ATTN: Queen of England

[samsmart]

You tell me what the Queen has to do with the administration of, well, anything.

She meets heads of state. That's about it.

She's a figurehead.

I hate figureheads.

Meeting with other heads of state isn't that big of a deal, especially since it allows their head-of-government, which for the U.K. is the Prime Minister, time be about the running of government rather than being forced to go on so many trips for purely ceremonial functions to diplomatic allies.

In fact, considering how busy our Presidents get with functions as both head-of-state and as head-of-government, I personally wouldn't mind if we separated those two executive functions somehow.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

To the OP and the poll, If I was the Queen of the UK (a rather difficult task for me giving the equipment I was born with) I'd do the obvious thing...spend my money building a giant robot I could drive and use to take over the world. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

As to this whole figurehead issue, figureheads can be alright but I prefer elected ones. Choosing a person to represent millions of people based on parentage seems archaic, anti-meritocratic, and anti-democratic to me and even if the person is more symbol than anything else this glorification of someone based on the two people who had sex to give birth to this person seems dumb to me. Places like Germany and Italy get along perfectly fine without having to have a monarch to do ceremonial duties.

 

[Middleground]

I love the Queen. She is one hell of a cool lady. She was just here in Ottawa for Canada Day, and many spent hours upon hours standing in a sea of people just to get a short glimpse (like me, LOL). He speech was wonderful, and she made sure to make it fully bilingual with her impeccable French. There is little doubt of her popularity here in Canada.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

So? The U.S. does it with the Vice President.

No, see, that's BS. The Vice President has come in handy multiple times in the past few decades, and furthermore in a dead-locked Senate he actually gets to cast a vote. Aside from that, if he's of any use he flies around and represents the White House when it's either not possible or not appropriate for the President to do so. Furthermore, if the President becomes unable to perform his duties, the Vice President's participation is required in order to unseat the President.

In short, the Vice President is the tool that permits the lawful continuation of our republic even if the worst should happen, and while the worst isn't happening he's still a useful guy.

If the Queen has done something since WWII other than meet foreign dignitaries and give tourism a shot in the arm, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[samsmart]

No, see, that's BS. The Vice President has come in handy multiple times in the past few decades, and furthermore in a dead-locked Senate he actually gets to cast a vote.

Kinda like how the British Monarch can dissolve Parliament and exercise her executive powers in case of a national emergency?

Aside from that, if he's of any use he flies around and represents the White House when it's either not possible or not appropriate for the President to do so.

Kinda like how the British Monarch meets with other heads-of-state for diplomatic functions?

Furthermore, if the President becomes unable to perform his duties, the Vice President's participation is required in order to unseat the President.

Kinda like how technically the British Monarch has executive authority, but the Prime Minister exercises that executive authority on her behalf, so if the Prime Minister is unable to perform his duties executive authority reverts to the Monarch until another Prime Minister can be chosen?

In short, the Vice President is the tool that permits the lawful continuation of our republic even if the worst should happen, and while the worst isn't happening he's still a useful guy.

Kinda like how the British Monarch is the tool that permits the lawful continuation of governance of the Kingdom and the Commonwealth even if the worst should happen, and while the worst isn't happening s/he's still a useful person?

If the Queen has done something since WWII other than meet foreign dignitaries and give tourism a shot in the arm, I'd love to hear about it.

Meeting with foreign dignitaries is important for maintain diplomatic relations. Also, the British Monarch is the head-of-state to quite a number individual nations of the Commonwealth. So she not only meets foreign dignitaries on behalf of the United Kingdom, she also meets foreign dignitaries on behalf of Canada, Australia, the Bahamas and the other Commonwealth nations. So it's not only the British people she represents but also any number of races, ethnicities, and nationalities.

She, and the Royal Family, are also patrons of charities. Back in the '70's, Prince Charles started a fund to help establish small business owners. Prince Andrew is currently acting as a spokesman for the U.K. to support U.K. businesses with regards to international trade.

So there are quite a number of duties and responsibilities of the British Monarch and the Royal Family.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

In other words, no. Okay, thanks. :lol:

 

[Andalublue]

In other words, no. Okay, thanks. :lol:

Dan,

I understand your dislike for the idea of a hereditary Head of State. I'm not crazy about it either, but even to a lefty like me it seems better than the alternative, which would be to have a Presidential system which requires the Head of State to be actively involved in the political process, at least during the election period. Such systems, even those such as the German or Irish models where there is a separation of HoS from H of Gov don't avoid the electoral process being mired in partisan politicking. Where the HoS is specifically and permanently excluded from political divisions, they can act as a figurehead that most, not all, of the citizens/voters/subjects feel them to be working on behalf of all, not just on behalf of those that voted for them.

Add to that the fact that the UK has been blessed with a particularly astute and scrupulously non-partisan HoS for 58 years, you can understand why support for HM QE2 extends from far right to far left of the British (and possibly most Commonwealth) political spectrum. Charles will/might be a very different kettle of fish. He doesn't command anywhere near the same level of respect or affection as his mother and never will, even if the crown should one day cover his pate.

 

[the makeout hobo]

How does everyone think William will do as king?

 

[samsmart]

How does everyone think William will do as king?

He'll probably just go with the flow. He may have to start getting a real job, though, or make some spending cuts. The British don't seem to be able to afford them for too much longer.

 

[Laila]

How does everyone think William will do as king?

As long as he shuts his mouth about politics (I don't want to know where he stands on anything) then I'll be happy for him to become King and he'll do well as long as he follows his Grandmothers approach.

Political views is one of the main reasons why I reject Charles as succeeding the throne, he has destroyed what neutrality he had politically.

 

[samsmart]

As long as he shuts his mouth about politics (I don't want to know where he stands on anything) then I'll be happy for him to become King and he'll do well as long as he follows his Grandmothers approach.

Political views is one of the main reasons why I reject Charles as succeeding the throne, he has destroyed what neutrality he had politically.

Why should the Monarch be politically neutral?

 

[Laila]

Why should the Monarch be politically neutral?

Because the Government is technically the 'Queens' Government as her subjects.
As HOS the Queen must always remain politically neutral because her Government will be formed from whichever party can command a majority in the House of Commons so influencing said elections would not be wise.The Queen's major role is to serve as a focal point for national unity, so she must identify with every section of society and not allow her views to cloud that role.

I have no idea whether the Queen likes the new coalition or not and I don't want to know.
Hence why she also cannot vote in any election nor do members of the Royal Family.

 

[samsmart]

Because the Government is technically the 'Queens' Government as her subjects.
As HOS the Queen must always remain politically neutral because her Government will be formed from whichever party can command a majority in the House of Commons so influencing said elections would not be wise.The Queen's major role is to serve as a focal point for national unity, so she must identify with every section of society and not allow her views to cloud that role.

I have no idea whether the Queen likes the new coalition or not and I don't want to know.
Hence why she also cannot vote in any election nor do members of the Royal Family.

How did Charles destroy his political neutrality?