Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Queen Elizabeth and the U.K.?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 42 of 102 (657244)
03-26-2012 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by shadow71
03-25-2012 7:49 PM


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. It was a frequent point that would come up in my history classes (outside of the US history requirement, this came up mostly in my Japanese and Russian history classes). In Japanese history, legitimacy was usually derived from one's ancestry. For example, the title of "Generalissimo who quelled the barbarians", Shogun, had been bestowed upon the leader of the Minamoto family, so only a Minamoto descendant could ever reclaim the title. Although Oda Nobunaga was able to reunify Japan in the late 1500's, he was not related to the Minamotos and so could never claim the title of Shogun, but one of his generals, Tokugawa Ieyasu, was a Minamoto and so was able to found the Tokugawa Shogunate. Similarly, the death of Ivan the Terrible without an heir by the death of his son, Dmitry, threw the empire into the Time of Troubles, out of which emerged a parade of "False Dmitrys" followed by their own armies.
Later, both in the Air Force and the Navy leadership schools, one of the first subjects covered would be to trace the source a NCO's or petty officer's authority back through various regulations, executive orders, laws, and ultimately back to the US Constitution, the ultimate source of legitimacy for everything that the US government does.
What is the source for the legitimacy of the government in the UK? Isn't it the monarchy? Governments come and go, sometimes due to votes of no-confidence, but the constant that remains is the monarchy and the system for changes of government that is derived from that. Without that, where would a new government derived its authority from? Especially if opponents want to form their own government.
Another thought is the monarchy's PR function. As governments come and go, the monarch provides a consistent public face. As the US goes from one presidential administration, the entire tone of the government and even the country can change radically. As the UK's government changes over from one political party to another, how radically does the entire tone of the country change? The US' constant factor is the US Constitution, which many view as an abstract concept and few have any understanding of. The UK's constant factor is the monarchy, which has a human face. Does that make a difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2012 7:49 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2012 2:39 AM dwise1 has replied
 Message 83 by shadow71, posted 03-28-2012 1:53 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 44 of 102 (657256)
03-27-2012 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Tangle
03-27-2012 2:39 AM


Uh, excuse me, please ...
No, not at all. We're a democracy, the government's legitimacy comes from the people's vote.
And, uh, just exactly why should the people's vote ever matter?
And just what exactly ever made you a democracy? Do please cite just exactly what documentation made you a "democracy".
I am a retired US Navy Chief Petty Officer! Last drill weekend, I visited my unit four months after my retirement. And I found myself counselling a fellow chief, albeit with whiskers on my chin. Just exactly what was the basis for my authority? What was the basis for any CPO's authority? Just exactly was any petty officer's basis for authority?
In both my Navy and in yours, there is a chain of authorization for your petty officers' authority and for our petty officers' authority. And for both our chiefs, albeit through different chains of authorization.
The question returns to that of: just what exactly legitimizes your government?
I'm a fucking American! (provided specifically for our UK members here: if you Brits don't see that word, "fucking", then it cannot be American -- in an episode of "Inspector Morse", the only thing that identified a character as "American" was her over-use of the word "fucking"; it became a running joke for us watching that on PBS) The defining political idea of things American is the US Constitution. So with all this idiocy that's going on this side of the Pond, albeit primarily Republican, is all in some way backed up by the US Constitution. It is the US Constitution that in one way or another backs up everything that we do (or at least until the Supreme Court finds otherwise).
OK, Brits, what justifies what you do? You want to claim to be a democracy? On what basis? We "Yanks" are able to make that claim and have a solid basis for that claim. What exactly is the basis for your claim?
Yes, I can appreciate your feelings and sentiments. My sister has been in contact with our Scottish cousins and has visited them. One remembers as a child being all dressed up and prepared for the Queen's arrival and being severely disappointed when the Queen passed by and completely ignored her.
Yes, pomp and circumstance can easily appear empty. But the legitimacy of the government is paramount!
I saw the movie with Helena Bonham Carter, Lady Jane (1986). Lady Jane Grey, "Queen for Nine Days", against "Mary, Bloody Mary". Two different factions, both vying for the throne. Who was the legitimate ruler? Mary won out, and that is the reason I assume to be behind England's perennial mistrust of Catholics and the Monty Python perennial "Nobody ever suspects the Spanish Inquisition!" Ultimately, the question has to always be who has the legitimate claim.
Which returns us to the question of why the British peoples' vote should matter. Whether the American peoples' vote should matter is well defined by the US Constitution. So just what exactly determines what the British peoples' vote should mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2012 2:39 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by caffeine, posted 03-27-2012 4:26 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 03-27-2012 4:59 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 47 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2012 5:10 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 53 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2012 1:07 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024