Queen Elizabeth and the U.K.?

quote:

---

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.

---

There's rather more to it than that. The Spanish Inquisition is probably more connected to the notoriety of the Inquisition (which certainly reached America, too).But before Bloody Mary, you have the whole business of Henry VIII nationalising the Church, and seizing a large part of its wealth for himself and his supporters and suppressing Catholicism."Bloody Mary" was less notorious for the way she gained the throne, and much more for reversing the status quo, reestablishing Catholicism and persecuting Protestants. Lady Jane Grey is not that well-known.In the reign of Elizabeth I you have the Armada, a major invasion attempted by Catholic Spain.Later on, you have the Gunpowder Plot (a Catholic conspiracy to blow up Parliament and King James) and you should probably look at the following Protestant ascendancy, especially Cromwell and William of Orange.There are parts of Britain where there is still some hostility between Protestant and Catholic communities - not just Northern Ireland (the rivalry between the Glasgow football teams Celtic and Rangers is based in it).

Because we made the institutions that make it matter - the judiciary, law (common and statute), Parliamentary Sovereignty, universal suffrage, separation of powers, a constitution (yes we do have one ). That'll be our constitution.Constitution of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

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.

She is needed by the Canadian PM to dissolve parliament.

"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.

Not really. If a private citizen such as (say) Richard Branson, organized a national referendum, it could be as free and democratic as you like, but it would have no legitimacy, because it would be outside what dwise1 would call the chain of command. It would be like me going up to a colonel and telling him what to do: my instructions might be good and necessary ones, but he wouldn't obey them. Morally the legitimacy of the government may be derived from democracy, but constitutionally the Queen does come into it.

Well if you want to go down that path, there is no authority except that which can taken and defended by force or by negotiation. Which is why every tin pot dictatorship has tight control of the armed forces and police.Happily, we, the British people, have a deal with Parliament on who's allowed to make our rules, collect our taxes and provide our services. One day that might well be Richard Branson, but before that could happen we need a vote - via Parliament.Queenie is indeed part of our constitution, but she no longer has the power or will to use any rights she has under it without Parliament, or in some cases I believe, just the government, first approving it.We have a constitutional monarch in name only, I kind of like it that way, it has some advantages, but we need to modernise it when she's gone.

The Magna Carta is a document that creates a formal parliament of a couple of dozen Barons who together can overrule the Monarch. Over the next couple of centuries the council/parliament expanded to include more people.There were elections during this time, but the voters were all elites (wealthy landholders). Over time, more and more people became empowered to vote. Most of the expansion of voting rights occurred in the 19th Century, inspired by such things as the People's Charter of 1838. There were a couple of important constitutional changes in the 18th Century too. The general answer would probably be 'the consent of the governed'. Many documents and court decisions, treaties etc. Sorry it's not all in one convenient place, but we have this thing here in Europe called history Yes. A representational democracy to be exact. On the basis that we actually do elect representatives who then go to Parliament and from there, leglislate. The basis, other than the simple fact that we do in fact elect representatives, is a thousand years worth of jurisprudence, treaties, acts, notable philosophical works, bills and so on. I can't locate the exact document that specifically gives me the right to vote, but it was probably written in the 1800s. Maybe it was the Reform Act 1867, maybe it was the Great Reform of 1832. I'm no British Constitutional expert.I know, I know, not having a centralised constitution that spells it all out is a bit confusing and for a Yank - maybe even disorientating. But that's the way we roll here.As Dr. A mentioned earlier: It is not permitted for MPs to even resign so they have to accept a post that would disqualify them from being MPs instead. It's not a top-down designed system, it's a bottom up, evolved system and it is messy, convoluted and excessively complex.If something as straightforward as resigning from office is so unnecessarily convoluted - you can hardly expect the basis upon which the democracy is founded to be straightforward!

Well, I did not go down that path. I never said nor implied that might made right. But every democratic country has a constitution, a way of doing things. Richard Branson's referendum may be as democratic as you please, but it's not the way that the British do things. Likewise, if it could be shown that Mitt Romney was way more popular than Obama, the Americans wouldn't change Presidents. There's a constitution, a way of doing things, to which there is a broader consent than there is to mob rule; there is even a broader consent than there is to the particular constitution. The most ardent republican would probably agree that the actions of Her Majesty's Government are more legitimate than Richard Branson's plebiscite, because it is important that we should have a way of doing things.If I could start from scratch I would make the UK a republic and rewrite the US constitution so that Thomas Jefferson himself wouldn't recognize it, but that's just me. By and large, it's best that I can't.

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.

Yes, of course. I wasn't trying to suggest that she has any actual power.I'm just pointing out that under the current setup the legitimacy of the government is derived from the British constitution and not directly from the popular will. Now, the British constitution has a monarch in it.

needed by Stephen Harper to stay in-power and delay/avoid a vote of no confidence (which would remove him from office).

it is the united KINGDOM right?It would be a silly name without a monarch.

It would be silly to call France, The Kingdom of France, as it used to be called. Now they call it the French Republic.So, assuming it stays united, we may change the name to the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. UR doesn't flow as easily from the mouth as UK though, which is a shame.

The constitution is created by the governments (and monarchs) of previous times and amended by governments of modern times. These governments are elected by the people. If a government could be elected by popular vote on a manifesto of abolishing the monarchy, i would be abolished by popular will.