|
Author
|
Topic: Queen Elizabeth and the U.K.?
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
Message 1 of 102 (657099)
03-25-2012 7:49 PM
|
|
|
I, as second generation citizen of the USA , a Political Science major and JD, have always wondered why the U.K. supports a monarcy? What is the rationale for Elizabeth II to be accorded the benefits and acolades she receives from her subjects.? Are the financial gifts she receives from her subjects worth the cost? Does she have any Queenly Powers? Any constitutional Powers? Is she just a symbol of the old forgotten and destroyed Empire? Would appreciate it if some of her subjects could enlighten me as to the merits of a Monarch for the U.K. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 3 by Theodoric, posted 03-25-2012 9:51 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 4 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2012 11:06 PM | | shadow71 has replied | | | Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2012 11:12 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 6 by onifre, posted 03-26-2012 1:59 AM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 7 by Son Goku, posted 03-26-2012 4:53 AM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 11 by Straggler, posted 03-26-2012 12:05 PM | | shadow71 has replied | | | Message 18 by Modulous, posted 03-26-2012 12:57 PM | | shadow71 has replied | | | Message 42 by dwise1, posted 03-26-2012 10:53 PM | | shadow71 has replied | | | Message 49 by Artemis Entreri, posted 03-27-2012 11:15 AM | | shadow71 has not replied | | | Message 102 by duns, posted 04-12-2012 2:13 AM | | shadow71 has not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 12 of 102 (657161)
03-26-2012 12:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by NoNukes
03-25-2012 11:06 PM
|
|
NoNukes writes:
Hmm. The wiki article does not seem to mention any particular reader background/credentials. Sorry about that. I'll look for a more suitable reference. Sorry I offended you. I was just giving reasons for my interest in this subject, ie. study of goverments and practice of law.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2012 11:06 PM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 13 of 102 (657162)
03-26-2012 12:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by Straggler
03-26-2012 12:05 PM
|
|
Re: God Save Us From The Monarchists....
Hi Straggler, Your reply basically sums up my feelings on this issue. I was interested in hearing some U.K. perspective.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by Straggler, posted 03-26-2012 12:05 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 17 by Straggler, posted 03-26-2012 12:47 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 23 of 102 (657175)
03-26-2012 2:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by Modulous
03-26-2012 12:57 PM
|
|
Re: Long live the queen
Modulous writes:
In a constitutional monarchy, the two are somewhat the same. She signs bills to make them laws, heads up the justice system and imprisons people, appoints prime ministers, ambassadors, other ministers as well I believe; She calls for elections too, I think. Does she have any veto power over bills that are submitted for her signature? If not what happens if as a matter of principle she refuses to sign a bill?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by Modulous, posted 03-26-2012 12:57 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 32 of 102 (657192)
03-26-2012 4:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by Modulous
03-26-2012 2:16 PM
|
|
Re: Long live the queen
Modulous writes:
It hasn't happened for 300 years. It would be a crisis that will probably result in the monarchy being stripped of those powers. Is there a written law that provides for the powers of the Monarchy to be regulated by the legislatures, or would there have to be some type of referendum to modify or abolish the powers of the Monarchy?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by Modulous, posted 03-26-2012 2:16 PM | | Modulous has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 37 by Modulous, posted 03-26-2012 4:43 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
Re: Long live the queen
Is there a written law that provides for the powers of the Monarchy to be regulated by the legislatures, or would there have to be some type of referendum to modify or abolish the powers of the Monarchy?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2012 4:34 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 34 of 102 (657196)
03-26-2012 4:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 28 by nwr
03-26-2012 3:05 PM
|
|
Re: Long live the queen
nwr writes:
It probably depends on circumstances. It it is a bill that just about every sensible person thinks should be signed, then the monarchy ends. If it is a bill that just about every sensible person thinks should be vetoed, then the monarchy is strengthened When you say the monarchy ends, are you familar with the procedure for that process?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by nwr, posted 03-26-2012 3:05 PM | | nwr has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 38 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2012 4:49 PM | | shadow71 has replied | | | Message 40 by nwr, posted 03-26-2012 7:01 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 80 of 102 (657435)
03-28-2012 1:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by Tangle
03-26-2012 4:49 PM
|
|
Re: Long live the queen
- Tangle writes:
Oh yes, lots of sharp pointy things and fire. Muskets have been used I believe, but that was on foreigners so would probably be deemed inapropriate. Some blood. And shouting, lots of shouting. Then you need to find a guy from Lewes, East Sussex, to write some fine words. Preferrably using the word freedom rather too much. Sort of like what happened in the American colony awhile back?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2012 4:49 PM | | Tangle has not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
|
|
Message 83 of 102 (657438)
03-28-2012 1:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by dwise1
03-26-2012 10:53 PM
|
|
dwise1 writes:
I would have thought that this had come up in your political science classes. The question of a government's legitimacy and the source of every government official's authority. I wasn't really asking about the legitimacy of the monarch. Just trying to get an explanation from UK as to why they would want a "Royal" person. Seems kind of outdated . I would never be able to call another human being, Your Royal highness. What the heck is "Royal" about any monarch?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by dwise1, posted 03-26-2012 10:53 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2961 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: 08-31-2010
|
Dr Adequate writes:
A British person who thinks that the American constitution is stupid and who would have rather voted for McCain if he had the choice should still address Obama as "Mr. President" rather than "you dumb n*****", shouldn't he? --- because to do otherwise would be taken as an affront to the whole nation, and the people who would so take it would include 99% of the people who don't want him to be President. Their personal respect for him might be at rock-bottom, but they would still demand that he should be shown proper respect as Head of State. The biggest difference between the American president and the queen is that the american president has earned the title, not born into it. Your republican primary thread shows how much the republicans running for the nomination respect the position. My personal opinon is that they are idiots, with Rommney being the least harmful of them. but that's off thread.
Dr Adequate writes:
Er ... being a monarch. That makes them royal. This is true just by definition. I guess that't my biggest problem with any monarchary. It's a title given not earned.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2012 2:12 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 91 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2012 5:42 PM | | shadow71 has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2