Queen Elizabeth and the U.K.?

As a UK citizen I have to admit to being a bit baffled by the whole thing too. The whole royal thing in this day and age is....It's all a bit absurd. Tourism is usually cited by monarchy supporters. But it's not like tourists actually get to meet, or usually even see, the queen. Frankly I think touristic interest in British history and tradition is often conflated with interest in the monarchy and thus falsely attributed. Tourists would still go to the Tower of London, watch the changing of the guard at Buckingham palace, visit castles and all that malarkey even if we got rid of the royal family tomorrow.Indeed - It might even stir up some more interest if we did it in a suitably historical manner..... (fetch the guillotines!!) Nominally I believe the monarch has some sort of executive power over the elected government. But in practise - No. It's a silly figurhead. A symbol of lost empire and some sort of throwback to medieeval class structures. Nobility. Birth right. All that sort of nonsense. Personally I would put them all out to pasture.

Just think - We could have an annual national holiday on "End of monarchy" day!! Or "Royal death day" as it might become known. I am all for an Englishman's right to skive off work. Let's get rid of one member of the royal family per week and declare an annual national holiday in remembrance of each one......

Despite the fact that the Queen does personally inspire a fair amount of public support in the UK the sort of attitude I have outlined isn't all that uncommon.You'd never guess that from our press or from the BBC coverage of royal events.....But there you go.

And if you get sent to prison in certain circumstances it's not "State Penitentiary" or anything so un-civilised sounding. It's "At Her Majesty's Pleasure". Wiki on - At Her Majesty's Pleasure

quote:

---

Incarceration: The term is used to describe detainment in prison or a psychiatric hospital for an indefinite length of time; a judge may rule that a person be "detained at Her Majesty's pleasure" for serious offences or based on a successful insanity defence.

---

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix 2nd quote box.

I assume you are talking about this - 1975 Australian Constitutional CrisisThat isn't really accurate. The idea that the UK monarch can go round dismissing Australian prime-ministers is borne of misunderstanding how (an admittedly rather archaic) method of appointments in the common-wealth is actually implemented in practise.

"Needed".....?"Needed" in the sense of holding some sort of ceremonial role - Sure.But really "needed" in the sense of Canadian parliament being incapable of doing what it needs to do to function without her - Not really.

Well given that it is a constitutional monarchy that pretty much goes without saying.But isn't the legitimacy of the government dependent on the queen in the same sort of nominal way that the queen is the commander in chief of the British armed forces?I.e In name but without any of the actual responsibility or power to actually decide anything much at all.She "does come into it" in a constitutional sense. But only in a rubber stamping non-decision-making kinda way.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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