchai

You also seem to think a president can only be modelled on the executive post seen in the US. In Ireland, our president does lots of charity work and all the functions you ascribe to the British Queen. She's just a figurehead - but she wasn't born to it, she was elected to it. Your objections to the elective part are objections to democracy, which is not uncommon practice for monarchists - until they take a hard look at the character of the majority of kings you get through heredity.

---

What's the point in electing a president then if their only function is to be a figurehead? It seems wholly uneconomic and open to all the abuses that come with politics, for example: if we were to just replace the queen with an elected president and transferred all her powers, duties and functions of state, what if said president refused to give 'presidential assent' to a bill passed by the elected house on a personal whim, you'd end up with precisely the same, if not greater, constitutional predicament, who is ultimately more powerful? What if the president refused to allow an elected prime minister of his rival party to govern? Having an a-political, unelected (one couldn't have elections without a certain degree of politics), head of state isn't an "objection to democracy" when there is no reasonable point in electing one and when an elected head of state could so easily obstruct democracy under the guise of that principal (afterall, the Declaration of Breda wouldn't apply to a president). Even with the restrictions of the British political system, a president, like a monarch, could wield supreme executive power, only would be more inclined to do so because they a) would feel they had a mandate to do so by virtue of being elected and b) are a politician.

Quote:

---

But many Brits (even monarchists) seem to have a problem with Charles. Why is that, when he is born to be king?

---

I for one have absolutely nothing to hold against Prince Charles. I think he'll make a superb king and has only got a black reputation because of the strange and uncharacteristic adoration the British people seemed to have for Diana.

The only shame with Diana is that she didn't dissapear before she did.

I don't agree with many of the things Charles says, but I do respect the man and have no problems with him being my monarch.

I hope that he will provide more checks to the unbridled and undemocratic the current PM has accrued.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Wait, you pay some random krauts billions to live a life of exorbitant luxury and you feel guilty for not showing them enough gratitude for it?

I'll take the job for less recompense for all that hard work of signing some bills and waving at my subjects.

---

Not really. They pay the country many times more than the Treasury pays the Queen, something which Republicans haply ignore...

Monarchs are generally more renown than Presidents (unless the country whence the President comes is considerably influential, or is known for a less savoury reason, e.g. France, USA, the Russian Federation...). How many people will actually know the name of the President of the Federal Republic of Germany, or perhaps Austria, or Italy? Turkey? India? Israel? South Africa (although Nelson Mandela is oft called President...)? Mexico? Brazil? et cetera, et cetera, so on and so forth and such like...

While people may not be familiar with King Harald of Norway (thanks to Din-Heru below for pointing out that it is not Haakon...), quite a few would recognise the names Gustav, Juan Carlos, Beatrix, and Elizabeth (Sweden, Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her Other Realms and Territories, respectively) more than the presidents of the countries above...
Why? Because they are there for life, and their parent has been there for their life, and their parent for their life, and so on. Foreigners build a rapport through the media, state visits. It was an American who started this topic, wasn't it?
This gives the Monarch a better table to represent the country from. They are better recognised. Bush will be out in a couple of years' time and there shall be a new face in world politics for four to eight years. Then after that there will be another for four to eight years, and so on. Think how many presidents the USA will have had during Queen Elizabeth's reign. Each one so far has most likely have known or met the Queen. Each one to come will meet the Queen as long as She reigns, something which would give a lasting impression on the White House...

Edit: Correcting the name of His Majesty the King of Norway...

[QUOTE=Duke Malcolm]

While people may not be familiar with King Haakon of Norway, .../[QUOTE]

I assume you are talking about the crown prince..? Because the current king's name is Harald V.. (Although his grandfather was called Haakon (VII))

Yes, I suppose I do... Thank you for correcting my little error...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

Yes, I suppose I do... Thank you for correcting my little error...

---

No problem..~;)

Since I apparently am going to protect the Royal family in a few months time, I kinda had to make sure I had not missed out on such important information.. Could have been embarrasing on tuesday if I was not aware that we had a new king.. ~;)

While somewhat belated, I should like to add my hearty "Hail fellow well met!"
and many happy returns for the gracious Queen Elizabeth of England. While I may live in the United States I can still admire a leader so dedicated to her realm and the people of that realm. After living through over forty turbulent years of our American style democracy, I can honestly say that there is something to be said for the stability of a parlimentary monarchy. Although both systems have their shortcomings and various strengths, a monarchy particularly suits the English well. I also feel that this queen has fulfilled her role in an outstanding manner. I wish her the best, and will pray for her in my humble way: God bless the Queen of England.

PS: I also appreciate her love of horses, as I share this affinity for them as well. She is a promoter of the non-violent approach to their training and has insured that this is so for all of the Royal Household's horses, to include the Royal Cavalry's mounts. (Would love to ride with them someday!)

Perhaps it might be news to you, but she is Queen of the United Kingdom, as her speech after devolution and her coronation oath so firmly assured us...

Ayup. Gets up my arse a bit when people call her "Queen of England" too. *Pats Malcolm on the head*

Yeah what is up with that?
It is rather yobbish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

Perhaps it might be news to you, but she is Queen of the United Kingdom, as her speech after devolution and her coronation oath so firmly assured us...

---

My apologies to all for this quite obvious ommision. Please accept my sincerest admission that I truly meant only to honor this great lady, who is indeed the Queen of the United Kingdom. Thank you for correcting this poorly educated American son. Once again, God save the Queen!

Pfffft.

What is more of a threat to democracy:

The British Royal family or the unelected EU rulership?

I'm a republican, but like a lot of Australians I turned down the chance to have a head of state which is not directly elected while Europe looks like they have gone the whole hog and just put an entire government in charge that is not directly elected.

I don't think the EU is a step forward along the democratic path, it only seems to further burecracy. On the other hand the British Commonwealth (and be defacto the Queen) has done far more in bringing about democractic reforms in many more countries.

The irony of what a benign autocracy can achieve, as opposed to a malignant "democracy"

~:smoking: