What is the Queen for?
Discussion
king chuffed."
V8 Fettler said:
Our wonderful Queen will remain as the monarch until the end of her days.
That's the way it usually works. And sometimes the people find it desirable to bring forward the end date.Never forget the Germans in Buckingham Palace conveniently changed their name to something a bit more British when the going got hot, then sat back and watched while their entire family in Russia was butchered by the revolution. Even refused to grant them asylum in UK along the way. Nice people to do business with.
Breadvan72 said:
"The Queen has been criticised after a freedom of information request revealed she tried to use an anti-poverty grant to heat her palaces."Yep - I can just see her now - sat at her desk with a cup of Earl Grey tea - filling out the forms to apply for this grant. Next week she is going to ring BT and threaten to cancel her broadband in the hopes of getting a £10 a month customer retention discount........
........or, is it more likely that whoever is in charge of heating/maintenance applied for this on behalf of the estate.
Moonhawk said:
........or, is it more likely that whoever is in charge of heating/maintenance applied for this on behalf of the estate.
And the difference to the taxpayer would be? Republicanism isn't anything personal. It's the system of Monarchy that stinks, as we can clearly see from this incident. I'm sure she's a perfectly reasonable individual. In fact I might even vote for her in an election, were we to have a choice over our national figurehead. What are they scared of? Let them stand for election.Qwert1e said:
Never forget the Germans in Buckingham Palace conveniently changed their name to something a bit more British when the going got hot, then sat back and watched while their entire family in Russia was butchered by the revolution. Even refused to grant them asylum in UK along the way. Nice people to do business with.
Ho Hum. Again with the German cr@p.When was the last British monarch not born in these sceptred isles?????
FF
Ayahuasca said:
We have always been led to believe that the monarch is where we as a country can draw strength in times if crisis.
But now her kingdom is at risk of being broken up, people look to her for leadership and she says she cannot interfere?
I am sorry your majesty, but if you cannot interfere in something like this, just what are you and your family for?
Of course she cannot interfere.But now her kingdom is at risk of being broken up, people look to her for leadership and she says she cannot interfere?
I am sorry your majesty, but if you cannot interfere in something like this, just what are you and your family for?
She is head of state in a democracy.
Technically, we are not a democracy, but in reality we are. The Queen understands this. You don't.
As such, she is our servant.
She has understood this since she came to the throne.
She went to Dublin Castle (where the leaders of the 1916 rising were executed) and addressed the audience in a green outfit. Her opening words were "Conas a ta tu".
No other world leader could have done this
She eradicated 800 years of animosity in just 4 words.
If you are British, then you should be incredibly proud of your sovereign.
don4l said:
Ayahuasca said:
We have always been led to believe that the monarch is where we as a country can draw strength in times if crisis.
But now her kingdom is at risk of being broken up, people look to her for leadership and she says she cannot interfere?
I am sorry your majesty, but if you cannot interfere in something like this, just what are you and your family for?
Of course she cannot interfere.But now her kingdom is at risk of being broken up, people look to her for leadership and she says she cannot interfere?
I am sorry your majesty, but if you cannot interfere in something like this, just what are you and your family for?
She is head of state in a democracy.
Technically, we are not a democracy, but in reality we are. The Queen understands this. You don't.
As such, she is our servant.
She has understood this since she came to the throne.
She went to Dublin Castle (where the leaders of the 1916 rising were executed) and addressed the audience in a green outfit. Her opening words were "Conas a ta tu".
No other world leader could have done this
She eradicated 800 years of animosity in just 4 words.
If you are British, then you should be incredibly proud of your sovereign.
Why did she allow the will of some 3-4 million Scots to potentially disrupt the lives of some 60 million UK citizens; doesn't sound terribly democratic does it?
I may be completely wrong regarding this, but I was told that there is a constitutional reason we have a monarchy and Head Of State.
As it was explained to me, the armed forces pledge an allegiance to the Head Of State (the Queen) and do her bidding. If the government, as voted democratically by the people of the UK, want to use those armed forces (in war or relief aid, etc.) they have to ask permission of the Head Of State in order to do so. This is why if royals want to sign up for 'public duty' they do so in the armed forces, as they are pledging their support for the monarchy.
In contrast, the police force are controlled by the government to operate within the boundaries of the UK to install law and order. The armed forces can only operate within the UK under the control of the police force, therefore effectively stopping the monarchy from any abuse of power against the people of the UK.
Similarly, if a ruling government decided suddenly that it was cancelling all future elections and seizing power permanently, the armed forces could, in theory, be charged by the Head Of State to intervene on behalf of 'Her' people, and remove power from the government, until a new one is democratically voted in.
This is why the Head Of State will not become involved with the politics of the day (ie. Scottish Independence vote) as we are a democracy and it remains the will of the people, but remains in situ to stop any jumped-up politician having delusions of grandeur and becoming 'president'. It may not be perfect, but it gives a balance that few other countries have, and we should be very careful before casting such safeguards aside, in my opinion. A President, unlike the Head Of State, would always, I think, have political motives for operating in any way, unlike our non-political monarchy.
I grew up being a staunch anti-royalist, but (and it may be age) now I'd much prefer our fairly quiet, fairly dignified and non-obtrusive royalty than a president - our politicians are, IMHO, not worthy of the role. President Salmond? President Blair? President CMD? No thanks.
As it was explained to me, the armed forces pledge an allegiance to the Head Of State (the Queen) and do her bidding. If the government, as voted democratically by the people of the UK, want to use those armed forces (in war or relief aid, etc.) they have to ask permission of the Head Of State in order to do so. This is why if royals want to sign up for 'public duty' they do so in the armed forces, as they are pledging their support for the monarchy.
In contrast, the police force are controlled by the government to operate within the boundaries of the UK to install law and order. The armed forces can only operate within the UK under the control of the police force, therefore effectively stopping the monarchy from any abuse of power against the people of the UK.
Similarly, if a ruling government decided suddenly that it was cancelling all future elections and seizing power permanently, the armed forces could, in theory, be charged by the Head Of State to intervene on behalf of 'Her' people, and remove power from the government, until a new one is democratically voted in.
This is why the Head Of State will not become involved with the politics of the day (ie. Scottish Independence vote) as we are a democracy and it remains the will of the people, but remains in situ to stop any jumped-up politician having delusions of grandeur and becoming 'president'. It may not be perfect, but it gives a balance that few other countries have, and we should be very careful before casting such safeguards aside, in my opinion. A President, unlike the Head Of State, would always, I think, have political motives for operating in any way, unlike our non-political monarchy.
I grew up being a staunch anti-royalist, but (and it may be age) now I'd much prefer our fairly quiet, fairly dignified and non-obtrusive royalty than a president - our politicians are, IMHO, not worthy of the role. President Salmond? President Blair? President CMD? No thanks.
Edited by MikeT66 on Wednesday 1st October 07:01
Edited by MikeT66 on Wednesday 1st October 07:01
davepoth said:
Because her opinion might actually matter this time.
As to what the Queen is for, it's to make sure we don't get President Blair.
Monarchy is a ridiculous idea, is undemocratic, doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and runs completely counter to any idea of a modern society. But despite all of that, we have what is generally considered to be the best head of state in the world, bar none. She's such a good head of state that we export her head-of-state-ness to two dozen countries around the world. Compare her to the alternative.
Look at France. and then point and laugh.
Look at this guy:
ant tell me who he is without doing a reverse image search in google.
Try to remember a US president who wasn't at risk of being impeached.
Just because it seems "right" that democracy would be the best thing doesn't mean that it actually would be.
That's Joachim Gauk, the German president, or Grandpa Gauk as the people say here: Where do I collect my prize? :-)As to what the Queen is for, it's to make sure we don't get President Blair.
Monarchy is a ridiculous idea, is undemocratic, doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and runs completely counter to any idea of a modern society. But despite all of that, we have what is generally considered to be the best head of state in the world, bar none. She's such a good head of state that we export her head-of-state-ness to two dozen countries around the world. Compare her to the alternative.
Look at France. and then point and laugh.
Look at this guy:
ant tell me who he is without doing a reverse image search in google.
Try to remember a US president who wasn't at risk of being impeached.
Just because it seems "right" that democracy would be the best thing doesn't mean that it actually would be.
MikeT66 said:
I may be completely wrong regarding this, but I was told that there is a constitutional reason we have a monarchy and Head Of State.
As it was explained to me, the armed forces pledge an allegiance to the Head Of State (the Queen) and do her bidding. If the government, as voted democratically by the people of the UK, want to use those armed forces (in war or relief aid, etc.) they have to ask permission of the Head Of State in order to do so. This is why if royals want to sign up for 'public duty' they do so in the armed forces, as they are pledging their support for the monarchy.
In contrast, the police force are controlled by the government to operate within the boundaries of the UK to install law and order. The armed forces can only operate within the UK under the control of the police force, therefore effectively stopping the monarchy from any abuse of power against the people of the UK.
Similarly, if a ruling government decided suddenly that it was cancelling all future elections and seizing power permanently, the armed forces could, in theory, be charged by the Head Of State to intervene on behalf of 'Her' people, and remove power from the government, until a new one is democratically voted in.
This is why the Head Of State will not become involved with the politics of the day (ie. Scottish Independence vote) as we are a democracy and it remains the will of the people, but remains in situ to stop any jumped-up politician having delusions of grandeur and becoming 'president'. It may not be perfect, but it gives a balance that few other countries have, and we should be very careful before casting such safeguards aside, in my opinion. A President, unlike the Head Of State, would always, I think, have political motives for operating in any way, unlike our non-political monarchy.
I grew up being a staunch anti-royalist, but (and it may be age) now I'd much prefer our fairly quiet, fairly dignified and non-obtrusive royalty than a president - our politicians are, IMHO, not worthy of the role. President Salmond? President Blair? President CMD? No thanks.
All that's very worthy, no doubt. But you've missed a vital point, as is usual in these debates. Who says an elected Head of State has to be Political? It can be non-executive. We can keep all those things you speak of, but choose who that Head of State is, rather than have them appointed by birth. It's the method of selection of HoS which should be changed, if not the role and functions themselves. The hereditary aspect of our current HoS has zero bearing on on any of your arguments, and it is that aspect at least which should be removed in a proper democracy.As it was explained to me, the armed forces pledge an allegiance to the Head Of State (the Queen) and do her bidding. If the government, as voted democratically by the people of the UK, want to use those armed forces (in war or relief aid, etc.) they have to ask permission of the Head Of State in order to do so. This is why if royals want to sign up for 'public duty' they do so in the armed forces, as they are pledging their support for the monarchy.
In contrast, the police force are controlled by the government to operate within the boundaries of the UK to install law and order. The armed forces can only operate within the UK under the control of the police force, therefore effectively stopping the monarchy from any abuse of power against the people of the UK.
Similarly, if a ruling government decided suddenly that it was cancelling all future elections and seizing power permanently, the armed forces could, in theory, be charged by the Head Of State to intervene on behalf of 'Her' people, and remove power from the government, until a new one is democratically voted in.
This is why the Head Of State will not become involved with the politics of the day (ie. Scottish Independence vote) as we are a democracy and it remains the will of the people, but remains in situ to stop any jumped-up politician having delusions of grandeur and becoming 'president'. It may not be perfect, but it gives a balance that few other countries have, and we should be very careful before casting such safeguards aside, in my opinion. A President, unlike the Head Of State, would always, I think, have political motives for operating in any way, unlike our non-political monarchy.
I grew up being a staunch anti-royalist, but (and it may be age) now I'd much prefer our fairly quiet, fairly dignified and non-obtrusive royalty than a president - our politicians are, IMHO, not worthy of the role. President Salmond? President Blair? President CMD? No thanks.
Edited by MikeT66 on Wednesday 1st October 07:01
Edited by MikeT66 on Wednesday 1st October 07:01
SilverSixer said:
MikeT66 said:
I may be completely wrong regarding this, but I was told that there is a constitutional reason we have a monarchy and Head Of State.
As it was explained to me, the armed forces pledge an allegiance to the Head Of State (the Queen) and do her bidding. If the government, as voted democratically by the people of the UK, want to use those armed forces (in war or relief aid, etc.) they have to ask permission of the Head Of State in order to do so. This is why if royals want to sign up for 'public duty' they do so in the armed forces, as they are pledging their support for the monarchy.
In contrast, the police force are controlled by the government to operate within the boundaries of the UK to install law and order. The armed forces can only operate within the UK under the control of the police force, therefore effectively stopping the monarchy from any abuse of power against the people of the UK.
Similarly, if a ruling government decided suddenly that it was cancelling all future elections and seizing power permanently, the armed forces could, in theory, be charged by the Head Of State to intervene on behalf of 'Her' people, and remove power from the government, until a new one is democratically voted in.
This is why the Head Of State will not become involved with the politics of the day (ie. Scottish Independence vote) as we are a democracy and it remains the will of the people, but remains in situ to stop any jumped-up politician having delusions of grandeur and becoming 'president'. It may not be perfect, but it gives a balance that few other countries have, and we should be very careful before casting such safeguards aside, in my opinion. A President, unlike the Head Of State, would always, I think, have political motives for operating in any way, unlike our non-political monarchy.
I grew up being a staunch anti-royalist, but (and it may be age) now I'd much prefer our fairly quiet, fairly dignified and non-obtrusive royalty than a president - our politicians are, IMHO, not worthy of the role. President Salmond? President Blair? President CMD? No thanks.
All that's very worthy, no doubt. But you've missed a vital point, as is usual in these debates. Who says an elected Head of State has to be Political? It can be non-executive. We can keep all those things you speak of, but choose who that Head of State is, rather than have them appointed by birth. It's the method of selection of HoS which should be changed, if not the role and functions themselves. The hereditary aspect of our current HoS has zero bearing on on any of your arguments, and it is that aspect at least which should be removed in a proper democracy.As it was explained to me, the armed forces pledge an allegiance to the Head Of State (the Queen) and do her bidding. If the government, as voted democratically by the people of the UK, want to use those armed forces (in war or relief aid, etc.) they have to ask permission of the Head Of State in order to do so. This is why if royals want to sign up for 'public duty' they do so in the armed forces, as they are pledging their support for the monarchy.
In contrast, the police force are controlled by the government to operate within the boundaries of the UK to install law and order. The armed forces can only operate within the UK under the control of the police force, therefore effectively stopping the monarchy from any abuse of power against the people of the UK.
Similarly, if a ruling government decided suddenly that it was cancelling all future elections and seizing power permanently, the armed forces could, in theory, be charged by the Head Of State to intervene on behalf of 'Her' people, and remove power from the government, until a new one is democratically voted in.
This is why the Head Of State will not become involved with the politics of the day (ie. Scottish Independence vote) as we are a democracy and it remains the will of the people, but remains in situ to stop any jumped-up politician having delusions of grandeur and becoming 'president'. It may not be perfect, but it gives a balance that few other countries have, and we should be very careful before casting such safeguards aside, in my opinion. A President, unlike the Head Of State, would always, I think, have political motives for operating in any way, unlike our non-political monarchy.
I grew up being a staunch anti-royalist, but (and it may be age) now I'd much prefer our fairly quiet, fairly dignified and non-obtrusive royalty than a president - our politicians are, IMHO, not worthy of the role. President Salmond? President Blair? President CMD? No thanks.
Edited by MikeT66 on Wednesday 1st October 07:01
Edited by MikeT66 on Wednesday 1st October 07:01
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff