Considering she still has the power to dissolve parliament, And declare war on other nations, I think that she should go, But that’s just me, I still think there should be the commonwealth though, As I live in New Zealand Its good for trade and defence and Inter-Country co-op
Considering she still has the power to dissolve parliament, And declare war on other nations
"
Holy shit i had no idea she could do all that shit !!!!!!! Does her declartion of war have to be passed by parliment?@Red12b: "
No, if you are british she has a lot of power over you. People tend to discuss this quite offhandedly, as if in today's society we no longer need the royalty which just leech off the people's taxes. Theoretically you are right but no one will ever remove the royalty they have to voluntarily step down. Think about it, even if done peacefully these people would lose all of their possessions. The people who would decide to take them down are in politics and are their friends or lifelong acquantainces. You would not decide to strip away all possessions from people that you know, EVER, unless in a crisis. Also the queen of england is arguably one of the best statesmen in the XX century (Stalin, Hitler, Kennedy, Castro and Rooselvelt have her beat). But I think that she is unquestionably the greatest statesman alive today (castro is too sick). In other words, even if she is grossly overpaid she truly is without parallel as a diplomat or a head of state. I don't think the Queen deserves to be taken down from her position as she has proved to be masterfully competent at it. Perhaps this argument can be later on made when stupid people rule. But compare her to Bush, a democratically elected president, she wins hands down. Proof that democracy is in no way inherently better than monarchy, always remember that all governments sound equally good on ideal grounds and paper (I wouldn't mind have an ideal emperor handpicked by "god" to rule over me if he got shit done) but on practice its a crap shoot.
Considering she still has the power to dissolve parliament, And declare war on other nations
"
Holy shit i had no idea she could do all that shit !!!!!!! Does her declartion of war have to be passed by parliment? @Red12b: "
No, if you are british she has a lot of power over you. People tend to discuss this quite offhandedly, as if in today's society we no longer need the royalty which just leech off the people's taxes. Theoretically you are right but no one will ever remove the royalty they have to voluntarily step down. Think about it, even if done peacefully these people would lose all of their possessions. The people who would decide to take them down are in politics and are their friends or lifelong acquantainces. You would not decide to strip away all possessions from people that you know, EVER, unless in a crisis. Also the queen of england is arguably one of the best statesmen in the XX century (Stalin, Hitler, Kennedy, Castro and Rooselvelt have her beat). But I think that she is unquestionably the greatest statesman alive today (castro is too sick). In other words, even if she is grossly overpaid she truly is without parallel as a diplomat or a head of state. I don't think the Queen deserves to be taken down from her position as she has proved to be masterfully competent at it. Perhaps this argument can be later on made when stupid people rule. But compare her to Bush, a democratically elected president, she wins hands down. Proof that democracy is in no way inherently better than monarchy, always remember that all governments sound equally good on ideal grounds and paper (I wouldn't mind have an ideal emperor handpicked by "god" to rule over me if he got shit done) but on practice its a crap shoot. "
This,
TC, If you are a brit, you really need to read up on who has power, In my opinion, She has done an outstanding job, Sure the royal family is leaching, but dude they still rule over you, so yeah, I just worry about when she dies, I don't trust elephant ears do you?
" Considering she still has the power to dissolve parliament, And declare war on other nations, I think that she should go, But that’s just me, I still think there should be the commonwealth though, As I live in New Zealand Its good for trade and defence and Inter-Country co-op "
Hell no. She hasn't had that power (those before her) for a couple of centuries. There was a war fought over that - the Civil War of 1642. When Cromwell defeated Charles 1. It was eventually the Bill of Rights in 1689 that completely affirmed ultimate authority to parliament. Only the government can declare war.
The Queen can only theoretically dismiss a government and would be constitutionally challenged. She would have to show cause before the courts and clearly it would only succeed when the government of the day is shown to be acting against the constitution.
She is merely a figurehead, acting entirely at the discretion of the government and acts within those protocols.
@oldschool: Hmm, I thought wrong, sorry I must have been mis-Informed.
I am going to dig a little deeper into this, I know she is just a figurehead, But as Queen/King it is still withen their power, It's just that they have to answer to the people, And forms of governance put in place, Or should I just walk away from this topic as i am just thinking aloud from what I have been told, And from the looks of it, Not from a very reliable source.
" @oldschool: Hmm, I thought wrong, sorry I must have been mis-Informed. I am going to dig a little deeper into this, I know she is just a figurehead, But as Queen/King it is still withen their power, It's just that they have to answer to the people, And forms of governance put in place, Or should I just walk away from this topic as i am just thinking aloud from what I have been told, And from the looks of it, Not from a very reliable source. "
I will clarify the Royal Prerogative though. It does contain the right to declare war, it can only be acted upon Prime Minister agreement. It is a power in theory, not in practice. Much of the confusion and perhaps, exaggeration stems from that.
" @oldschool: Hmm, I thought wrong, sorry I must have been mis-Informed. I am going to dig a little deeper into this, I know she is just a figurehead, But as Queen/King it is still withen their power, It's just that they have to answer to the people, And forms of governance put in place, Or should I just walk away from this topic as i am just thinking aloud from what I have been told, And from the looks of it, Not from a very reliable source. "
The Queen is, in American terms, the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces, and therefore could order them to war (thus bypassing all governmental opposition to a move like that). BUT, she would never do that since that is basically using a loophole, and in this age she has no right to do so (due to the fallout from the 10 years of Cromwell (and his son)).
She also has a very odd power, which has never been taken away - she can order any piece of land in the country to be given to her for no payment.
Depose the Queen! Death to Monarchy (not Monarchs themselves)! Support the British Republican movement (if such a movement exists)! Down with Monarchy! Up with Liberty!
Get rid of the lot of them. No person should be guaranteed a cushy and pampered life when most people in struggle to make ends meet. It matters not all what the Royals presents contribute towards tourism, will always be of interest to people the World over, maybe more so if the Royals meet a gruesome end. I do not hate however I am disgusted that anyone could enjoy and endorse such obscene in-equality in modern times.
No person should automatically from birth be treated as better than the majority simply because of how successful their ancestors were at murdering, raping, back stabbing etc hundreds of years ago. The Common Wealth is one of the best International organisations in the World, probably the best when you consider the number of varied benefits but this does not require a Queen or any other figure head.
The Royals have always got the best of life with remotely doing anything to justify such privileges. It does not matter how much charity they do - how difficult is it to give your time to worthy causes when you are absolutely financial secure. There are far more people in Britain who give more of their time to charitable causes but this have to work part/full time in jobs that pay just above the minimum wage.
The only thing special about the Royals - they know better than any others how to play the system and they have been doing it for hundreds of years.
I'm curious though, if the Queen felt strongly opposed to something (say, a law or a bill) that was passed by the Prime Minister, would she have the power to stand against it? Or would she simply have to go along with it?
" @oldschool: Hmm, I thought wrong, sorry I must have been mis-Informed. I am going to dig a little deeper into this, I know she is just a figurehead, But as Queen/King it is still withen their power, It's just that they have to answer to the people, And forms of governance put in place, Or should I just walk away from this topic as i am just thinking aloud from what I have been told, And from the looks of it, Not from a very reliable source. "
The Queen is, in American terms, the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces, and therefore could order them to war (thus bypassing all governmental opposition to a move like that). BUT, she would never do that since that is basically using a loophole, and in this age she has no right to do so (due to the fallout from the 10 years of Cromwell (and his son)). She also has a very odd power, which has never been taken away - she can order any piece of land in the country to be given to her for no payment. "
Unfortunately, all heads of state have this power. It's called eminent domain. It's the mistaken notion that the owner of a piece of land is the government, and that the deed-holder is simply a lessee. Which, I agree is bullshit, but not exclusive to Britain.
I think monarchy is probrably better than the democracy, and i think the queen is better left where she is.
Mainly because the queen and her family are brought up so they can exercise a position of some power. And as that, they are redier to assume it, that any other people. Granted that there can be better people to take it, but on a average a person that was taught since birth to lead is more prepared to do so.
Also the queen is a role model. That was specially seen during the world war 2, being that one of the biggest reasons she still has a place in the english modern society.
Also i think that a person being around power for so long, makes less inclined to abuse it.
Considering she still has the power to dissolve parliament, And declare war on other nations, I think that she should go, But that’s just me, I still think there should be the commonwealth though, As I live in New Zealand Its good for trade and defence and Inter-Country co-op
" I think monarchy is probrably better than the democracy, and i think the queen is better left where she is. Mainly because the queen and her family are brought up so they can exercise a position of some power. And as that, they are redier to assume it, that any other people. Granted that there can be better people to take it, but on a average a person that was taught since birth to lead is more prepared to do so. Also the queen is a role model. That was specially seen during the world war 2, being that one of the biggest reasons she still has a place in the english modern society. Also i think that a person being around power for so long, makes less inclined to abuse it. "
You have no idea of what you are speaking. Check the Royals history and then reconsider what proportion of them have been positive for this country compared to what proportion have been reckless, incompetent and wasteful with Britain's asset.
What power is the Queen ready to assume ? The Queen does her best to stay away from any controversial issue because she does not have the skills to deal them and as if she was to voice an opinion - very likely she would be and probably justifiably be accused of hypocrisy because of the Royals history and questionable links with many organisations and questionable governments around the World.
Anyone who believes that someone who is bred to rule as opposed to learn to rule as a result of varied life experiences; is seriously mistaken.
" I think monarchy is probrably better than the democracy, and i think the queen is better left where she is. Mainly because the queen and her family are brought up so they can exercise a position of some power. And as that, they are redier to assume it, that any other people. Granted that there can be better people to take it, but on a average a person that was taught since birth to lead is more prepared to do so. Also the queen is a role model. That was specially seen during the world war 2, being that one of the biggest reasons she still has a place in the english modern society. Also i think that a person being around power for so long, makes less inclined to abuse it. "
You have no idea of what you are speaking.Check the Royals history and then reconsider what proportion of them have been positive for this country compared to what proportion have been reckless, incompetent and wasteful with Britain's asset. What power is the Queen ready to assume ?The Queen does her best to stay away from any controversial issue because she does not have the skills to deal them and as if she was to voice an opinion - very likely she would be and probably justifiably be accused of hypocrisy because of the Royals history and questionable links with many organisations and questionable governments around the World. Anyone who believes that someone who is bred to rule as opposed to learn to rule as a result of varied life experiences; is seriously mistaken. "
hummm oposed to what?
the modern prudent, wise and economical rule of the parties?
Hummm, and i'm not english, but if i were i'd feel insulted, as she is very old, as with age you don't gain only rinkles. She is a very wise woman. Best that 99% of the politians around. She lived and also give heart to britain in the second world war.
And what type of government hasn't its' dose of hipocracy.
Democracy is not very democratic is you see closely too.
And politicians they don't even learn to lead mostly... they learn to lie. Then they try to rule.
@Jeust: Elected politicians and Monarchs are both humans. And like all humans, they're capable of folly. Unlike elected officials, Monarchs cannot be deposed in their lifetimes, whereas a politician can be voted out. I don't think anyone thinks that majority rule is ideal, but monarchy is even less so.
The royal family are given far more money than they need. Sure, they bring a lot of tourism to the country, so give them a decent amount of money to give them a decent life, but there is no need for the amount of money they get.
" The royal family are given far more money than they need. Sure, they bring a lot of tourism to the country, so give them a decent amount of money to give them a decent life, but there is no need for the amount of money they get. "
but they become very cheap to support when compared with a parlament and a government, did you know that?
@Jeust: I don't know that it's true that people rarely know what's best for themselves. And I don't think that paternalism (a concept implicit in your argument) is the way to foster greater personal responsibility.
I think what it comes down to is governments have far too many responsibilities, and far too much power, and that attempting to reverse that trend is superior to the status quo. That should eventually include getting rid of the notion that certain people should be born into office.
but personal responsablity is in a great independent of the type of rule i think. At least more than greed.
While you are against that craddle into leadership, i'm not...
and while it is true that the power is getting more and more divided, it's also true that governments are as unstable, as they haven't been for a long long time.
So it's interesting to see if this decadence of rule will lead to a more open and divided democracy or instead lead to caos and some kind of fascist or monarchic rule.
I don't know what the queen does, but it's always sounded funny to me that they still keep up all the royal posh stuff, like jewels, horses, and red carpets.
@Jeust: Strictly speaking, the political-economic model that dominates global political orthodoxy is fascism. Nominal private ownership with actual state ownership. I don't think ending the Monarchy is the cure to the problems of the UK. As you said earlier, UK's parliament consumes a far larger amount of resources than the monarchy does. I just think that the notion of rule from birth is one of the many vestiges of pre-enlightenment politics that needs to end. Of course, I acknowledge freely that there are others as well.
@Jeust: You are talking absolute rubbish when refering the amount of money the British government consumes compared to the Royals in relation to the benefits to the country as a whole. Royals have always been poor at running Britain as well as many other countires. Please do some research on British Royals and those of other countries.
I do not know why you believe the Queen is wise. The Queen does not have the political skills to rule any modern country. The Queen merely maintains the status quo because she and her like, benefit from this. Democracy falls short of our expectations but you only need do a brief review of history realise that Monarchy is not a system fit to rule/administer any modern and diverse country.
The believe that people can be born into a position that automatically qualifies them to rule a country is near insane and has been proven so over thousands of years. There are many countries is the World that will prosecute people for criticising Monarchy even though government is legal in those countries. If you and I lived in any of those countries - we could not exercise the right to air our views.
Monarchy is not fit to govern modern countries, this is why most Western European countries got rid of that system.
" @Jeust: You are talking absolute rubbish when refering the amount of money the British government consumes compared to the Royals in relation to the benefits to the country as a whole. Royals have always been poor at running Britain as well as many other countires. Please do some research on British Royals and those of other countries. I do not know why you believe the Queen is wise. The Queen does not have the political skills to rule any modern country. The Queen merely maintains the status quo because she and her like, benefit from this. Democracy falls short of our expectations but you only need do a brief review of history realise that Monarchy is not a system fit to rule/administer any modern and diverse country. The believe that people can be born into a position that automatically qualifies them to rule a country is near insane and has been proven so over thousands of years. There are many countries is the World that will prosecute people for criticising Monarchy even though government is legal in those countries. If you and I lived in any of those countries - we could not exercise the right to air our views. Monarchy is not fit to govern modern countries, this is why most Western European countries got rid of that system. "
Well, most Western European countries still have monarchs, actually. Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, and Norway all still have monarchs. Of course, those countries are hardly ideal political models.
" The Republic of Great Britain? It could happen yet! "
It happened once I suppose, with Cromwell. He just became a dictator, a King without that title. Like anyone with absolute rule, it never ends well. They are fine until someone disagrees with them and then their ego takes over, with Mugabe like results.
You have to ask yourself though, would a Republic make any difference at all to the lives of the English? I say no, not a single difference. England is a Republic in practice anyway. The very soul of England is in its monarchy. As long as the monarch is a good and kind, and respected figure, it gives a sense of comfort to many. Not sure Charles would do that though. If teh Romanovs had followed in the same path as the Britih monarchy and passed real power to the people through parliament control, then the Russian revolution could well have been avoided and the unpleasant murders of the Romanovs would have been avoided, along with the countless Russian deaths.
Royal families have but only demagogic duties entrusted to their care. The common people just love the whole fairylike king-queen, prince-princess adornment.
" I would like it if Australia became a Republic and then let the Brits do whatever they want with their royalty. "
Hey, I voted for the Republic and will agian the next time.
I am happy to wait for the Queen to die for that change. No idea why, but I respect her as a monarch and wouldn't want to insult her at her age with a Republic. Thing is, she probably doesn't care that much.
The trouble is, I don't want a President no matter what the role. I dislike the term, as it is a damaged brand. The real power should be with parliament, never a President. I want the parliament to choose our President, not us elect him/her. I want that President to have no more power than our Governeor-General has, essentially none. Yes, the power to dismiss a government should still be there, but only if overseen by the High Court.
" @oldschool: I take it you'll be voting for the Tories in the Spring then? ;-) "
If I were an Englishman? No. I am a leftie, a social democrat. The equivalent to a Tory in Autralia is a Liberal (and USA a Republican). You have a Labour Party as we do (in USA that would be Democrat). I stopped voting Labour 10 years ago and I vote Green or Independent. The major parties are too comfortable in their power sharing arrangement (let's face it, they just share and protect that duopoly for themselves), so we need to break down their power by voting for small parties (NOT the BNP) and independents (who are not stooges of the major parties).
Labour will lose the election in Spring because they have been in power too long and are stale. Nothing will really change when the Toris are in charge, as their is no Thatcher with an agenda looking to take power.
@oldschool: I wasn't quite old enough to vote when that was an issue. And I am not sure why we are so hung up on waiting for the Queen to die because she has already said on previous occasions that an Australian republic is for the Australian people to decide. She doesn't mind so lets just do it, but thats not going to happen.
Even Malcolm Turnbull who led the Republic movement back then now favors waiting which is why the Ausflag organisation dumped him from their board because of his back flip on the issue. If we do become a republic though I really hope that the flags that Ausflag are campaigning for dont become our national flag because they are all shit house.
Considering she still has the power to dissolve parliament, And declare war on other nations, I think that she should go, But that’s just me, I still think there should be the commonwealth though, As I live in New Zealand Its good for trade and defence and Inter-Country co-op
" @Jeust: You are talking absolute rubbish when refering the amount of money the British government consumes compared to the Royals in relation to the benefits to the country as a whole. Royals have always been poor at running Britain as well as many other countires. Please do some research on British Royals and those of other countries. I do not know why you believe the Queen is wise. The Queen does not have the political skills to rule any modern country. The Queen merely maintains the status quo because she and her like, benefit from this. Democracy falls short of our expectations but you only need do a brief review of history realise that Monarchy is not a system fit to rule/administer any modern and diverse country. The believe that people can be born into a position that automatically qualifies them to rule a country is near insane and has been proven so over thousands of years. There are many countries is the World that will prosecute people for criticising Monarchy even though government is legal in those countries. If you and I lived in any of those countries - we could not exercise the right to air our views. Monarchy is not fit to govern modern countries, this is why most Western European countries got rid of that system. "
Well, most Western European countries still have monarchs, actually. Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, and Norway all still have monarchs. Of course, those countries are hardly ideal political models. "
The countries you mentioned have some of the best standards of living and some of the most stable and progressive governments in the World. I am interested to know what you believe is an ideal political model. The Monarchs is Western Europe have very little political power (they have been got rid of in the political sense) and they are far lees prominent than the English Royals.
Log in to comment