It's very odd that probabbly the most famous Woman in the world the Queen of the Commonwealth Realms for 60 years has never expressed a political viewpoint in a public forum.... Extremely strange that the biggest celebrity in the world and we now next to nothing of the person, More over that being Queen means you are so much more than an individual and there is no seperating the two.
share[deleted]
It would be much odder if she had... since she's not supposed to.
shareIT is only a constitutional convention that stops this and the tricky thing with them is that they are completely unenforcable in law.
shareThe queen is not goign to do anything that is wrong or to try to enforce her own will, against the law and wishes of her people. If she did do so there woudl be an end ot the monarchy.
shareIn other words she's pointless - we pay a fortune for someone who gives us no idea what she thinks about anything, says nothing inspirational as a national leader, fights for nothing of value to the people who pay for her, etc. Seems a pretty stupid constitutional setup. Not her fault, of course - but what's the point in the role of monarch if it's been reduced to nothing but on ornamental government puppet? I'm not saying that she *should* have power just because she was born (obviously) but that the whole role is now completely pointless. We should have a Head of State we elect who has limited power with a democratic mandate to stand up for the people who put him or her where they are and keep an eye on the government on our behalf (but able, unlike the Queen, to speak up about what the government's doing).
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.
"The Crown is important not for the power it wields but the power it denys others" - Sir Winston Churchill
One of the things that keeps Britain from becoming a dictatorship is the the most powerful people in our Country have to go once a week and bend a knee to somebody else, sit down and try to explain their job.
Within twenty years of the Germans abolishing their Monarchy, they had Nazi Germany...
Nonsense. If the people of Britain were stupid enough to vote in an extremist party, the Queen would do nothing to prevent it; if she did, she would be acting without a democratic mandate and parliament (and the people who voted) would remove her. It's a fantasy to imagine an unelected Head of State would jeopardize her position by obstructing the will of the people. The reason Britain has not had a dictatorship is because the people have shown a singular unwillingness to vote for the likes of Oswald Mosley (in fact, many British people rioted against his Blackshirts). We actually came closest to modern fascist dictatorship when Nazi sympathiser King Edward VIII briefly reigned. What happened? The GOVERNMENT pressured him out of the job. As for Germany - Hitler played the system and achieved power because he worked it at a time when the country was suffering the after-effects of the punitive Treaty of Versailles brought about by WWI - a war which in part started because of the ties of alliances brought about by Queen Victoria's inbreeding European dynasty (including her grandson, Kaiser Wilhelm). So you can thank monarchy for that. Also, the PM doesn't go 'to explain his job' to the Queen. You and I don't have a clue as to what passes between our elected leader and our unelected Head of State because convention dictates that we the electorate are not worthy of deciding whether the discussions are in our best interests or not...
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.
Her Majesty Acceded to the throne 60 years ago, in short longer than David Cameron has been alive; hence the breadth of knowlegde in the workings of government is second to none. There is not hardly a head of state she doesn't know and as such her diplomacy is aparrent, as she receives foreign intellegence before the PM.
It also a fact that within 20 years of the German's abolishing their monarchy they had Nazi Germany, if it is completely powerless (which it isn't) there would be no need to abolish the monarchy to create a dictatorship. The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom are in the service of the Crown, as is every elected MP. They take an oath of alleigence to the Monarch, which is primarily a alleigence to the Country and it's system of Government which includes the Monarch as Head of State.
The elected American President vetos important legislation routinely in the States which is going against the will of the people, something our unelected head of state wouldn't do.
even though our Monarch is unelected technically she would be removed if popular opinion was not with her. 80% of the population wish to retain the Monarchy, 80% is an approval rating politicians would kill for.
Her Majesty Acceded to the throne 60 years ago, in short longer than David Cameron has been alive; hence the breadth of knowlegde in the workings of government is second to none. There is not hardly a head of state she doesn't know and as such her diplomacy is aparrent, as she receives foreign intellegence before the PM.
It also a fact that within 20 years of the German's abolishing their monarchy they had Nazi Germany, if it is completely powerless (which it isn't) there would be no need to abolish the monarchy to create a dictatorship. The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom are in the service of the Crown, as is every elected MP. They take an oath of alleigence to the Monarch, which is primarily a alleigence to the Country and it's system of Government which includes the Monarch as Head of State.
The elected American President vetos important legislation routinely in the States which is going against the will of the people, something our unelected head of state wouldn't do.
even though our Monarch is unelected technically she would be removed if popular opinion was not with her. 80% of the population wish to retain the Monarchy, 80% is an approval rating politicians would kill for.
[deleted]
She's not controversial, her position is. In fact, she's very good at being uncontroversial, saying nothing and not letting her people know what she thinks, feels or influences. She's very good at this job; but it's a job of which I would question the value. I'd rather a Head of State role which is apolitical but far more transparent (both financially and politically) and which has more rigorous checks and balances than the monarchy. I would venture that the great trick played on the British public is that it *needs* the monarchy, when it's the monarchy which needs the British public.
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.
[deleted]
we pay a fortune for someone who gives us no idea what she thinks about anything, says nothing inspirational as a national leader, fights for nothing of value to the people who pay for her, etc.
Not really - the PotUS does actually speak up (whether we agree with him or think he's worth listening to is another matter). I'd hate an Executive President for the UK though - I'd prefer us to be a Parliamentary Republic in which the President has reserve powers but the democratic mandate to speak up for us politically (which is apparently what the future King Charles wants to be like, only without actually giving us a say in whether we want him to be the guy doing it).
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.
^We don't know at this time whether Charles will be King Charles. He doesn't have to take that name when he is crowned (most likely he will though).
shareI don't think it really matters. It would be a PR mis-step for him to change, as he's been Charles for so long and it would smack of a very anachronistic 'tradition'. The changing of names is actually largely an early 20th century thing.
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.
^If it doesn't matter, why would it be a PR misstep for him to change his name?
shareIt doesn't matter because he'll still be the same man - it would be a PR misstep because the 'name change' thing is horribly archaic and old-fashioned. So is the royal family, of course, but they're desperate to cultivate a modern image; and changing the name of a central figure who has been known as 'Charles' for 60-odd years smacks of quite the opposite.
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.