NationStates Jolt Archive

I have to start by saying that I'm not one of these guys who is just blatantly against the Queen because he thinks it's cool. I have great respect for our monarch as a British citizen. She has to travel to loads of different countries, meet all kinds of treacherous Arabs and when she finally gets to sit down she's being watched by cameramen from all over the country. My question is should Britain abolish the monarchy?
I know a good counter-argument is that she generates money through tourism and gives Britain a good image for other countries but doesn't she spend more money than she earns and wouldn't most people who go to London still go if the Queen wasn't there? Also, it would be a bit of a pity if all our Queen is is a tourism device and expensive logo for the British Isles.

So what's your opinion? Yes or No to the monarch? And what do foreigners think of the Queen?

God Save The Queen!

God Save The Queen!

In what way?

I don't think we have a choice whether or not we keep the Queen, unless we want to do it Lenin style after she dies.

Perhaps your thread should have been titled "Should Britain keep the Monarchy?"?

I'm a foreinger and I would like to say this: "The Queen is nothing but a fat cell in the body of the British Government." I mean, the Queen hardly has any, if no political power at all. Of course, I'm not saying this just because I'm American, I'm just saying that it wouldn't really make any difference at all if the Queen was removed. So no matter what you do to the Queen, it would not make the British Government any better or any worse. Of course you could make the nation better by taking all of her wealth and then distrubuting it among the people.

In what way?
You know, the Sex Pistols song? Anyway, I'm American, so I don't think I have any reason to comment on this in an intelligent way.

I'm a foreinger and I would like to say this: "The Queen is nothing but a fat cell in the body of the British Government."

How very dare you? What a malicious thing to say. What did Her Majesty ever do to you?

How very dare you?

Only because it really seems so. And I don't mean shes fat, I'm saying that shes neither neccessary or unneccessary.

In my opinion (as a foreigner), the queen is really just a figurehead, especially Elizabeth II, since she rarely exercises the powers she has as Queen of the UK.

I think that most people where I live (near D.C.) don't really have a positive or negative opinion about the Queen. To us, she's just the Queen of the UK. Nothing more, nothing less.

In my opinion (as a foreigner), the queen is really just a figurehead, especially Elizabeth II, since she rarely exercises the powers she has as Queen of the UK.

Exactly. Problem is... what powers?

All the powers a regular king or queen has. Can declare war, stop a war, "veto" any Parlaiment action, etc. It is a monarchy, so technically speaking, the Queen could do whatever she wants.

Of course, I'm only basing this off of what I'm taught in school and have read on the side, I don't know for sure. But I am most likely right.

All the powers a regular king or queen has. Can declare war, stop a war, "veto" any Parlaiment action, etc. It is a monarchy, so technically speaking, the Queen could do whatever she wants.

Of course, I'm only basing this off of what I'm taught in school and have read on the side, I don't know for sure. But I am most likely right.

I don't think she can declare war...

I don't think she can declare war...

Yeah and I dont think she can veto any Parlaiment action either. At least, last time I checked.

Should Britain keep the Queen?


Well I don't want her.....

The Queen is just a figurehead, she really doesn't have any powers whatsoever. She can suggest things but I don't think she even does that... what she DOES do however is represent a tradition and instill pride in (most of) her people. I say keep her, no harm no foul.

I don't think we have a choice whether or not we keep the Queen, unless we want to do it Lenin style after she dies.

Perhaps your thread should have been titled "Should Britain keep the Monarchy?"?

I was going to write that but I like the alliteration in 'keep' and 'queen'.

God Save The Queen!

we mean it, man!

No. The queen should be deported to Mexico, from whence she came.

It is a monarchy, so technically speaking, the Queen could do whatever she wants.

Not so. Britain is a CONSTITUTIONAL Monarchy. That makes the monarch of the country have fewer powers than what a regular monarchy has.

I was going to write that but I like the alliteration in 'keep' and 'queen'.

Do you mean assonance?

The Monarchy is the British equivalent of the American flag. How many Americans who think the Queen is useless would like to cease flying “Old Glory?”
For the record, I would.

You know, the Sex Pistols song? Anyway, I'm American, so I don't think I have any reason to comment on this in an intelligent way.

That's what I thought but I wasn't sure. Great song though!

The Monarchy is the British equivalent of the American flag. How many Americans who think the Queen is useless would like to cease flying “Old Glory?”
For the record, I would.

No, it would be wrong to burn the Queen in protest.

Do you mean assonance?

Nope. Alliteration is wear the starting letters of a word sound the same not the vowel noises. Seeing as though you would pronounce 'Queen' as 'Kween' and 'Keep' as 'Keep' it is classed as alliteration. Although, it is a kind of weak assonance as well.

All the powers a regular king or queen has. Can declare war, stop a war, "veto" any Parlaiment action, etc. It is a monarchy, so technically speaking, the Queen could do whatever she wants.

Theoretically, yes. Constitutionally, yes and no. All her theoretical powers (i.e. all her powers) are exercised by the Cabinet.

So in constitutional theory she has the power, but in constitutional practice she doesn't (what with the constitution taking convention into a high regard).

Can declare war, stop a war, "veto" any Parlaiment action, etc.

Well if that were true, then it would be the queen who would be getting bombarded with unpleasent remarks about the involvement in Iraq, not Tony Blair.

Nope. Alliteration is wear the starting letters of a word sound the same not the vowel noises. Seeing as though you would pronounce 'Queen' as 'Kween' and 'Keep' as 'Keep' it is classed as alliteration. Although, it is a kind of weak assonance as well.

Yes, so there is. I noticed the ee & ee, and not the q & k.

I was going to write that but I like the alliteration in 'keep' and 'queen'.
Assonance?

edit: oh.

All the powers a regular king or queen has. Can declare war, stop a war, "veto" any Parlaiment action, etc. It is a monarchy, so technically speaking, the Queen could do whatever she wants.

Of course, I'm only basing this off of what I'm taught in school and have read on the side, I don't know for sure. But I am most likely right.

She can also claim any British land she likes and all the swans of the British Empire belong to her.

She can also claim any British land she likes and all the swans of the British Empire belong to her.

(said with sarcasm) Really politically important.

(said with sarcasm) Really politically important.

'Tis, 'tis. Thanks to our monarch I am not allowed to enjoy my favourite meal of roast swan and cranberry.

The Queen is just a figurehead, she really doesn't have any powers whatsoever. She can suggest things but I don't think she even does that... what she DOES do however is represent a tradition and instill pride in (most of) her people. I say keep her, no harm no foul.
The queen does actually does have powers, she can veto goverment policy. Also she can declare war and she can take any piece of Land in Britain to be hers. Of course she never uses these powers but she is in effect the worlds most powerfull women. God Save the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family.

The queen does actually does have powers, she can veto goverment policy. Also she can declare war and she can take any piece of Land in Britain to be hers. Of course she never uses these powers but she is in effect the worlds most powerfull women. God Save the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family.

Read Response #25.

I know the queen takes vast amounts of money from the tax payers of Britain. But Britain has almost no culture what so ever, now you want to take away its history and heritage?

About the issue of her powers, no law can pass through our government without our Queen's final aproval. Britain wouldn't be able to govern without the Monarchy.

Secondly, "Great Britain" is patriotic. Something this drizzly, most miserable Nation, most alchole drinking nation in the world; lacks! Why add insult to injury??? "The Republic of Britain"??

My last point is that the Royal Family have been cutting down on their lavish lifestyle!! They are reducing their private trains and chartered jets. Something which our government is NOT doing!!!

And my final point, if we liquidised the Royal family and shared her wealth, it could go around once, but it would never go round again!!! Money isn't everything!!! History, honour and culture should be. Come on Britain, where's your back bone??? Support and honour your country. Something even I struggle to do!!!

if we liquidised the Royal family
I would suggest a jumbo sized one of these:

http://www.grattan.co.uk/web/images/main/medium/91G908.jpg

Britain wouldn't be able to govern without the Monarchy.

Actually it could. It would be simply the greatest political system the universe ever will see and will find be able to top: A democracy. And as for the issue of a head politician, it would be the Prime Minister's job. Why else does Britain have one?

"The Republic of Britain"??

Actually that's not a bad name. I probably would have named my nation that if I thought of it.

I know the queen takes vast amounts of money from the tax payers of Britain. But Britain has almost no culture what so ever, now you want to take away its history and heritage?

About the issue of her powers, no law can pass through our government without our Queen's final aproval. Britain wouldn't be able to govern without the Monarchy.

Secondly, "Great Britain" is patriotic. Something this drizzly, most miserable Nation, most alchole drinking nation in the world; lacks! Why add insult to injury??? "The Republic of Britain"??

My last point is that the Royal Family have been cutting down on their lavish lifestyle!! They are reducing their private trains and chartered jets. Something which our government is NOT doing!!!

And my final point, if we liquidised the Royal family and shared her wealth, it could go around once, but it would never go round again!!! Money isn't everything!!! History, honour and culture should be. Come on Britain, where's your back bone??? Support and honour your country. Something even I struggle to do!!!

A very honourable notion mate, and I sort of agree. But, the Monarchy should go AFTER the Queen has passed away.

I mean, if cheating on your wife and dressing like a Nazi counts as honour these days, I'm fine with being dishonourable.

VIVE LA REPUBLIC!

As a Canadian, I strongly support the Monarchy. It would be really bizarre if the U.K. got rid of it, and we kept it.

How very dare you? What a malicious thing to say. What did Her Majesty ever do to you?

What did She do FOR us other than 'rule' us?

The woman does a grand total of fuck-all, as does the rest of the royal family. Why she doesnt use her 'power' is beyond me.

:sniper: Hint please?

A very honourable notion mate, and I sort of agree. But, the Monarchy should go AFTER the Queen has passed away.

I mean, if cheating on your wife and dressing like a Nazi counts as honour these days, I'm fine with being dishonourable.

VIVE LA REPUBLIC!

Actually, if the Royal family were all very proper, then I would be saying get rid of them!!!! I'm proud that even the Royal family can prove to the world that Bitain isn't full of countryside Toff's walking Yorkshire Terriers every weekend to the beach!!!!

About the "Republic of Britain" thing. Because we are a Constitutional Monarchy, technicly or theoreticly, the Monarchy would decide if we went Republic or not. Unless will killed them and then regreted it!!! I'd rather not wake up every morning feeling like a Russian and wishing Britain hadn't taken away its only Glory. The queen!!! Small navy, army, RAF, missiles etc. etc.

Why she doesnt use her 'power' is beyond me.

Because Parliament would give a swift "no thanks" and boot her out?

If you get rid of the monarchy you're going to have to replace it with something else. And in my mind, the iniquity of the hereditary nature of the monarchy set aside, you'd be struggling to improve upon the benefits of a lifetime's training, the incorruptability through not owing their position to anyone and the fact that you're getting a known quantity.

And if you do replace it with an elected system, all you get is some plutocrat who can afford a decent election campaign and who represents the common person even less than the monarchy. And you'd have to wonder why they're running for the position, either to abuse their role travelling the world to make business contacts, or because of the romance of everyone fawning over them.

Actually, if the Royal family were all very proper, then I would be saying get rid of them!!!! I'm proud that even the Royal family can prove to the world that Bitain isn't full of countryside Toff's walking Yorkshire Terriers every weekend to the beach!!!!

About the "Republic of Britain" thing. Because we are a Constitutional Monarchy, technicly or theoreticly, the Monarchy would decide if we went Republic or not. Unless will killed them and then regreted it!!! I'd rather not wake up every morning feeling like a Russian and wishing Britain hadn't taken away its only Glory. The queen!!! Small navy, army, RAF, missiles etc. etc.

Like a Russian??? Dude, when the Russians got rid of the czar, they were so happy they became communist pretty much without knowing it! And today, under a capitalist government, they don't seem to want him back any more than they did then, if they still knew they had one at one time in history.

You British had a nice thing going when you removed the monarchy after the civil war, but then you went and ruined it by restoring Charles II to the throne. Then again Cromwell was succeeded by his son so perhaps it wouldn't have mattered. Primogeniture sucks though regardless, but perhaps if the monarchy could continue without that it wouldn't be such a bad thing, like maybe a monarch who's chosen to hold the throne for life.

I suggest starting with the House of Lords. They actually have some political power. Then you can get rid of the monarchy

I suggest starting with the House of Lords. They actually have some political power. Then you can get rid of the monarchy
Nah, I like the idea of an appointed for life House of Lords (non-hereditery, appointed by the Commons, obviously with reform even there needed).

Maintains the primacy of the Commons and will, over time, result in it being relatively bipartisan, with experienced and respected politicians making the bulk of the membership.

Get rid of the Lords Spritual, and the 92 hereditery peers though.

It's fine as it is. Change it to a republic and you just exchange one useless figurehead for another.

It's fine as it is. Change it to a republic and you just exchange one useless figurehead for another.
Yes, and it'll be a useless figurehead who is under the illusion they have a mandate and would believe that justifies them witholding assent if Parliament passed something they didn't like etc.

Actually, if the Royal family were all very proper, then I would be saying get rid of them!!!! I'm proud that even the Royal family can prove to the world that Bitain isn't full of countryside Toff's walking Yorkshire Terriers every weekend to the beach!!!!

About the "Republic of Britain" thing. Because we are a Constitutional Monarchy, technicly or theoreticly, the Monarchy would decide if we went Republic or not. Unless will killed them and then regreted it!!! I'd rather not wake up every morning feeling like a Russian and wishing Britain hadn't taken away its only Glory. The queen!!! Small navy, army, RAF, missiles etc. etc.

Britain has a monarchy? ;)
And now a quote from a great Britain -"And all those exclamation points? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head." - Terry Pratchett

As an American, I can see the utility of the Monarchy: It is an excellent symbol of the UK and Commonwealth, and it has certain features that are very practical.

Elizabeth II has been active in world affairs since the 1950's, that's quite a number of people she's worked with or met. Also, the institution provides a degree of apoliticality to the diginifed portion of government: opening places, signings, and parades. There's no theoretical sense of partisian objection to the person.

Nah, I like the idea of an appointed for life House of Lords (non-hereditery, appointed by the Commons, obviously with reform even there needed).

Maintains the primacy of the Commons and will, over time, result in it being relatively bipartisan, with experienced and respected politicians making the bulk of the membership.

Get rid of the Lords Spritual, and the 92 hereditery peers though.
With the hereditary memebers and the church out of the House of Lords, it's perfectly fine with me. Permanenet members of government can be useful if they're deriving their power from the people rather than God or their parents.

While we're on the topic of the church, why keep the Church of England around? I don't mean abolish it completely of course, but having an established state religion seems archaic.

As an American, I see the queen as a symbol of Britain, a dignified figurehead who, while wields no real power, still serves as a traditional "parent" of the people. I have no negative views of her. If the British want her they should keep her.

Britain without a King or a Queen seems like a crimre against nature. The Monarchy is one of the great things about Britain and without it, the country would never quite feel the same.

Britain without a King or a Queen seems like a crimre against nature. The Monarchy is one of the great things about Britain and without it, the country would never quite feel the same.

I'm afraid it isn't. Was removing the kaiser from power a crime against nature when Germany was paying for its crimes in World War I? Was it a crime to remove the king from the French government in the French Referendum? Was it a crime to remove the king from Italy after World War II? Apparently it doesn't seem so to me, all these nations are just doing fine as their own government (If you cut out France that is. But putting in a king would likely make matters worse there.) If the king or queen was removed from Britain, Britain would only need a different name and that would pretty much be it. It wouldn't be any crime against nature or even politics for that matter. Heck, it wouldn't even be a crime against the people for that matter.

If we were to abolish the monarchy, what would become of the United Kingdom? It's likely that the union would disintegrate into England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which would benefit no-one.

I suggest starting with the House of Lords. They actually have some political power. Then you can get rid of the monarchy

The House of Lords provides the most important check in the British political system. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 removed from it the power to block legislation being sent up from the lower house in all but one case. The House of Lords can only block the passage of a bill of self perpetuation, they are the only ones that can stop the country becoming a dictatorship from within the system. This is also the reason I believe they should have remained hereditery as now the government in power can load it with their own representatives.

The House of Lords provides the most important check in the British political system. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 removed from it the power to block legislation being sent up from the lower house in all but one case. The House of Lords can only block the passage of a bill of self perpetuation, they are the only ones that can stop the country becoming a dictatorship from within the system. This is also the reason I believe they should have remained hereditery as now the government in power can load it with their own representatives.

It's a dictatorship because we have no proportional representation and no separation of powers. If we had that, I could sleep soundly in my bed without the inbred toffs in the House of Lords, and the monarchy for that matter.

If we were to abolish the monarchy, what would become of the United Kingdom? It's likely that the union would disintegrate into England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which would benefit no-one.

A republic would strengthen the union, I'm sure Wales and Scotland (NI probably more complex) would like the opportunity to have a head of state who isn't always English. I'd go as far as saying as long as the monarchy exists, the UK is going to split up - it's not as popular out of England.

If we were to abolish the monarchy, what would become of the United Kingdom? It's likely that the union would disintegrate into England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which would benefit no-one.

How do you know? Are you clairvoyant?

the royal famliy costs the british taxpayer 60p a year, frankly im not too worried about 60p.

who would you rather represented the UK? The Queen or Tony Blair?

keep the queen

It's a dictatorship because we have no proportional representation and no separation of powers. If we had that, I could sleep soundly in my bed without the inbred toffs in the House of Lords, and the monarchy for that matter.

You missed the point of my post. The House of Lords plays a vital role in our political system and simply saying we need to get rid of them because they are toffs fails to recognise this. If you can provide an alternative then great but I doubt you'll find a better on than the one that has exsisted for hundreds of years. I think this is seperation of powers or have I misunderstood you?

Btw, proportional representation would do nothing other than to fragment the government into a 2 or 3 way split in the House of Commons.

Btw, proportional representation would do nothing other than to fragment the government into a 2 or 3 way split in the House of Commons.

No, PR would actually represent the wishes of the electorate accurately.

She is on the throne because God wants her to be monarch. It is not the right of mortals to go against God's will.

No, PR would actually represent the wishes of the electorate accurately.

Yes it would, but IIRC the last lot of election results would have lead to a hung parliament and the government can't compromise within the parties so having to work together would lead to the House of Commons grinding to a halt.

The fptp system is far from perfect but at least it allows the party in power to achieve some of its' aims.

She is on the throne because God wants her to be monarch. It is not the right of mortals to go against God's will.

And i assume that all the other deposed monarchs must have just annoyed god in some way? Otherwise he would surely have never allowed the downfall of his chosen leaders, right?

Yes.

Yes it would, but IIRC the last lot of election results would have lead to a hung parliament and the government can't compromise within the parties so having to work together would lead to the House of Commons grinding to a halt.

The fptp system is far from perfect but at least it allows the party in power to achieve some of its' aims.

A hung parliament?

In PR?
:rolleyes:

A hung parliament?

In PR?
:rolleyes:

Yes, like I say I don't have the figures to hand but if my brain is working today I seem to remember that the votes cast would have lead to the 3 main parties holding roughly the same number of seats, hence a hung parliament. Or am I using the term incorrectly?

Yes.

You're having me on aren't you?

Yes, like I say I don't have the figures to hand but if my brain is working today I seem to remember that the votes cast would have lead to the 3 main parties holding roughly the same number of seats, hence a hung parliament. Or am I using the term incorrectly?

If you are using merely the three parties as a basis for your analysis of PR then yes you are roughly correct.

However, PR by its nature would allow and encourage the growth of smaller minority parties and independents. They end up being key. The Greens, Liberals (not Lib Dem), UKIP, DUP etc.

I suspect that is PR was introduced on a National level in the UK then a larger number of smaller parties would suddenly increase in importance- thereby giving the voters more a choice in voting for parties that reflect their views accurately- as opposed to merely voting for one because of a dislike of the other.

And i assume that all the other deposed monarchs must have just annoyed god in some way? Otherwise he would surely have never allowed the downfall of his chosen leaders, right?
I don't understand. Are you trying to imply that God actually cares about other countries than Britain? That's dangerous thinking.

If you are using merely the three parties as a basis for your analysis of PR then yes you are roughly correct.

However, PR by its nature would allow and encourage the growth of smaller minority parties and independents. They end up being key. The Greens, Liberals (not Lib Dem), UKIP, DUP etc.

I suspect that is PR was introduced on a National level in the UK then a larger number of smaller parties would suddenly increase in importance- thereby giving the voters more a choice in voting for parties that reflect their views accurately- as opposed to merely voting for one because of a dislike of the other.

And therein lies one of the main problems with PR. Aside from allowing exteme parties a greater foothold in parliament, you come to the nightmare of having coallition governments. Like I said before, parties struggle to agree internally nevermind the difficulties of interparty cooperation.

The three party system used to allow voters to register a vote for the party most accuratly reflecting their views but with a shift towards centre-right by the three biggies, I think you will see an emergance of smaller parties at the next election anyway.

I don't understand. Are you trying to imply that God actually cares about other countries than Britain? That's dangerous thinking.

My God!! What was I thinking?!!? Quick Jeeves some strong soap and an enema kit, I must purge myself of these dreadful ideas.
:D

And therein lies one of the main problems with PR. Aside from allowing exteme parties a greater foothold in parliament, you come to the nightmare of having coallition governments. Like I said before, parties struggle to agree internally nevermind the difficulties of interparty cooperation.

Extreme parties whether you like them or not are only there because they reflect the views of some people. It is a weakness with democracy in general not PR, that they have a right to be represented as much as any other group.

Do not look to places like Italy to use as examples of coalition goverments, normally coalition goverments are quite stable and their more radical/extreme policies would have to be neutered to be in government.


The three party system used to allow voters to register a vote for the party most accuratly reflecting their views
I personally don't really see that it does or ever did, but thats just my opinion. FPTP allows a constituency to be represented in Parliament by a single person with possibly only 50% + 1 of the votes- not exactly democratic!


but with a shift towards centre-right by the three biggies, I think you will see an emergance of smaller parties at the next election anyway.
Maybe, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

The very nature of FPTP stifles the beginnings of smaller parties- what is the point in voting for them if they'll never attain enough seats to make an impact?

I'm a stand tall, stand on your own Texan of the brashest sort but I thoroughly agree with this:

As an American, I can see the utility of the Monarchy: It is an excellent symbol of the UK and Commonwealth, and it has certain features that are very practical.

Elizabeth II has been active in world affairs since the 1950's, that's quite a number of people she's worked with or met. Also, the institution provides a degree of apoliticality to the diginifed portion of government: opening places, signings, and parades. There's no theoretical sense of partisian objection to the person.

I think she does a marvelous job of her job - as a constitutional monarch she is supposed to be a people meeter and greeter and a ceremonial figure - and by every account I have seen she is absolutely excellent at it.

I happen to be quite a fan of hers.

She is on the throne because God wants her to be monarch. It is not the right of mortals to go against God's will.

Then I suppose it was also God's will that England be invaded by Saxons, and then invaded by Normans and then to allow Oliver Cromwell to come to power and kill the king, and to lose all of their French territory? Come on. God doesn't support ANY government unless it allows HIM to rule over his people.

I'm a foreinger and I would like to say this: "The Queen is nothing but a fat cell in the body of the British Government." I mean, the Queen hardly has any, if no political power at all. Of course, I'm not saying this just because I'm American, I'm just saying that it wouldn't really make any difference at all if the Queen was removed. So no matter what you do to the Queen, it would not make the British Government any better or any worse. Of course you could make the nation better by taking all of her wealth and then distrubuting it among the people.

you are gravely mistaken. She has the power to refuse royal assent, close parliament, ask anyone to form a government and declare war

All important powers

you are gravely mistaken. She has the power to refuse royal assent, close parliament, ask anyone to form a government and declare war

All important powers

Read Response #26.

The Monarchy seem to live in a completely different world to everyone else, and the taxpayers have to pay for their extravagant lifestyle. I read in a recent survey 80%(ish) of people want to keep the Queen. I don't really understand why; what has she ever done for us so that we have to keep paying her so much to do it?

Well if that were true, then it would be the queen who would be getting bombarded with unpleasent remarks about the involvement in Iraq, not Tony Blair.

The monarch normally acts upon the advice of their government, assuming that its data will be correct (which it all too often isn't, but there we are).

The Monarchy seem to live in a completely different world to everyone else, and the taxpayers have to pay for their extravagant lifestyle. I read in a recent survey 80%(ish) of people want to keep the Queen. I don't really understand why; what has she ever done for us so that we have to keep paying her so much to do it?

The Crown and the Royal Family are net donors to the Exchequer. I can get more tangible figures if you wish.

you are gravely mistaken. She has the power to refuse royal assent, close parliament, ask anyone to form a government and declare war

All important powers

If she tried, the government would axe her. They'd find some other way of passing a law to get rid of her.

EDIT: Axe as in depose, not execute!

you are gravely mistaken. She has the power to refuse royal assent, close parliament, ask anyone to form a government and declare war

All important powers
Did you read the thread?

Oh, she can declare war. I stand corrected.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/constitution/story/0,,1703068,00.html

[the Queen has] the right to:

· declare war and send troops abroad;

· to make international and European treaties;

· to make appointments and award honours;

· to make major changes to the structure of government.

Theoretically, yes. Constitutionally, yes and no. All her theoretical powers (i.e. all her powers) are exercised by the Cabinet.

So in constitutional theory she has the power, but in constitutional practice she doesn't (what with the constitution taking convention into a high regard).

True for the most part. Can't fault the reasoning. I would raise the objection that the Cabinet does not have the power to dissolve Parliament. Eugh! Imagine that! Blair with that power.

If she tried, the government would axe her. They'd find some other way of passing a law to get rid of her.

EDIT: Axe as in depose, not execute!

Under certain circumstances then the public might be in general support of Her Majesty's actions. It's all dependent on the situation I suppose.

I'm a foreinger and I would like to say this: "The Queen is nothing but a fat cell in the body of the British Government." I mean, the Queen hardly has any, if no political power at all. Of course, I'm not saying this just because I'm American, I'm just saying that it wouldn't really make any difference at all if the Queen was removed. So no matter what you do to the Queen, it would not make the British Government any better or any worse. Of course you could make the nation better by taking all of her wealth and then distrubuting it among the people.

We'll take your personal income and possessions as well shall we and distribute them amongst the nation, eh? The very idea!

True for the most part. Can't fault the reasoning. I would raise the objection that the Cabinet does not have the power to dissolve Parliament. Eugh! Imagine that! Blair with that power.
Well, in practice it does.

At least, the PM does. Him asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament is a mere formality, he decides when it happens.

Of course, under the Septennial Act it 'automatically' dissolves after 5 years.

Oh, she can declare war. I stand corrected.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/constitution/story/0,,1703068,00.html
In practice all those powers are exercised by her government in her name, or she does them solely at the advice of her government.

Don't forget that the government is her government, that's why they exercise her powers.

Well, in practice it does.

At least, the PM does. Him asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament is a mere formality, he decides when it happens.

Of course, under the Septennial Act it 'automatically' dissolves after 5 years.

No, it is the Parliament Act 1911 (this displaced the Septennial Act). By the way, there is a grave loophole in this Act.

As the Parliament Act can be used to force amendments to itself through the House of Lords then there is a great deal of contention as to whether the Commons could strip the Peers of their power of rejection.

In practice all those powers are exercised by her government in her name, or she does them solely at the advice of her government.

Don't forget that the government is her government, that's why they exercise her powers.

In practice yes, but that doesn't mean she couldn't do it, if she would like to. (?)
I'm not sure about the Parliament act though; could that overrule her?
Edit: (I didn't know East Britannia had already mentioned this)

No, it is the Parliament Act 1911 (this displaced the Septennial Act). By the way, there is a grave loophole in this Act.

It didn't replace it, as far as I know, it just amended it, so while in the Parliament Act it says the maximum length of Parliament is 5 years, that's not the Act that would actually do it. If you know what I mean.

As the Parliament Act can be used to force amendments to itself through the House of Lords then there is a great deal of contention as to whether the Commons could strip the Peers of their power of rejection.
I've never been a fan of it anyway. Primacy of the Commons is important, but there are things like that loophole which are dodgy.

It didn't replace it, as far as I know, it just amended it, so while in the Parliament Act it says the maximum length of Parliament is 5 years, that's not the Act that would actually do it. If you know what I mean.

Sorry, let me clarify, the 5 year limit stems from the Parliament Act 1911. I wasn't disputing your citation. We're both right in a way.

In practice yes, but that doesn't mean she couldn't do it, if she would like to. (?)
I'm not sure about the Parliament act though; could that overrule her?
Edit: (I didn't know East Britannia had already mentioned this)

To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to overrule the monarch's refusal of Royal Assent except for the concept of convention.

In practice yes, but that doesn't mean she couldn't do it, if she would like to. (?)

She couldn't.

Parliamentary Sovereignty and Convention are very important parts of the constitution, so it would now be unconstitutional for her to do so.

And Parliament could remove her (forcing an abdication, as was done in 1936) and get a more willing Monarch if she did.

Exactly. Problem is... what powers?

she has x-ray vision.

the queen is pointless all she does is spend brit taxes. brits should spend thier money on better things like education or keeping BNP at bay.

I've never been a fan of it anyway. Primacy of the Commons is important, but there are things like that loophole which are dodgy.

Yes, the Parliament Act amendment being quite a prime example.

Sorry, let me clarify, the 5 year limit stems from the Parliament Act 1911. I wasn't disputing your citation. We're both right in a way.
Oh, ok.

She couldn't.

Parliamentary Sovereignty and Convention are very important parts of the constitution, so it would now be unconstitutional for her to do so.

And Parliament could remove her (forcing an abdication, as was done in 1936) and get a more willing Monarch if she did.

Quite interesting, abdication. For example, Edward VIII could only abdicate because he was King and had the power to authorise the Instrument of Abdication. Yes, lovely little morass.

She couldn't.

Parliamentary Sovereignty and Convention are very important parts of the constitution, so it would now be unconstitutional for her to do so.

And Parliament could remove her (forcing an abdication, as was done in 1936) and get a more willing Monarch if she did.

But, couldn't she dissolve Parliament if they tried to cast a vote on it?

she has x-ray vision.

the queen is pointless all she does is spend brit taxes. brits should spend thier money on better things like education or keeping BNP at bay.

As I have said before in this thread, the Crown and the Royal Family are net donors to the Exchequer. You will find that the Official Royal Expenses are very closely scrutinised by the Treasury.

But, couldn't she dissolve Parliament if they tried to cast a vote on it?

Technically, yes. However, it merely perpetuates the problem, it doesn't solve it. They'd just meet illegally. The Queen doesn't even have to officially dissolve Parliament. If a terrorist wants to bring Parliament to a halt then all they have to do is steal the maces and the chambers can't sit. Et voila!

But, couldn't she dissolve Parliament if they tried to cast a vote on it?
Even back in the 1260s a Parliament sat without the consent of the Monarch.

As did the Parliament that threw out James II and got in William III.

surelly abloshing the Monarchy would be thing for a refferendum, I say keep her she is in away a fail safe Against far worser things, and England under a republic the last time was really a boring place to live

If Britain got rid of the Royal Family, it would be like if America got rid of the Hollywood Actors. There would be nothing stupid to talk about.

Reminds me of what the Chinese said about "Giving up Taiwan would be like America giving up LA." Oh my would I love to see Paris Hilton under the chains of Communism.... ;)

You see, Parliament just flouts the Law and, quite frankly, gets away with it.

if you can get hold of it there is a good article about why Britian has Kept its Monarchy in the BBC History Magazine

Oh yes? Do you have the issue number so that I might obtain a back-copy?

the problem with removing the queen is that the national anthem would go to pot and i for one cant be assed to find a new one

the problem with removing the queen is that the national anthem would go to pot and i for one cant be assed to find a new one

How about "God Save Queen" instead :D

Oh yes? Do you have the issue number so that I might obtain a back-copy?the Current one I do believe

I'll have a shufty.

Yeah and I dont think she can veto any Parlaiment action either. At least, last time I checked.

She has the De Jury power to veto any legislation she wants. But De Facto if she were to do it there would be uproar on a massive scale.

How about "God Save Queen" instead :D

as in queen the band? not my favourite but we could always have

God save the british,
send them victorius,
happy and glourious,
to vote for bad PM's,
god save the british

thats crap i no but i was up all nught and im shattered

as in queen the band? not my favourite but we could always have

God save the british,
send them victorius,
happy and glourious,
to vote for bad PM's,
god save the british

thats crap i no but i was up all nught and im shattered

Hell, let's add insult to injury and sing it in a mixture of French, German and English!

Hell, let's add insult to injury and sing it in a mixture of French, German and English!

lol, than again i wouldnt mind Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau (welsh NA) being welsh...

Hell, let's add insult to injury and sing it in a mixture of French, German and English!

God save the British,
Hen triomfantelijk sturen,
Contents et glorieux,
Um für schlechten Ministerpräsidenten* zu wählen,
God save the British.

I added some Dutch, for good measure. It's just not Wordsworth.

that is good Con-Com

Perhaps we could try to adapt the anthem into as many concurrent languages as possible. I've got a copy somewhere, I'll see if I can find it.

Maybe "heureux" would have been better. (in favour of "contents")

Here we are:

1. God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us;
God save the Queen!

2. O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!

3. Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign;
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!

4. Not in this land alone,
But be God's mercies known,
From shore to shore!
Lord make the nations see,
That men should brothers be,
And form one family,
The wide world over.

5. From every latent foe,
From the assassins blow,
God save the Queen!
O'er her thine arm extend,
For Britain's sake defend,
Our mother, prince, and friend,
God save the Queen!

6. Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the King!

Translate away to your heart's content!

It's bad isn't it. if you take away the monarchy, then despite our long and proud history, we would have to create new focuses for our pride like the name, like the anthem. And because these are new they won't really adequately be able to reflect this history or at least connect to it. Not to mention that most of our proudest moments are intrinsically linked to monarchy.
And it's not as though you can just rustle up this new focus anyway. You just look at the US and the reverence they have for their constitution and flag. For one we don't have a single codified constitution, and if we did Europe would be rewriting it anyway, and i just can't imagine Brits treating the Union flag similarly to Americans, even if the flags hadn't been taken over by the BNP and their ilk.

God save the Queen!

....

God save the King!

You mean the bloody thing's long enough for the Monarch to have a sex change in the middle of it? :eek:

You mean the bloody thing's long enough for the Monarch to have a sex change in the middle of it? :eek:
Well at least for one monarch to die and another to be coronated (is that a word?).

Well at least for one monarch to die and another to be coronated (is that a word?).

I thought that's what he meant.

Verse 6 apertains to the crushing of the Scots during the 18th century in which no Queen held a part. Therefore, to end the verse with the line 'God save the Queen!' would imply that Her Majesty was directly involved.

I thought that's what he meant.

I didn't write the National Anthem. It isn't anything to do with my personal preference. To the best of my knowledge this is the official wording of 'God Save The Queen!'

Well at least for one monarch to die and another to be coronated (is that a word?).

Yes, it is a conjugation of the verb.

I didn't write the National Anthem. It isn't anything to do with my personal preference. To the best of my knowledge this is the official wording of 'God Save The Queen!'
"There is no authorised version of the National Anthem as the words are a matter of tradition" (source (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page317.asp))

Official wording, eh?

I didn't write the National Anthem. It isn't anything to do with my personal preference. To the best of my knowledge this is the official wording of 'God Save The Queen!'
When i was at school in Lancaster we used to sing,
'God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Duke,'
on account of her being the Duke of Lancaster. Not strictly relevant, I know.
Edit: although it does perhaps illustrate that 'tradition over officialdom' thing.

Read Response #26.

dont be foolish, she can declare war but did so on behalf of tony blair

Yes, it is a conjugation of the verb.
Perhaps it would be better phrased, 'Is that the correct word for the process?' or would 'crowned' or 'invested' or something be better?

'God shave our hairy queen'.

I felt that was needed.

"There is no authorised version of the National Anthem as the words are a matter of tradition" (source (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page317.asp))

Official wording, eh?

My mistake, "generally accepted wording".

Perhaps it would be better phrased, 'Is that the correct word for the process?' or would 'crowned' or 'invested' or something be better?

Again, more conjugations! Past participles.

"There is no authorised version of the National Anthem as the words are a matter of tradition" (source (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page317.asp))

Official wording, eh?
From that article :
This practice soon spread to other theatres, and the custom of greeting monarchs with the song as he or she entered a place of public entertainment was thus established.
This caught my attention because i remembered reading that an American conductor had got into trouble by trying to play the national anthem in that way.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A794351
An interesting incident occurred during the 1970s at a concert attended by the Queen at the Royal Festival Hall, London. The conductor was an American, Leonard Bernstein, who had of course conducted concerts in the past attended by his President, where it is customary to play Hail to the Chief as the President enters the hall and proceeds to his place of honour. But no one had thought to mention to Bernstein that such things are done differently in Britain.

The Queen and her entourage entered the hall, and the royal party duly started to make its way towards the Royal Box. Bernstein, however, took this as the signal to start the National Anthem. But when God Save the Queen is played or sung, everyone must stand to attention. The drum rolled, the tune started up, and of course Queen and retinue had to stop dead in their tracks and remain rooted to the spot until the music stopped, when they were able to continue towards their seats. The Queen smiled graciously.
Does anyone know which one is correct?

I think the Queen plays an important part of the British state. The Queen is the "Dignified" part of the state ,there for show more then anything else. It means that essentially party and state are never one and the same. Politicians are always subordinate to the Queen who is the state, who is the people. It means that feelings of patriotism are not contected with a politician but with another figurehead

Sorry friend, but Her Majesty does not necessarily have to stand. For example, when travelling in the State Coach Her Majesty doesn't rise for the National Anthem or she'd fall out of the door.

Britain should definitely retain the monarchy. God Save the Queen!


On a side note, lese majesty laws making it illegal to criticize the monarchy should be implemented.

Sorry friend, but Her Majesty does not necessarily have to stand. For example, when travelling in the State Coach Her Majesty doesn't rise for the National Anthem or she'd fall out of the door.
Yes, but I assumed it was the 'and entourage' who did have to stand, and the Queen, rather than leave them behind, elected to wait with them.

The Monarchy is the British equivalent of the American flag. How many Americans who think the Queen is useless would like to cease flying “Old Glory?”
For the record, I would.
You mean the Monarch herself, don't you? For the record, I think Britain should keep the monarchy, but encourage it to have a more active political role. At the same time, I would also like the United States to cease being the United States. I would say more, but that was already technically treason, so I will restrain myself.

I have to start by saying that I'm not one of these guys who is just blatantly against the Queen because he thinks it's cool. I have great respect for our monarch as a British citizen. She has to travel to loads of different countries, meet all kinds of treacherous Arabs and when she finally gets to sit down she's being watched by cameramen from all over the country. My question is should Britain abolish the monarchy?
I know a good counter-argument is that she generates money through tourism and gives Britain a good image for other countries but doesn't she spend more money than she earns and wouldn't most people who go to London still go if the Queen wasn't there? Also, it would be a bit of a pity if all our Queen is is a tourism device and expensive logo for the British Isles.

So what's your opinion? Yes or No to the monarch? And what do foreigners think of the Queen?


The monarchy of the United Kingdom is a strong symbol for unity for the British people, as well as an important element of their culture. This situation delves much deeper than just economics. The British, as well as the Canadians, Australians, and New Zealand people all pleage alligence to the Queen. To them, the Queen is a special treasure. I personally think the Queen is very good because she unites all people from around the world. The Queen is much more than just a tourism device. She is a LEADER.

I think the Queen plays an important part of the British state. The Queen is the "Dignified" part of the state ,there for show more then anything else. It means that essentially party and state are never one and the same. Politicians are always subordinate to the Queen who is the state, who is the people. It means that feelings of patriotism are not contected with a politician but with another figurehead
Hurrah for PR figureheads!

The monarchy of the United Kingdom is a strong symbol for unity for the British people, as well as an important element of their culture. This situation delves much deeper than just economics. The British, as well as the Canadians, Australians, and New Zealand people all pleage alligence to the Queen. To them, the Queen is a special treasure. I personally think the Queen is very good because she unites all people from around the world. The Queen is much more than just a tourism device. She is a LEADER.
That's quite a first post.:)