Should there still be a Queen?

[Joel]

Hello, and as some of you may know, I am from Canada. Queen Elizabeth II, or more formally, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, is the Canadian Head of State.

The Queen is in practice little more than a ceremonial figurehead, but I feel she represents Canada's ties with Britian (for example, say I get arrested in a foreign country, and "oh crap, there's no Canadian embassy". I can go to the United Kingdom embassy, and i will be referred to Canadian officials). She has many ties in Canada, eg. the Royal Canadian Regiment, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, and our Navy ships are always given the prefix HMCS (Her Majesty's Canadian Ship). The national police is named the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, our mint is the Royal Canadian Mint, and until 1968, we had the RCN, and the RCAF (now Maritime command and Air Command segments of the unified Canadian Forces). She's on every coin, new immigrants to the Country have to swear allegiance to the sovereign of the UK. The one thing i like about having the Queen is that she can refuse to give royal ascent, and prevent an unjust bill from passing into law.


I can't comment much on other territories of the Queen, as i don't know much about them, but I would like to know, from both GTP'ers from the UK, and other territories of the Queen, what you think of her. I know that there was a vote in Australia on whether or not to keep the monarchy, and "keep" won with 55% of the vote.


So, people from anywhere the Queen is still your head of state, comment on your thoughts on the subject.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I know that there was a vote in Australia on whether or not to keep the monarchy, and "keep" won with 55% of the vote.

We're only using her for the public holiday for her birthday.

 

[Grand Prix]

To me it doesn't really make any difference whether we keep the British Monarch as head of state or not. It's a cute little reminder of the bygone age of the British Empire, and she is not really relevant these days. She doesn't really have a say in what happens here, so why bother with severing ties and burning bridges needlessly? Just keep it the way it is.

Don't get me wrong, the concept of royalty is dumb. I just couldn't be arsed about doing anything about it. Canada has had the British Monarch as head of state since the beginning and will probably continue that relationship for centuries. Who cares?

 

[Danisfast]

Hmmm... Good question, and not one that can be properly answered easily.

I guess it depends on who you are. For example, I know a lot of people who, really, aren't that bothered, and don't mind one way or the other. The Queen, to some, or even many people, is a symbol of our culture and who we are as Brits or commonwealth citizens, and on those grounds alone, she's a keeper.

Personally, I don't really know enough about my Monarchy at this present time to go into any depth, since really appreciating 'what's British' and what isn't, and how that relates to Brits on the isles today, is an increasingly complicated matter that requires a bit of study.

There is also the matter of religion. Again, various people will have their own beliefs and this may affect their opinion on what is essentially a religious position.

Culturally, I'm glad we still have the monarchy. It gives me a sense of national identity, and even when I'm acting on my other nationality as an Australian abroad (and not necessarily a Briton), it feels good to know that I'm backed up by what is a seemingly fairly selfless gesture by the monarchy.

Otherwise, looking back through British history for a true sense of what is British, it gets disturbingly easy to become disassociated with the current Catholic monarchy; we've got a long, bloody history in which Catholicism plays its' part in Royal politics; sometimes, it seems almost like a lottery, that we ended up with the institution we have today. On top of that, I'm something of an atheist, and therefore I don't, from a practical standpoint, really condone putting taxpayers' money into an outdated and probably inefficient religious institution (but again, I don't really know a great deal about it).

As you can see, the more one looks into this question, the more difficult it becomes to answer, at least for me. I guess the short answer is, I don't really mind the monarchy, but I'm not one you'll likely find to be raving about dying for the Queen any time soon, either.

I hope that helps.

 

[niky]

There will always be room for a Queen.

Personally... if the British Monarchy volutarily ceded power to Parliament... I think it's only fitting to honor their rule in absentia.

 

[marky5244]

As an Englishman, I think it is nice to have the Royal Family as it is part of our culture and heritage but I don't feel strongly in either direction. When Diana died I thought it was sad, and felt for her children, but didn't lose sleep about it. Although the monarchy can in theory exert great power, in practise it is not actually used. In the scheme of things it doesn't cost the UK tax payer that much and I suspect it brings in more income to the country via tourism.

I'm interested what Canadians, Australians etc on here think - I think I would be against the monarchy if I lived in one of those countries...

 

[nk4e]

Doesn't Japan still has its Emperor?

 

[ASH32]

Are you kidding, the Monarchy doesn't cost. Whatever ever way you want to try to justify the figures, they cost tax payers a lot of money and most of the royals don't even do anything to deserve it. I am not against a Queen or a Monarchy, but I am against a Queen who does nothing. Sure she has the power to, but even when the Government introduce the most ridiculous laws, she always excepts them, even when most of the Country is against them. While some might agrue that having a Queen makes the country money in tourism and I am sure it does, all the rest of the other royals must cost more money than the Queen could ever bring in alone.

If she is going to rule or run the country then fine I don't have a problem with that, but as it is right now, it is just stupid really. We don't really live in a democracy anyway these days, we are constantly told what to do and what's best for us. So to me the Queen may aswell run the Country, at least that way she would have to work for her money and we would all know where we stand, we would know we were under a dictatorship, instead of being under a dictatorship pretending to be something that it's not. In my opinion we simply don't need a Queen and a Prime Minister.

 

[Famine]

I am against a Queen who does nothing. Sure she has the power to, but even when the Government introduce the most ridiculous laws, she always excepts them, even when most of the Country is against them.

She doesn't have any power of any sort. She cannot act against and, legally, takes no part in government.

 

[Omnis]

Hoppe would argue that Monarchy is a preferable form of government to democracy. From Wikipedia, regarding Democracy: The God That Failed: "In his view, a dynastical monarch (king) is like the "owner" of a country, because it is passed on from generation to generation, whereas an elected president is like a "temporary caretaker" or "renter". Both the king and the president have an incentive to exploit the current use of the country for their own benefit. However, the king also has a counterbalancing interest in maintaining the long-term capital value of the nation, just as the owner of a house has an interest in maintaining its capital value (unlike a renter). Being temporary, democratically elected officials have every incentive to plunder the wealth of productive citizens as fast as possible."


After all, every head-of-household is his or her own king or queen of what they own anyway.

 

[PureAwesomeness]

Doesn't Japan still has its Emperor?

Yes, Japan still has an emperor.

She doesn't have any power of any sort. She cannot act against and, legally, takes no part in government.

I don't think that is entirely accurate.

 

[Famine]

I don't think that is entirely accurate.

Pity. Seeing as it is.

 

[PureAwesomeness]

Pity. Seeing as it is.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6329207.ece

 

[Famine]

Which confirms it...

As the article clearly says, several times, she cannot act against government. She can dissolve parliament (and every time parliament is dissolved prior to a general election, she does), but only when the Prime Minister advises her to do so. The Prime Minister alone has the power to decide when a General Election is, outside of the constitutional five year cycle.

She plays no role in government, through a series of laws and constitutional conventions. She is, literally, a figurehead.

 

[PureAwesomeness]

Which confirms it...

As the article clearly says, several times, she cannot act against government. She can dissolve parliament (and every time parliament is dissolved prior to a general election, she does), but only when the Prime Minister advises her to do so. The Prime Minister alone has the power to decide when a General Election is, outside of the constitutional five year cycle.

She plays no role in government, through a series of laws and constitutional conventions. She is, literally, a figurehead.

The article says that a 'convention' enables the PM alone to decide the timing of the dissolution. Therefore, the queen could decide to dissolve parliament with or without the PM's advice.

 

[TheCracker]

Are you kidding, the Monarchy doesn't cost. Whatever ever way you want to try to justify the figures, they cost tax payers a lot of money and most of the royals don't even do anything to deserve it.

66 pence per person per year.

I'm happy to stump for that.

I'm fairly indifferent to the monarchy myself. I neither love 'em or hate 'em but would prefer to see the Queen as our country's figurehead, certainly over which ever goon is Prime Minister at the time.

As long as the Queen keeps her nose out of my business, i won't be rioting outside Buck Palace demanding her head on the end of a stick.

 

[PureAwesomeness]

66 pence per person per year.

I'm happy to stump for that.

I'm fairly indifferent to the monarchy myself. I neither love 'em or hate 'em but would prefer to see the Queen as our country's figurehead, certainly over which ever goon is Prime Minister at the time.

As long as the Queen keeps her nose out of my business, i won't be rioting outside Buck Palace demanding her head on the end of a stick.

66p/year is a pretty good deal considering the amount of tourism revenue she generates for the country.

 

[Famine]

The article says that a 'convention' enables the PM alone to decide the timing of the dissolution. Therefore, the queen could decide to dissolve parliament with or without the PM's advice.

No, it says that a constitutional convention does this. That's not the same thing as either a convention or a law.

And she cannot. Nor can she veto or enact any law. She has no powers at all.

 

[PureAwesomeness]

No, it says that a constitutional convention does this. That's not the same thing as either a convention or a law.

And she cannot. Nor can she veto or enact any law. She has no powers at all.

The article doesn't seem to make any distinction between a convention and a constitutional convention so I figured (for the sake of brevity more than anything) I didn't need to either. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us as to the difference.

You seem to be modifying your argument as you go. I didn't mention anything about vetoing or enacting laws. I questioned the accuracy of your statement that the queen 'doesn't have any power of any sort'. And I still do.

 

[Famine]

The article doesn't seem to make any distinction between a convention and a constitutional convention so I figured (for the sake of brevity more than anything) I didn't need to either. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us as to the difference.

Convention - Something that just happens 'cos that's how it's always happened.
Constitutional Convention - Something that happens 'cos that's how it's always happened and requires a law to be enacted to forbid.
Law - Something that happens 'cos if it doesn't you go to prison.

You seem to be modifying your argument as you go. I didn't mention anything about vetoing or enacting laws.

No you didn't. But the person I quoted in my first post on the topic did. No modification has occurred.

I questioned the accuracy of your statement that the queen 'doesn't have any power of any sort'. And I still do.

Great. Some people in the Creation vs. Evolution thread question the veracity of evolution too.

 

[daan]

She has no powers at all.

Apart from invincibility.

 

[doblocruiser]

Rumoured is that the Queen of England and the Queen of the Netherlands belong to the so called "Bilderberg" group. Don't know if it is true or not but powerfull, yes they are!

To answer your question, we don't need a king or queen. I hate the master/slave view on this one

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

Didn't she run all the snakes out of Ireland? For that, I say keep the ol' gal.

Up yours to Prince Charles though, must be nice to be able to use tax dollars to collect Aston Martins...

 

[Touring Mars]

She has no powers at all.

I'm not sure that's true. The Queen may not use the powers that are available to her as monarch, but that doesn't mean to say that they don't exist. I'm not going to pretend I know more about it than I can find on Wikipedia, but I've always been of the understanding that the British monarchy still has real power over the British government... that said, I'd be happy to discover that this isn't the case. That (that) said, I'm also quite happy with Liz too (II). Without her, I'm not sure what I'd do at half three on Christmas day. Watch something else probably.

Apart from invincibility.

Indeed. I'm pretty sure she gets a +19 modifier on Saving Throws...

 

[Famine]

She can wield a +5 Mace.

Theoretically, the Queen only has one power regarding our governance - the appointment of a new Prime Minister in the case of a "constitutional crisis" and without an election. Exactly what a "constitutional crisis" involves... I'm not sure. I imagine it'd be something like a freak yachting accident taking out the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer all in one hit.

The novel part of this power is that she doesn't actually have to choose an elected official, a member of the ruling party or a member of the Lords. She can appoint literally anyone exclusive of the Royal Family.

 

[lpb-nissan-gt-r]

There is no point in having a Queen but she is a tourist attraction so she is the most boring tourist attraction ever!.

 

[Touring Mars]

a freak yachting accident taking out the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer all in one hit.

 

[homeforsummer]

Regarding what the Queen can and can't do: Personal powers of the Monarch (wiki)

Others have been discussed already, but the one that interests me is this:

The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements

So the Queen theoretically holds a lot of power, but I suspect in practice she's unlikely to make any major calls as I suspect anything of the sort would more likely be delegated to the relevant person...

 

[Famine]

That's what happens when you have a one-eyed man as a look-out. No depth perception, you see...

"How far away is it, Gordon?"
"Err... 70 miles." *fwump*

So the Queen theoretically holds a lot of power

The Royal Prerogative suffers from the same problems, really. She does all these things - including appointment of the PM and dissolution of parliament - 'cos she's told to... Well, "advised to". It's one of those constitutional conventions again - she is advised to do something and does it, which amounts to being told to do it, only you can't tell the Queen to do something! She has no input on the situation and, frankly, may as well not be there. But she is there simply because that's how we've done things before.

 

[Danoff]

Hoppe would argue that Monarchy is a preferable form of government to democracy. From Wikipedia, regarding Democracy: The God That Failed: "In his view, a dynastical monarch (king) is like the "owner" of a country, because it is passed on from generation to generation, whereas an elected president is like a "temporary caretaker" or "renter". Both the king and the president have an incentive to exploit the current use of the country for their own benefit. However, the king also has a counterbalancing interest in maintaining the long-term capital value of the nation, just as the owner of a house has an interest in maintaining its capital value (unlike a renter). Being temporary, democratically elected officials have every incentive to plunder the wealth of productive citizens as fast as possible."


After all, every head-of-household is his or her own king or queen of what they own anyway.

Seems reasonable, minus that whole pesky "human rights" thing.