kai
ragamuffin
she is treated differently because she works for the state.She is a state figurehead a constitutional monarch. and she has her own house not Buckingham Palace of course that belongs to the state.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why does the UK have royalty?
- Thread starter dust1n
- Start date
she is treated differently because she works for the state.She is a state figurehead a constitutional monarch. and she has her own house not Buckingham Palace of course that belongs to the state.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
kai
ragamuffin
she is a purely ceremonial head of state you do know that dont you?
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I think having a monarch as a head of state is a great idea where there is a parliament in control. Otherwise you have to have regular elections for a head of state and pay an annual fortune to some political hack and massive pensions to the other hacks who have gone before.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Elections...there is your key word there...democracy...you know...voice of the people and all that crap?
We don't have to elect presidents the way the US does....with crass propaganda and commercialism.
kai
ragamuffin
Please....yep she is a constitutional monarch
Yes and we would like one that isnt...like your Presidency for example? we dont have a president?
One that can control our irritating government.
No she doesnt control the government at all, not since the English bill of rights act 1689
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
kai
ragamuffin
I think you completely misunderstood that post.
I said Please....
ok not sure exctly what "roll eyes" is supposed to mean, my apologies i thought you were dissagreeing
kai
ragamuffin
I think you completely misunderstood that post.
I said Please....
Of course she doesnt control the government...she is a cermonial figurehead...as you said!
I WANT SOME ONE WHO CAN!
OH like a President ?
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
kai
ragamuffin
Jeesh i dont want a President look at all the trouble the Americans get into lol
I think you completely misunderstood that post.
I said Please....
Of course she doesnt control the government...she is a cermonial figurehead...as you said!
I WANT SOME ONE WHO CAN!
The Queen can dissolve Parliament. Although that is very unlikely it is a reminder to politicians that they are accountable to the top (Queen) as well as to the bottom (voters).
Personally I feel there are not enough Government watch-dogs and that UK politicians are not held as accountable as they should be. There is a short term complacency and narrow sightedness with politicians, and I would extend that to Prime Minister and President alike (look at France, Spain, etc). They can up the prices on Student fees and blame it on the last party... it still means the voters pay.
Last edited:
kai
ragamuffin
The Queen cannot "abolish" parliament she can dissolve parliament which triggers a general election, she is but the mechanism its the Prime Minister that decides the timing of a dissolution.
kai
ragamuffin
No problem its a very misunderstood role that the Queen has.
"Purely ceremonial" heads of state can make political differences sometimes. AFAIK, this could happen under your parliamentary system, too:
40th Canadian Parliament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also, I find it strange to hear someone justify the monarchy on the basis of, AFAICT, the idea that they're not really hurting anyone. It's an element of government and therefore needs positive justification to keep it, IMO.
I want what I have now, only with our de facto head of state made our de jure head of state, and without the need to have the appointment approved by the head of state of another country.
kai
ragamuffin
Arnt they just rubber stamping the prime ministers decisions that are wrapped up as requests?
Yes, and that's the problem. In these sorts of cases, the Crown (or in Canada's case, the Vice-Regent) is the check on the system: the purpose of prorogation is to allow the parliamentary session to end when its business has been concluded, and the Crown's permission is required to ensure, hopefully, that it's being used appropriately and not as a way of silencing legitimate debate or parliamentary business that the Prime Minister happens to dislike.
The fact that this check is in place has taken away the motivation for other checks that could be used... for instance, a vote of the House of Commons or the Senate/House of Lords. If the check isn't actually a check at all and is instead simply a rubber stamp for anything the Prime Minister happens to suggest, then the system has failed.
In the case of prorogation, the Crown takes the role as "the place of sober second thought" that the Senate/House of Lords normally takes with legislation. Just as this capacity gives the Senate/House of Lords real governmental power, it gives the Crown real power on the issue of proroguing or dissolving Parliament, which is a real issue with real consequences.