What is the Queen for?

Author
Discussion

SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
So, give me an example of a Republic where a non-executive HoS has turned out to be the "latest TV personailty", and illustrate where this has turned out to be not good.

To support my view that this sort of talk is mere scaremongering, Jedward have so far been notable in their lack of willingness to stand for and win the Presidency of Ireland, for instance.

MikeT66

2,680 posts

123 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
SilverSixer said:
So, give me an example of a Republic where a non-executive HoS has turned out to be the "latest TV personailty", and illustrate where this has turned out to be not good.

To support my view that this sort of talk is mere scaremongering, Jedward have so far been notable in their lack of willingness to stand for and win the Presidency of Ireland, for instance.
I'm not saying it would have to be any of the those options - but they could well be. Who would put themselves forward for such a role? I think the usual requirements stand true here - those that seek power and influence are the people that should not be given it. In the absence of a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King, I'd struggle with someone I'd entrust it to.

One thing that the monarchy give us is some form of continuity - whether or not they want it they are born to serve a purpose (and it's not one I'd particularly want) and are taught the strict confines of operating in their role. An elected President would preside for, what - 5 years? 4 years? Then what? Retire to another comfy lifestyle on the public-speaking circuits of America/Europe and not answerable to their time or decisions in office? The monarchy have a vested interest in not (particularly) abusing the role - it is there to be looked after and passed on to their forebears - and all the time remaining outside the dark influence of politics. Like I said, I understand your arguments perfectly - but I remain untrusting of those seeking influence. I just think it is a fair counter-balance (though not perfect) to the government.

SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
MikeT66 said:
I remain untrusting of those seeking influence. I just think it is a fair counter-balance (though not perfect) to the government.
Have you kept up to speed with the issue around Prince Charles's letters to the government which allegedly seek to influence public policy, which the Attourney General has refused to allow to be published? They'll get out one day. Where will that leave us in terms of trust, if they show, as is implied, that the unelected, hereditary heir to the throne has sought to have his ideas implemented by the government? Where will his accountability be, where will the people's opportunity be to remove him should he displease us?

Why trust one drug and not the other? As Danny so rightly pointed out in Withnail and I.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
MikeT66, taking advice on Constitutional law from a Falklands veteran may not be the best idea, worthy chap though he doubtless is. The Monarch has no executive powers, and decisions on committing the armed forces to war are made by the elected Government in conjunction with Parliament. No Monarch has had any real control of the armed forces for a long time.

As for Head of State, we don't need one separate from the Head of Government, and only have one for historical reasons. Whomever temporarily holds the Chief Exec position can also temporarily be Head of State. None of that person's family members would obtain any income or privileges by virtue of being related to the temporary Chief Exec/Head of State.

johnxjsc1985

15,948 posts

163 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
She is there to prevent the likes of Tony Blair from becoming President.

TTwiggy

11,500 posts

203 months

Wednesday 1st October 2014
quotequote all
MikeT66 said:
I understand your points, SilverSixer. The information I got came from an ex-Falklands War veteran, who picked up on a couple of anti-royal comments I made once. From a personal point of view, I just don't see an alternative as being any better. Non-executive President? Who? Someone like Boris Johnson? Latest TV personality? Retired Politician with no political motives and not swayed by any political agenda? And if it's someone the 'people' vote for... there was plenty of people (but not enough) who voted for Alex Salmond, and look at what he had to offer - nothing, and an embarrassment on the world stage. We can look at royalty as being 'freeloaders', certainly a comment I understand, but so are self-serving politicians (who vote themselves pay rises and aspire only to the gravy train), and no doubt, an elected President.

If the info I received from my ex-army pal is correct, I quite like the idea of the armed forces pledging themselves to Queen and Country, rather than 'the government'. Personally, I see politicians as 'the ruling class' (do as we say, not as we do) rather than the monarchy, even if royalty are (in the words of Monty Python) given their powers by some watery tart throwing a sword at them. biggrin
There's always been a bit of confusion over this 'allegiance to the crown' thing in the armed forces, and stories like yours are quite common, as they get told to new recruits by their NCOs, and then repeated to other recruits.

When I did my five years in the Andrew, one of the CPOs at Dartmouth told me in no uncertain terms that on my cap badge was a crown. That crown, he said, represented the queen, and hence, when someone like him was obliged to salute an 18-year-old snotty Mid like me, he was in fact saluting the queen.

I'm sure that 'fact' is still be repeated now. The only practical aspect of the cap badge was that if you carried your cap under your arm, rather than wore it, there was no onus on anyone to salute. Which made walking around a much less strenuous affair!

SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
johnxjsc1985 said:
She is there to prevent the likes of Tony Blair from becoming President.
Jesus, how many times. We can have a non-political, non-executive, elected Head of State. It doesn't have to be a failed politician, in fact these can be easily discouraged/prevented from standing.

It's the system of choosing the Head of State which should be changed, from hereditary to elected, rather than the character and function of the role.

President Blair is a total red herring.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
johnxjsc1985 said:
She is there to prevent the likes of Tony Blair from becoming President.
It might be more accurate to say she's there to stop TB from pretending to be a president & letting power go to his head.

I've always considered the Queen to be a moderating and stabilising influence.

SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
I've always considered the Queen to be a moderating and stabilising influence.
That's great.

Will Charles III be the same? Why can't the people be allowed to decide if we want him as HoS?