The Queen

[coffee-]

I browsed through the Queens birthday thread and noticed quite a bit of anonmosity towards her. I have some questions. Sorry for my ignorance.

a) In this modern age what are the duties of the Queen?

b) Are people actually upset that Royalty is decided by blood lines? Even though it is how it has always been. (or has it?)

c) Should the Royal families roles be removed? How would this effect Britain & the Commonwealth?

d) Beyond originally being a colony of Britain, and the Queens picture still being on every piece of money what is the purpose of the Royal family to Canada?

Originally Posted by Phang

what on earth has the old sow done? her mother at least tried to connect with the people in small ways (the blitz etc), to at least show some kind of identification and familiarity. all this one has done so far as i can see is **** up her eldest son's love life from time to time.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Then you are an ignorant twat.

I don't actually feel the need to waste my time proving you wrong. You may doubt that I can. Fools do.

This is a thread to celebrate 54 years of service by a lady who is soon to be 80 years old.

It is not a thread to teach you about the British constitution. It is not a thread to teach you basic modern history.

IF you have questions about the constitution and IF you have need of lessons about modern history THEN please make your own thread. I will even post there and correct your ignorance.

I have started a thread for Phang instead.

[Androme]

Originally Posted by coffee-

b) Are people actually upset that Royalty is decided by blood lines? Even though it is how it has always been. (or has it?)

Now I was asleep for my History lessons but I know it hasn't always been decided by blood lines just like Google says so.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

i feel sorry for Yahwe, he's really not done himself any favours. come the revolution he will surely be shot for being a counter-revolutionary

[Nodrog]

a) The queen has no genuine duties and this is the crux of the problem - the monarchy is a facade. As far as I know, partts of our ridiculous legal system depend on the symbolic presence of the Queen to function, even though she doesnt actually do anything. The laws which make this so should be changed, and if there are laws preventing them from being changed, then they should be changed too.

b) I have no real theoertical problems with the idea of having a hereditary monarchy and I might even prefer a proper monarchy to democracy (although there are probably better alternatives to both). But it all depends on precisely how it's integrated into the rest of the political system.

c) Removing the Royal family seems like a lot of hassle, and there are far more important things to do first if we are interested in fixing our government. The monarchy should not exist in its present form, but getting worked up about it is equivalent to rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic. There is no good reason for the Commonwealth to exist either, so any effects removal would have on it arent particularly important.

d) Canada sux lol

[coffee-]

Originally Posted by Androme2

Now I was asleep for my History lessons but I know it hasn't always been decided by blood lines just like Google says so.

Note the (or has it?) at the end of the question.

[dda]

I seem to remember that there were several, rather bloody exchanges and a few dynasty changes along the way but I am no expert. Though I did once take a class on British History and in another class once wrote a term paper on the English Corn Laws of 1848 so, for an American, I am in the top 1% as far as knowledge of British history. You all used to wear red coats as I recall.

[NEWSBOT3]

gotta keep warm and stuff.

[dda]

Nowadays, my understanding is that all Englishmen are required, by law, to carry umbrellas with them at all times. However, this seems to have come in after the red coat thingy. Also, are bowler hats still popular? Is there any chance that you might go to bowler hats, red coats AND umbrellas? If so, would the hats AND umbrella have to be red as well?

[qebab]

No, I heard the umbrella is supposed to be black. The bowler hat is blue. Garment such as socks, and underwear is also required to be blue.

[eJohn]

People who like the queen are usually a combination of posh, pompous, english, protestant, nationalistic, self-obsessed, and ignorant. Theres absolutely no need to make an argument against such an archaic institution which continues to embarrass the educated populous on a dailly basis.

[eJohn]

repeat post to show love to my lovers <3

[milo]

Originally Posted by coffee-

a) In this modern age what are the duties of the Queen?

to rubber stamp whatever the PM wants and pretend she matters

b) Are people actually upset that Royalty is decided by blood lines? Even though it is how it has always been. (or has it?)

There wouldn't be much point in having a queen if it wasn't decided by blood lines, im not really upset over it, they're all imbred to various degrees.

c) Should the Royal families roles be removed? How would this effect Britain & the Commonwealth?

effect in what sense? nothing much would happen, we'd adapt and move on.

d) Beyond originally being a colony of Britain, and the Queens picture still being on every piece of money what is the purpose of the Royal family to Canada?

it stops quebec and the french taking over

[IncubusGod]

While watching a documentary on Channel 4 one night it was revealed that the Queen of England is actually related to her husband that Duke of Dork in 127 ways.
And they are infact cousins by several different family lines.

How utterly lovely. Inbred german nutters hold privalige over all others in the UK. Why exactly?

[Yahwe]

I have weighed up the pros and cons of replying in this thread.

Watching the level of ignorance displayed in relation to the topic of the sovereign I do think that before half of you 'mouth off' on the topic you ought to at least know the basics.

So let's begin:

Constitutional Functions of the Sovereign

All nations need a concept of Sovereignty. From this concept stems normative legitimacy for that nation's legal system.
The Crown as sovereign fulfils a major (irreplaceable) role in the Sovereignty of the UK and it's dominion territories. This role is usually summed up as "the queen in parliament is sovereign".

Put simply the Monarch is a method of determining if a law is in fact a law. A rule which your father made as a child is not a law. A bill passed by parliament is not a law. You as citizens are protected from any legal consequences for disobeying these rules.

A rule (or norm) obtains legitimacy only if it stems from the Sovereign.

Practically this means that if a parliamentary bill is passed it is not law (called an act) until her Majesty has given royal assent (signed it).

The Sovereign also holds what are referred to as prerogative powers: most people are vaguely aware of these and simple examples are hunting rights, rights to swans, dolphins and whales etc.

However some of these prerogative powers are actually very important ones. For example the right to declare war, the right to appoint ministers, create peers or the power to dissolve/call a parliament.

Nowadays these important prerogative powers have been 'lent' to the Prime minister or the relevant Minister.

This means practically that her Majesty is unlikely to declare war on Equatorial Guinea on a whim.

However the importance of the nature of these prerogative powers passing to the PM is of a practical nature.

The Prime Minister is not Sovereign and he is not above or outside the law. There is nothing to stop (and indeed it happens a lot) The Courts reviewing or striking down the Prime Minister's actions. What stops the courts striking down his actions is the defence "I am exercising a prerogative power which Her Majesty has permitted me to exercise".

The Monarch also acts to legitimise the rulings of her courts.

Moreover the Monarch gives legitimacy to the honours system. The honours system is almost unique in the world. It is a mechanism whereby incredibly talented individuals can be induced to work for 'below their market value' salaries or perform major works of public good or philanthropy.

The Monarch is ultimately a source of constitutional legitimacy.

However the Monarch is also Head of the Church of England. Without the monarch there could be no Church of England.

Symbolic functions of the Sovereign

As well as giving normative legitimacy to the actions of Ministers and to newly created Laws, the sovereign performs certain symbolic functions.

The monarch can be used as a personification of the state. This is of particular use when there is a period of rapid change in the elected officials. We also happen to be, because of our history, a particularly fractured nation. The Monarch provides a symbolic function as personification of our nation's unity.

This function is particularly useful in times of particularly heightened sectarian feeling. Though it also provides a constant role of countering these feelings.

The monarch is always the symbolic head of the armed forces. The pay of any member of those armed forces is referred to as "the queens coin". Symbolically it has proven valuable to have the armed forces fighting for the Monarch. This overcomes problems of the political leanings of a particular member of the forces. (this applies to the all aspects of civil service).

The Monarch provides a symbolic function in times of national grief and national tragedy.

This is part of the function of the Monarch as an 'a-political' force is a particularly unique value we gain by not having an elected head of state (which I shall explore below).

The Role of Head of State

The Monarch provides an important function as head of state. Heads of State are a mechanism whereby sovereign nations can inter-act. Such diplomacy is essential in both increasing international trade and preventing war.

The benefits of a Monarch as head of state are twofold:

1) The Monarch serves for life and knew from a very young age that they would be head of state. This creates unprecedented opportunities for specialised training and 'on the job improvement'. A fixed term replacement would simply not have the same opportunities.

2) The Monarch as a-political can maintain relationships with nations who's politics may not necessarily be supported by the party in power. (this ability is often taken advantage of by those political parties themselves)

However The Monarch is also head of state for the dominion territories. Gibraltar, the Scilly Isles, the Channel Isles, the isle of Mann, the islands in the Caribbean, the pacific islands, St Helena, the Pitcairns, Falkland islands etc etc etc.

As head of state the Monarch provides a unifying force: the peoples of these dominion territories frequently dislike or disapprove of the government of the UK. However the a-political Monarch is frequently adored

(I have not touched upon the common wealth, nor do i intend to)

The present Queen

The present Monarch Elizabeth II, despite being exceptionally gifted at her duties has also 'gone beyond the call of duty' and has improved the function of the Monarch.

Some examples include:

1) In 1976 instituting the (previously unheard of) 'Royal Walkabout'. This revolutionised how the citizen and the Monarch personally inter-act.

2) Her Majesty refuses to accept the income from crown estates, thereby returning huge amounts of money which she is entitled to to the national purse.

3) Her Majesty instituted regular intimate luncheons with professionals: including business, health care, education and law. These serve to both keep Her Majesty informed of the 'real world' but also to reward and encourage citizens who are doing a lot to improve the nation.

Her Majesty has never made a political or diplomatic blunder in 54 years 'in the job'. This efficiency should not go without praise.

Some simple arguments against removing the role of Monarch

1) The role of the Monarch could not be removed without replacing it with something else.
2) A replacement would not be supported by a thousand years of tradition.
3) An elected official would cost more (every election would cost money, coronations are less frequent).
4) Those people who hate the House of Windsor would not get the satisfaction they desire because the family itself is independently wealthy.
5) Electing someone to the position would remove the Monarch's a-political nature and would risk being divisive.
6) Pound for pound the Monarchy makes money. No replacement system could be as cost efficient.

and perhaps most importantly: "no one will agree on what should replace it"


(I have been as objective as possible. I am not seeking to convince anyone on the basis of argument or belief. I am pro-monarchy because of these facts, I have not created these facts because I am pro-monarchy)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

b) I have no real theoertical problems with the idea of having a hereditary monarchy and I might even prefer a proper monarchy to democracy

The only rational reason I can think of having a hereditary monarchy (with any real power - not the figurehead we have now) is the idea that one blood line is somehow inherently superior to all others. Which, in todays day and age, seems a fairly far-fetched idea. I mean, even if you thought having a monarch was a good idea, and you chose the fairest/strongest/smartest/most socialist/least socialist (delete criteria where applicable) person in the land there doesn't seem much chance that their offspring will match the same criteria.

Of course you could have some group of civil servants / priests / something else to heavily "guide" their political education but then it seems more likely they'd be the ones actually wielding power.

Overall, you might as well just have a lottery to see who becomes sovereign or something equally arbritrary.

Originally Posted by eJohn

People who like the queen are usually a combination of posh, pompous, english, protestant, nationalistic, self-obsessed, and ignorant.

There is a rather appalling free newspaper given out on some London buses called 'CityAM' which is aimed at city types. Since my bus in the morning comes from Aldgate I ocassionally get a chance to leaf through it. It really is terrible; they actually had a section celebrating (and listing) where City boys had spent more than £3,000 on a single drinks bill in the last month.

Along with this sort of information they have a "businessman's view" sort of column where some odious member of the bourgeoisie is given space to debate with someone (a priest I think). Anyway, this fat capitalist summarised things as (paraphrasing) : "the monarch and the patronage system which accompanies it is popular with the peasantry and the sentimental classes. Let them have their nonsense".

I thought that was a reasonable summary.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

1) The role of the Monarch could not be removed without replacing it with something else.
2) A replacement would not be supported by a thousand years of tradition.
3) An elected official would cost more (every election would cost money, coronations are less frequent).
4) Those people who hate the House of Windsor would not get the satisfaction they desire because the family itself is independently wealthy.
5) Electing someone to the position would remove the Monarch's a-political nature and would risk being divisive.
6) Pound for pound the Monarchy makes money. No replacement system could be as cost efficient.

1 is self-evident (at least in the sense you mean it).
2 could be seen as a good thing (and besides applies to any change).
3 & 6 are the same point really. "It's cheap!" is not much of a political argument one way or the other as far as I can see (unless the cost is going to significantly affect the nations budgets, which seems unclear).
4 is a non-argument. Who cares if it satisfies this group of people who hate the House of Windsor?
5 is a possible argument but I hardly think applies very often in foriegn policy affairs. Is/was the attitude of the EU / China / the Soviets / the Arab nations really going to be swayed (in our favour) by the presence of a monarchy? Speaking domestically, given that a sizable proportion of the population don't actively want a monarchy it already is devisive.

Overall, even though I'm a Republican I don't really care about the monarchy. It really is a non-issue in the general political context. I suspect support for the institution will fade over time (especially given older generations will begin to die off and other demographic factors) but it'll probably be around as an institution for another hundred years or so through simple inertia (and Yahwe's seventh argument). Of course, the Daily Mail tells me that we'll be an Islamic Republic or a local authority of the Greater European State by then so who knows....

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I thought that was a reasonable summary.
1 is self-evident (at least in the sense you mean it).
2 could be seen as a good thing (and besides applies to any change).
3 & 6 are the same point really. "It's cheap!" is not much of a political argument one way or the other as far as I can see (unless the cost is going to significantly affect the nations budgets, which seems unclear).
4 is a non-argument. Who cares if it satisfies this group of people who hate the House of Windsor?
5 is a possible argument but I hardly think applies very often in foriegn policy affairs. Is/was the attitude of the EU / China / the Soviets / the Arab nations really going to be swayed (in our favour) by the presence of a monarchy? Speaking domestically, given that a sizable proportion of the population don't actively want a monarchy it already is devisive.

They are all of them arguments.

You may try to counter them if you choose, but I fail to see the value in your waffling commentry (particularly given how long it took me to type the bloody thing and convert complex ideas into issues people can understand).

[eJohn]

you're still rong tho lol