Queen Elizabeth and the U.K.?

Must we let factual infomation get in the way of a good yarn?Personally I find it bizarre that Australia has a Queen and that we need the Queen's representative to sign off on our legislation and appoint Ministers etc, whether or not that power is largely ceremonial. On the other hand It's hard for me to believe our politicians here could devise a better system without introducing additional bureaucracies so why bother changing?Edited by Boof, : Expanded my thoughts a little

Sorry. Personally I find it bizarre that Britain has a queen who signs off on our legislation and appoints ministers etc. even though that "power" is basically ceremonial. I find it even more bizarre that other independent countries have the same British monarch doing the same thing for them too. This seems to be the prevailing attitude.Certainly those countries which are republics don't seem to be demonstrating any significant practical benefit. It's not like we are all desperately wishing that the leader of our government was also head of our state.

That's about it. It's a quaint and picturesque hangover from earlier times that reminds us of our heritage and provide some benefits by way of tourism and sense of history.Those of us who live in countries that have some actual history, quite enjoy the confusion it creates with foreigners that want things to be at least, well, tidier.But the system actually works quite well and there's no real pressure to change it. Yet.

OK. And I'm pointing out that this is rather meaningless by comparing it to the equally meaningless role that the queen has as the commander in chief of the army.As the commander in chief of the British armed forces (Armed Forces of the Crown as they are legally defined) the queen is also the source of constitutional legitimacy of us declaring war and suchlike.As a constitutional monarchy the queen lends her name to constitutionally legitimising all sorts of things which actually derive their real legitimacy from other means.Her role seems to be that of a rather pointless rubber stamper.

I have little doubt that (like most politicians) the Canadian Prime-Minister will attempt to re-interpret the constitution of his country to meet his own political ends (i.e. gaining or maintaining power).But that is hardly the same as the Canadian government "needing" the queen in order to function in practise.And whilst I am far from an expert in Canadian constitutional law it seems that the Canadians have a method of implementing no-confidence votes in their parliament that doesn't demand any decision from the queen at all. Canadian No Confidence Example

She is also a letter stamper... {abe} As Straggler pointed out, it is 60p not 90p.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Yes. We have to lick the back of the queens head every time we post a letter. And pay 60 pence (not 90) for the privilege. Link

Well, she's the Head of State. For a couple of states, actually.In the US, the Head of State is the same person as the Head of Government, and there's quite a bit of thought that it causes us no end of problems, because it means that you can't be politically opposed to the administration of the Head of Government without, essentially, being in opposition to the embodied State. People often wonder why American politics is so much more tenacious than in other countries, and I think that's part of the reason.Not having a King or Queen doesn't mean you get to avoid the boring ceremony - memorials, awards, etc. Having a Queen means that you have someone specifically dedicated to the task. In our system of government, Barack Obama has to take time out of running the country in order to pin medals on soldiers. I think we'd be better of with some old bint to handle all that stuff.

Sure. As I said to Boof earlier we are not exactly looking at Republics like yours and wishing that the head of our government was also the head of our state. If anything that does seem to be an advantage of our setup. Yep. But why does this have to be some hereditary monarch with a over-priced selection of silly headgear and a love of aristocratic pastimes?Whilst even the most royally cynical here in the UK seem to have some sort of vague fondness for the present queen there is no guarantee that the holder of the crown/throne/position is going to be any good at it. Charlie-boy as the head of our state doesn't seem nearly so harmless. He has a rep for being a bit of an interfering old busy-body with some cranky ideas that he is all too eager to use his position to promote. Plus he just seems a bit of a twat.So maybe we could instead select a "national treasure" non-political figure to be a our head of state for an extended period. I would vote for Stephen Fry

2nd Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, Stephen Fry. It has a certain ring to it

He'd then be a Stately Homo of England I suppose.....

Groan.....Just "The Queen" will suffice as Stephen's official title thankyou very much.

David Attenborough regularly tops "national treasure" type polls and would also get the thumbs up from me as a head of state figure.

You could combine forces and have Stephen Hawking use Attenborough's voice. That would be awesome.

But then whose voice would Attenborough himself use.....?