The haves and the "have-yachts"

[Jonnyboy]

You do amuse me Verbal, totally unable to understand that the Royal family is redundant in every way; it is just cosmetic to a political process. You remind me so much of that fellow on the train in Dr Zhivago.

 

If they are redundant in every way you won't miss them one bit will you.

[pap]

Well I've spent a lifetime studying the history of this great nation - perhaps I'm too in love with my subject to be perfectly objective - but one word I'd never associate with the long and remarkable history of the British monarchy & constitution is 'static'.

 

You can read our history as one long dynamic struggle to contain the power of those who once wielded so much of it - be they of Royal blood or not. From long before Magna Carta, to long after Oliver Cromwell's doomed search for Leviathan, the strength of our constitution is not that it is persevered in some pickled state utterly incapable of change, but the polar opposite of that false depiction, my truth is that our constitution is a constantly evolving beast shaped by the remorseless flow of history.

 

We are today in many ways a very different nation to that of 1066, 1645, or 1900 even. With one very brief (unsuccessful) interlude back in the 17th century, the one constant throughout has been that the British people have consistently seen a need for monarchy as an inherent part of how they see themselves, their nation, and their place in the world.

 

I certainly don't claim to know the future, perhaps one day all the institutions we know so well today will be long gone, but I'll hazard a guess that no one reading this today will live long enough to see the end of the British Monarchy. As in all things' Tempus Omnia Revelat.

 

Like yourself, I have spent plenty of time studying various aspects of world history, although judging from the texture in some of your posts, probably not to the same degree in the same areas.

 

Given the turmoil we've seen over the centuries, the level of literacy, and the records that survive, I do find it interesting that you seem able to qualify your statement " the British people have consistently seen a need for monarchy as an inherent part of how they see themselves, their nation, and their place in the world". We just don't know that.

 

Even if we did, should we not question the practice in modern times, to assess how it stacks up our current appreciation of the world? When we look at other previous untouchables, such as state religion, we see that attitudes have changed massively in the past 100 years.

 

Now, I'm not saying that history doesn't inform the present. We both know it does. However, I'm not sure that either of us fully understands the implications of the last 20 years, and its potential to spark major societal change. The Internet, and all it means, is still very much in its infancy. However, I think that we can safely say that the days of being able to disseminate information unchallenged in a hierarchical fashion are over, which means that many of our points of truth, such as "there has to be a monarchy", are going to come under question.

 

I don't think that we'll see the end of the monarchy during Elizabeth's reign, but the succession is bound to raise constitutional questions, especially since it is Charles who will be representing us. It'll be interesting to see whether the British people see a need for a monarchy when that day comes.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Pap,

 

One thing my poor amateur study of history has shown me is that no one ever fully understands the implications of history. Indeed, you might almost say its always too early to write the history of anything, as new academic research constantly proves that what were once felt to be established truths, turn out to be anything but.

 

I'm intrigued by the commonly held assumption you repeat that in the fullness of time, if & when, Charles succeeds to the throne that he's bound to make a mess of it. Funnily enough there was a interesting programme on TV this very week dealing with the often scandalous life of Prince Bertie (Edward VII) and how his parents (Victoria & Albert of course) were seeming convinced that he too, just like our Prince Charles, would be a disaster as king - only for him to ultimately turn out to be wildly regarded as a successful and very popular monarch.

 

Of course he had the advantage of living in a era before the modern media, internet access, and 24/7 TV news coverage existed. So we'll have to wait and see how Charles does, but I wouldn't be the least surprised to see history repeating itself. It frequently does.

Edited 21 January, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[pap]

I'm not necessarily suggesting he would make a mess of it. It's your last point that I think will ring the loudest. I have no idea what sort of press coverage Elizabeth got before she ascended to the throne. She lived in the pre-Murdoch age, so I'd imagine that the coverage was a lot more respectful. You've also got to consider the fact that she was crowned while relatively young, certainly in comparison to Charles. Far less time to make the mistakes that most people will accumulate with life experience. The press are still careful about reporting on her now.

 

Much of Charles' private life has entered the public domain, and parts of it are just as grubby as a commoner's lot. It is on the record that he is an adulterer. I'm not sure that all goes away if he gets a promotion. Ultimately it'll come down to how the public see Charles' humanity. Does it disqualify him from the job because he's too human, or is it endearing to have a head of state just like us.

 

And if we can have a head of state just like us, why can't one of us be head of state?

[alpine_saint]

I am of the opinion that the Monarchy should end with the death of Elizabeth 2, mainly because of what comes after her. I did toy with the idea of supporting William to succeed after her, but he seems to be turning into as big a drip in a different world to the rest of us as his dad. However, I dont know what we should replace it with. All the commonly known systems like France and US seem to me bland and unimaginative. Retaining some pomp and circumstance would be good.

 

For some reason, in the meantime I find criticism of the Queen, especially all the German jokes, extremely hard to tolerate. She has served this country absolutely brilliantly.

Edited 21 January, 2012 by alpine_saint

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

You know what they used to say about the US Presidency during the height of the cold war ? The very fact that you want the job so very much proves that you're mentally unbalanced enough to mean you should never have it.

 

Some of us rather like the fact that our head of state occupies that position not because they harbour the iron sense of ambition required to climb that high on the greasy pole of politics, but because they're born to it. The queens father never wanted to be king but overcame his personal difficulties and played his part in leading the nation to the greatest victory in all its long history. It's hard to explain but I feel there's something worth preserving with in that.

 

Few (if any) of us really believe anymore that God has appointed the monarch and that he/she maintains a semi divine status on earth, that question has been a bone of contention between the church and the monarchy for ages past. Surely all people of good faith can agree that the fact that our monarchy is reduced to what is a largely ceremonial role is right and fitting in the modern world. Real power now lies with the people as expressed though their parliamentary democracy. To answer your question I see no reason in principle why any of us might not be head of state in a brave new British Republic, if that was what our people really wanted.

 

But as far as we can tell they really don't want that republican future (as yet anyway) and I can't think of a single good reason that a republic should be imposed upon them against their wishes just because some don't like the principle of a hereditary monarchy. Monarchy is a part of our national identity & our common history, part of what makes us what we are. I say a clear majority of the British people would elect to keep it that way. It is incumbent upon those who wish to change our constitution to persuade the British people that what they offer is better than what we have. 'Good luck with that' as they say.

[revolution saint]

You know what they used to say about the US Presidency during the height of the cold war ? The very fact that you want the job so very much proves that you're mentally unbalanced enough to mean you should never have it.

 

Some of us rather like the fact that our head of state occupies that position not because they harbour the iron sense of ambition required to climb that high on the greasy pole of politics, but because they're born to it. The queens father never wanted to be king but overcame his personal difficulties and played his part in leading the nation to the greatest victory in all its long history. It's hard to explain but I feel there's something worth preserving with in that.

 

Few (if any) of us really believe anymore that God has appointed the monarch and that he/she maintains a semi divine status on earth, that question has been a bone of contention between the church and the monarchy for ages past. Surely all people of good faith can agree that the fact that our monarchy is reduced to what is a largely ceremonial role is right and fitting in the modern world. Real power now lies with the people as expressed though their parliamentary democracy. To answer your question I see no reason in principle why any of us might not be head of state in a brave new British Republic, if that was what our people really wanted.

 

But as far as we can tell they really don't want that republican future (as yet anyway) and I can't think of a single good reason that a republic should be imposed upon them against their wishes just because some don't like the principle of a hereditary monarchy. Monarchy is a part of our national identity & our common history, part of what makes us what we are. I say a clear majority of the British people would elect to keep it that way. It is incumbent upon those who wish to change our constitution to persuade the British people that what they offer is better than what we have. 'Good luck with that' as they say.

 

Good post and good summary although given my username I'm obviously going to disagree with the sentiment though. I think you're right that as republicans we have to put forward and make the argument that an alternative is better. We do have to convince the public that abolishing the Monarchy is a good thing. Personally it annoys me that it's not the institution itself that is enough to convince people. Take Charles Windsor - there are quite a few people who it seems would seriously start to doubt the monarchy upon his coronation because they don't respect him as much as Liz Windsor. Surely that should be the whole point of it though - that you don't get to choose your head of state? You get the card you're dealt and there's nothing you can do about it. Perhaps that's what it would take for people to change their minds but for me it would be for the wrong reasons. Incidentally I'd feel a little sorry for Charlie as much of his problems stem from him actually having an opinion and trying to make his position relevant. Liz on the other hand has pretty much spent her time on the throne silent - none of us know what her opinions are or what she believes in. That seems to be what we want though a monarch that creates as few waves as possible.

 

As for the future? You're probably right - abolition will be a long time coming. As is our nature the monarchy will evolve into something so watered down that at some point it will be purely ceremonial (you could argue that we're already there). I don't foresee any referendum coming up that's for sure. What I do think will happen is a gradual removal of constitutional powers. In many ways that would please the most people - a monarchy in name only that negates the need to talk about an alternative. Ironically I feel it's that fear of an alternative that is the royalists strongest defence - what would you replace them with? Personally I don't feel the need to replace them with anything at all but that's probably a hard sell.

 

On the plus side I am encouraged by the way the debate is going now - we've moved on from people defending the monarchy because it is a decent and fair institution and instead talk about how they are essentially harmless and a nice irrelevancy. We've actually come a long way. I think attitudes are changing and a republican viewpoint no longer marks you out from the crowd, much like being an atheist has become a respected, or at least rational, position as well (you can see why I despise our national anthem!).

 

I probably won't live to see an end to Monarchy but I'll be raising a glass with Tom Paine when it does fall.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Good post and good summary although given my username I'm obviously going to disagree with the sentiment though. I think you're right that as republicans we have to put forward and make the argument that an alternative is better. We do have to convince the public that abolishing the Monarchy is a good thing. Personally it annoys me that it's not the institution itself that is enough to convince people. Take Charles Windsor - there are quite a few people who it seems would seriously start to doubt the monarchy upon his coronation because they don't respect him as much as Liz Windsor. Surely that should be the whole point of it though - that you don't get to choose your head of state? You get the card you're dealt and there's nothing you can do about it. Perhaps that's what it would take for people to change their minds but for me it would be for the wrong reasons. Incidentally I'd feel a little sorry for Charlie as much of his problems stem from him actually having an opinion and trying to make his position relevant. Liz on the other hand has pretty much spent her time on the throne silent - none of us know what her opinions are or what she believes in. That seems to be what we want though a monarch that creates as few waves as possible.

 

As for the future? You're probably right - abolition will be a long time coming. As is our nature the monarchy will evolve into something so watered down that at some point it will be purely ceremonial (you could argue that we're already there). I don't foresee any referendum coming up that's for sure. What I do think will happen is a gradual removal of constitutional powers. In many ways that would please the most people - a monarchy in name only that negates the need to talk about an alternative. Ironically I feel it's that fear of an alternative that is the royalists strongest defence - what would you replace them with? Personally I don't feel the need to replace them with anything at all but that's probably a hard sell.

 

On the plus side I am encouraged by the way the debate is going now - we've moved on from people defending the monarchy because it is a decent and fair institution and instead talk about how they are essentially harmless and a nice irrelevancy. We've actually come a long way. I think attitudes are changing and a republican viewpoint no longer marks you out from the crowd, much like being an atheist has become a respected, or at least rational, position as well (you can see why I despise our national anthem!).

 

I probably won't live to see an end to Monarchy but I'll be raising a glass with Tom Paine when it does fall.

 

Being a republic is not a prominenet debate because it is a pointless one. Why be passionate about something that doesn't effect your democratic status whatsoever. I like the whole pomp and ceremony, pageantry and traditions. Compare it to the sterile atmosphere of the EU Parliament or the Scottish Assembly. Why not market that to make us stand out and bring a few tourists in.

[revolution saint]

Being a republic is not a prominenet debate because it is a pointless one. Why be passionate about something that doesn't effect your democratic status whatsoever. I like the whole pomp and ceremony, pageantry and traditions. Compare it to the sterile atmosphere of the EU Parliament or the Scottish Assembly. Why not market that to make us stand out and bring a few tourists in.

 

The EU parliament and the Scottish Assembly have nothing to do with the monarchy or a replacement for it. Not sure why you've brought that up because it makes no sense. The pomp and ceremony, pageantry and traditions that you like so much can be performed without a monarchy easily enough. Finally the inability to choose your head of state does affect your democratic status.

[pap]

Being a republic is not a prominenet debate because it is a pointless one. Why be passionate about something that doesn't effect your democratic status whatsoever. I like the whole pomp and ceremony, pageantry and traditions. Compare it to the sterile atmosphere of the EU Parliament or the Scottish Assembly. Why not market that to make us stand out and bring a few tourists in.

 

Hardly pointless for any believer in the democratic process. If we cannot choose our head of state, then our democracy is incomplete on a fundamental level.

[Verbal]

Being a republic is not a prominenet debate because it is a pointless one. Why be passionate about something that doesn't effect your democratic status whatsoever. I like the whole pomp and ceremony, pageantry and traditions. Compare it to the sterile atmosphere of the EU Parliament or the Scottish Assembly. Why not market that to make us stand out and bring a few tourists in.

 

Tourists. The last refuge of those without an argument to stand on.

 

Anyway, the good news is that Britannia's de-commissioning was a good kick up the royal caboose, because it broke a line of continuity going back to 1660. We just need to de-commission some castles and property, have Jug Ears 'ascend' (!), and the sham of a British royal family will be off to history's dustbin.

 

As for those who say there is no appetite for republicanism, that's neither here nor there. The royal gravy train is not part of that argument, because as its defenders have so hopelessly pointed out, the royal family's great and lasting value to the country is to attract camera-waving tourists from the rest of he world (even though, of course, they never see them!). They have no political function - again, as their defenders have pointed out.

 

So the argument isn't between republicans and royalists because royalists don't really exist in a meaningful sense of the term. The argument is between those who live in a Hobbesian fantasy world, where they imagine that anything different to the way it is now is unimaginable, and those who want to get this dead-wood logjam out of the way, so that wider constitutional reforms and modernisation can take place. For a start get royalty out of both Houses of Parliament - something that's been attempted for centuries and almost but not quite achieved. Then get to work on the hopelessly archaic House of Lords (It's to our national shame that such a chamber exists in this form).

 

And the greatest ammunition to aim at the royals are the royals themselves. As soon as Jug Ears is in situ, I'll give 'royalty' 20 years, tops.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

The EU parliament and the Scottish Assembly have nothing to do with the monarchy or a replacement for it. Not sure why you've brought that up because it makes no sense. The pomp and ceremony, pageantry and traditions that you like so much can be performed without a monarchy easily enough. Finally the inability to choose your head of state does affect your democratic status.

 

I brought them up because they lack the charisma that makes our parliament so much more aesthetic. The link with the past that the Monarchy gives the political process makes the pomp and ceremony more authentic. What I would suggest that your head of state is politically impotent so choosing one is irrelevant.

[alpine_saint]

Tourists. The last refuge of those without an argument to stand on.

 

Anyway, the good news is that Britannia's de-commissioning was a good kick up the royal caboose, because it broke a line of continuity going back to 1660. We just need to de-commission some castles and property, have Jug Ears 'ascend' (!), and the sham of a British royal family will be off to history's dustbin.

 

As for those who say there is no appetite for republicanism, that's neither here nor there. The royal gravy train is not part of that argument, because as its defenders have so hopelessly pointed out, the royal family's great and lasting value to the country is to attract camera-waving tourists from the rest of he world (even though, of course, they never see them!). They have no political function - again, as their defenders have pointed out.

 

So the argument isn't between republicans and royalists because royalists don't really exist in a meaningful sense of the term. The argument is between those who live in a Hobbesian fantasy world, where they imagine that anything different to the way it is now is unimaginable, and those who want to get this dead-wood logjam out of the way, so that wider constitutional reforms and modernisation can take place. For a start get royalty out of both Houses of Parliament - something that's been attempted for centuries and almost but not quite achieved. Then get to work on the hopelessly archaic House of Lords (It's to our national shame that such a chamber exists in this form).

 

And the greatest ammunition to aim at the royals are the royals themselves. As soon as Jug Ears is in situ, I'll give 'royalty' 20 years, tops.

 

A thoroughly nasty post, which draws a conclusion which will prove utterly wrong.

 

As for the part I've highlighted, well that just goes to show what utter garbage you write. We are either a monarchy or a republic, and if there is no appetite for a republic, we will stay a monarchy, with a constantly evolving idea about what impact and privieleges the Royal Family will have.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Tourists. The last refuge of those without an argument to stand on.

 

Anyway, the good news is that Britannia's de-commissioning was a good kick up the royal caboose, because it broke a line of continuity going back to 1660. We just need to de-commission some castles and property, have Jug Ears 'ascend' (!), and the sham of a British royal family will be off to history's dustbin.

 

As for those who say there is no appetite for republicanism, that's neither here nor there. The royal gravy train is not part of that argument, because as its defenders have so hopelessly pointed out, the royal family's great and lasting value to the country is to attract camera-waving tourists from the rest of he world (even though, of course, they never see them!). They have no political function - again, as their defenders have pointed out.

 

So the argument isn't between republicans and royalists because royalists don't really exist in a meaningful sense of the term. The argument is between those who live in a Hobbesian fantasy world, where they imagine that anything different to the way it is now is unimaginable, and those who want to get this dead-wood logjam out of the way, so that wider constitutional reforms and modernisation can take place. For a start get royalty out of both Houses of Parliament - something that's been attempted for centuries and almost but not quite achieved. Then get to work on the hopelessly archaic House of Lords (It's to our national shame that such a chamber exists in this form).

 

And the greatest ammunition to aim at the royals are the royals themselves. As soon as Jug Ears is in situ, I'll give 'royalty' 20 years, tops.

 

I think you exposing your chippiness again. You are completely unable to accept the respect that so many people have for the Queen around the World and the pride most Brits have in the way she conducts herself in public life. Her devotion to her duty is highlighted by her workload even at the age of 85. There are so many political debates to have, especially in Europe where you countries being run by unelected leaders and you choose to bang on about an institution that is political non active.

[pap]

I brought them up because they lack the charisma that makes our parliament so much more aesthetic. The link with the past that the Monarchy gives the political process makes the pomp and ceremony more authentic. What I would suggest that your head of state is politically impotent so choosing one is irrelevant.

 

I am not sure which parallel dimension that this post emerged from, but it sounds delightful.

 

Why is pomp and ceremony really that important, or worth preserving? What exactly do we gain by having Black Rod open the doors of Parliament, the trooping of the colour or the changing of the guard? If the answer is "tourists", then I'd wonder why we were perpetuating pomp for the amusement of others.

 

Tradition isn't a good enough reason either. It traps us as much as it helps us, leaving ostensibly unmovable obstacles in our path when seeking genuine change.

[pap]

I think you exposing your chippiness again. You are completely unable to accept the respect that so many people have for the Queen around the World and the pride most Brits have in the way she conducts herself in public life. Her devotion to her duty is highlighted by her workload even at the age of 85. There are so many political debates to have, especially in Europe where you countries being run by unelected leaders and you choose to bang on about an institution that is political non active.

 

When the next monarch is crowned, can you honestly say, hand on heart, that Prince Charles is the best person this country has to offer as its head of state?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

When the next monarch is crowned, can you honestly say, hand on heart, that Prince Charles is the best person this country has to offer as its head of state?

 

I think you could put a positive spin on him in terms of his work on the environment but he does come across as a bit of a prat. You have good kings and Queens and bad ones lets just see. What I would hate would be a sort of X factor election.

[pap]

I think you could put a positive spin on him in terms of his work on the environment but he does come across as a bit of a prat. You have good kings and Queens and bad ones lets just see. What I would hate would be a sort of X factor election.

 

That's the essential problem for me, Sergei. He will become our head of state, clearly isn't the best person for the job, and there's nothing we can do to change it, right? That is what the monarchy represents writ large; do as you're told, it is what it is, it can't be changed. Oh, and you're going to pay for it.

 

Numerous politicians have tried to push the idea of a classless society. How can that even be possible when we venerate one family above all others? By placing the Royals at the top of the tree we've hardwired class into our constitution.

 

Appreciate your honesty though, Sergei. Another question, if you'll indulge me. How would you feel about an elected King or Queen drawn from a base of anyone born in Britain?

[Saintandy666]

Don't understand why voting someone in as head of state would make a huge difference to the type of person we'd have... even as PM you have to climb the political ladder to get there, and for a President is no different.

 

An election for it would not be much different to our current elections either which prominently feature the leaders anyways.

 

But as I say earlier, there are bigger problems with our system than an unelected head of state which doesn't really cause too much trouble at all.

[revolution saint]

I brought them up because they lack the charisma that makes our parliament so much more aesthetic. The link with the past that the Monarchy gives the political process makes the pomp and ceremony more authentic. What I would suggest that your head of state is politically impotent so choosing one is irrelevant.

 

I think you could put a positive spin on him in terms of his work on the environment but he does come across as a bit of a prat. You have good kings and Queens and bad ones lets just see. What I would hate would be a sort of X factor election.

 

I agree - no point in having one really.

[Lord Duckhunter]

How would people feel if when their MP died, he was replaced by his/her first born?

 

In what other walk of life would we accept this?

 

Just because Queenie's relatives were the Gaddafi's of their time, we're expected to just smile, wave, bow and let their future blood line "rule over us"for ever and a day.What a strange type of democracy that is.

[solentstars]

How would people feel if when their MP died, he was replaced by his/her first born?

 

In what other walk of life would we accept this?

 

Just because Queenie's relatives were the Gaddafi's of their time, we're expected to just smile, wave, bow and let their future blood line "rule over us"for ever and a day.What a strange type of democracy that is.

good post and if the queen wants a boat let her pay for it and maintain the boat shes one of the richest people in the world for gods sake and i don,t see why my taxes should pay for so called royals toys. and why the hell do we still have bishops still in our unelected second chamber when the country at large is not religious .

oh because of our history.lets modernize the country so more and more people get involved in the democratic process at every level and i for one would love to see someone from the bottom of our society reach the top has a elected president of this country and inspire others rather than worry about tourist attractions and relics from the past.

Edited 22 January, 2012 by solentstars

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

That's the essential problem for me, Sergei. He will become our head of state, clearly isn't the best person for the job, and there's nothing we can do to change it, right? That is what the monarchy represents writ large; do as you're told, it is what it is, it can't be changed. Oh, and you're going to pay for it.

 

Numerous politicians have tried to push the idea of a classless society. How can that even be possible when we venerate one family above all others? By placing the Royals at the top of the tree we've hardwired class into our constitution.

 

Appreciate your honesty though, Sergei. Another question, if you'll indulge me. How would you feel about an elected King or Queen drawn from a base of anyone born in Britain?

 

What is the job and what qualifications do you need to do it ?

 

I suppose our Head of State spends much of their time opening new hospitals etc, entertaining their foreign counterparts, conducting official state visits aboard, & engaging in charity work. HRH The Prince of Wales has spent a lifetime doing exactly that kind of thing, so in the light of that unparalleled level of 'on the job' training, I'm pretty hard pressed to think of anyone who could equal his experience. But if you have a alternate name in mind Pap, then let us know who and we can debate their merits.

 

Although this essentially ceremonial function is the larger part of the Head of State's role in our constitution it's by no means their only responsibility. They must sign bills into law & open and close parliament. The monarch is perhaps one of the most well informed people in the nation with regards to what her government is up to at any one time - as the heavy daily burden of 'Red Boxes' which they must read will confirm. So when the Queen conducts audiences with her Ministers "at which time her Majesty may consult, encourage, and warn them" she does so with the inestimable advantages of speaking from both a fully informed & non partisan position. I presume that the elected head of state you call for will hold the position for a limited term only, now compare that to Queen Elizabeth who has been doing this job since Winston Churchill was last in power.

 

The electoral process is often no more infallible than the hereditary one alas. Unlike Queen Elizabeth an elected British President could be a powerful politician, in some ways more powerful that the Prime Minister perhaps. If the wrong person ever gets the job then we could be in for a dangerous constitutional crisis one day, the like of which this nation has thus far been spared. Without the monarch as Head of State who do you want the armed forces to swear allegiance to - the President or the Prime Minister ?

 

For all the inherent difficulties a monarchy presents, one advantage it does have is that our non party political monarch brings to the job a level of impartiality and experience no elected replacement could possibly equal.

[revolution saint]

What is the job and what qualifications do you need to do it ?

 

I suppose our Head of State spends much of their time opening new hospitals etc, entertaining their foreign counterparts, conducting official state visits aboard, & engaging in charity work. HRH The Prince of Wales has spent a lifetime doing exactly that kind of thing, so in the light of that unparalleled level of 'on the job' training, I'm pretty hard pressed to think of anyone who could equal his experience. But if you have a alternate name in mind Pap, then let us know who and we can debate their merits.

 

Although this essentially ceremonial function is the larger part of the Head of State's role in our constitution it's by no means their only responsibility. They must sign bills into law & open and close parliament. The monarch is perhaps one of the most well informed people in the nation with regards to what her government is up to at any one time - as the heavy daily burden of 'Red Boxes' which they must read will confirm. So when the Queen conducts audiences with her Ministers "at which time her Majesty may consult, encourage, and warn them" she does so with the inestimable advantages of speaking from both a fully informed & non partisan position. I presume that the elected head of state you call for will hold the position for a limited term only, now compare that to Queen Elizabeth who has been doing this job since Winston Churchill was last in power.

 

The electoral process is often no more infallible than the hereditary one alas. Unlike Queen Elizabeth an elected British President could be a powerful politician, in some ways more powerful that the Prime Minister perhaps. If the wrong person ever gets the job then we could be in for a dangerous constitutional crisis one day, the like of which this nation has thus far been spared. Without the monarch as Head of State who do you want the armed forces to swear allegiance to - the President or the Prime Minister ?

 

For all the inherent difficulties a monarchy presents, one advantage it does have is that our non party political monarch brings to the job a level of impartiality and experience no elected replacement could possibly equal.

 

Of course the difference is that if you get a bad elected head of state they are both accountable and can be removed. I'd take that over heriditary divine right every day of the week and if we're arguing that Liz has a role that isn't just ceremonial then I'd say it's even more important.

[Saintandy666]

What is the job and what qualifications do you need to do it ?

 

I suppose our Head of State spends much of their time opening new hospitals etc, entertaining their foreign counterparts, conducting official state visits aboard, & engaging in charity work. HRH The Prince of Wales has spent a lifetime doing exactly that kind of thing, so in the light of that unparalleled level of 'on the job' training, I'm pretty hard pressed to think of anyone who could equal his experience. But if you have a alternate name in mind Pap, then let us know who and we can debate their merits.

 

Although this essentially ceremonial function is the larger part of the Head of State's role in our constitution it's by no means their only responsibility. They must sign bills into law & open and close parliament. The monarch is perhaps one of the most well informed people in the nation with regards to what her government is up to at any one time - as the heavy daily burden of 'Red Boxes' which they must read will confirm. So when the Queen conducts audiences with her Ministers "at which time her Majesty may consult, encourage, and warn them" she does so with the inestimable advantages of speaking from both a fully informed & non partisan position. I presume that the elected head of state you call for will hold the position for a limited term only, now compare that to Queen Elizabeth who has been doing this job since Winston Churchill was last in power.

 

The electoral process is often no more infallible than the hereditary one alas. Unlike Queen Elizabeth an elected British President could be a powerful politician, in some ways more powerful that the Prime Minister perhaps. If the wrong person ever gets the job then we could be in for a dangerous constitutional crisis one day, the like of which this nation has thus far been spared. Without the monarch as Head of State who do you want the armed forces to swear allegiance to - the President or the Prime Minister ?

 

For all the inherent difficulties a monarchy presents, one advantage it does have is that our non party political monarch brings to the job a level of impartiality and experience no elected replacement could possibly equal.

 

They can swear allegiance to the country and its citizens.

 

The head of state need not be any more powerful than a legislative leader... in the US, the President is well kept in check by Congress and the Supreme Court should he try to do anything unconstitutional. In fact, Congress can even pass laws without the Presidents consent should they get a super majority, 2/3's... second time round. So he is hardly all powerful, in fact I would say Congress balances him quite well.

 

One of the parts of the US system I quite like is that the 3 branches of government are well separated. Until very recently, all 3 branches of government were uncomfortably overlapping in the UK, but recent reforms removing the Law Lords to a Supreme Court, abolishing the Lord Chancellor as a meaningful post and the set up of the JAC to independently look over the appointment of judges have helped amend this.

 

So, the Judiciary has been effectively separated to some degree in the UK(albeit the slight nibble that parliament could still abolish it all at any moment as no parliament can bind a future one in this country so nothing is guaranteed)...

 

YET, our executive still operates from our legislature? There are advantages to this, but also a lot of disadvantages, particularly constitutional ones and power issues regarding the executives grip on the legislative. It has been promising in recent years to see the rise of the select committees as a powerful entity to itself, probably due to the fact that the chairs are now elected by MPs, so the PM has less grip on the scrutiny of his government.

 

A lot of good came out of the last Labour government in terms of constitutional reform now I think about it, but there is still a long way to go, our electoral system, the lords and yes perhaps the Royal Family need to go as well.

 

That was a bit rambly, but I guess my overall point is getting rid of the royals would allow us to separate the executive from the legislature!

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Of course the difference is that if you get a bad elected head of state they are both accountable and can be removed. I'd take that over heriditary divine right every day of the week and if we're arguing that Liz has a role that isn't just ceremonial then I'd say it's even more important.

 

In reality a Prime Minister and his cabinet can remove a monarch alright, as the sad story of Stanley Baldwin and Edward VIII shows.

 

How do we remove a elected British President midterm if he proves to be a serious problem ? As he is in office as a direct result of the will of the people (as express in a free election) you could say only the British people should have the power to remove him. So that's yet another election then, or do we let the new Supreme Court with its bench of unelected judges impeach him ? Or something else entirely maybe ?

 

This is the problem with ditching a settled constitution for something that isn't thought through. You are opening up a can of worms that's probably best left back in the fridge.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

They can swear allegiance to the country and its citizens.

 

The head of state need not be any more powerful than a legislative leader... in the US, the President is well kept in check by Congress and the Supreme Court should he try to do anything unconstitutional. In fact, Congress can even pass laws without the Presidents consent should they get a super majority, 2/3's... second time round. So he is hardly all powerful, in fact I would say Congress balances him quite well.

 

One of the parts of the US system I quite like is that the 3 branches of government are well separated. Until very recently, all 3 branches of government were uncomfortably overlapping in the UK, but recent reforms removing the Law Lords to a Supreme Court, abolishing the Lord Chancellor as a meaningful post and the set up of the JAC to independently look over the appointment of judges have helped amend this.

 

So, the Judiciary has been effectively separated to some degree in the UK(albeit the slight nibble that parliament could still abolish it all at any moment as no parliament can bind a future one in this country so nothing is guaranteed)...

 

YET, our executive still operates from our legislature? There are advantages to this, but also a lot of disadvantages, particularly constitutional ones and power issues regarding the executives grip on the legislative. It has been promising in recent years to see the rise of the select committees as a powerful entity to itself, probably due to the fact that the chairs are now elected by MPs, so the PM has less grip on the scrutiny of his government.

 

A lot of good came out of the last Labour government in terms of constitutional reform now I think about it, but there is still a long way to go, our electoral system, the lords and yes perhaps the Royal Family need to go as well.

 

That was a bit rambly, but I guess my overall point is getting rid of the royals would allow us to separate the executive from the legislature!

 

In practice what do we mean by a sweeping statement like "swear allegiance to the country and its citizens" ?

 

The Monarch is a actual person while nationhood is a abstract concept, the collective will of which is difficult to know. If a soldier is told by his officers that the country wants him to drive his Challenger II Main Battle Tank onto Parliament Square and point its 120mm cannon at the House of Commons and turf those uppity politicians out of there, then without a Monarch to contradict that order how is the soldier supposed to react ?

 

Can of worms.

[revolution saint]

In reality a Prime Minister and his cabinet can remove a monarch alright, as the sad story of Stanley Baldwin and Edward VIII shows.

 

How do we remove a elected British President midterm if he proves to be a serious problem ? As he is in office as a direct result of the will of the people (as express in a free election) you could say only the British people should have the power to remove him. So that's yet another election then, or do we let the new Supreme Court with its bench of unelected judges impeach him ? Or something else entirely maybe ?

 

This is the problem with ditching a settled constitution for something that isn't thought through. You are opening up a can of worms that's probably best left back in the fridge.

 

Well that's democracy for you and at least it's accountable but of course it's not infallible. I'd replace our head of state with nothing though as I believe all it's current functions can be carried out easily by the govt of the day. If we believe democracy is a good enough system to run the country though then I'd not have a problem with extending that to an elected head of state.

[Saintandy666]

In practice what do we mean by a sweeping statement like "swear allegiance to the country and its citizens" ?

 

The Monarch is a actual person while nationhood is a abstract concept, the collective will of which is difficult to know. If a soldier is told by his officers that the country wants him to drive his Challenger II Main Battle Tank onto Parliament Square and point its 120mm cannon at the House of Commons and turf those uppity politicians out of there, then without a Monarch to contradict that order how is the soldier supposed to react ?

 

Can of worms.

 

Yer, but in reality... that wouldn't happen as the government would still be in charge and unless the government says roll a tank into Trafalgar Square and blow up the House of Commons, it won't happen. The Oath of allegiance isn't that important anyways... it strikes me as more symbolic given who is really in charge.

 

I think it's a weak argument for keeping the monarchy.

[Saintandy666]

US Army allegiance for reference...

 

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

 

They largely seem to get on okay...

[Verbal]

A thoroughly nasty post, which draws a conclusion which will prove utterly wrong.

 

As for the part I've highlighted, well that just goes to show what utter garbage you write. We are either a monarchy or a republic, and if there is no appetite for a republic, we will stay a monarchy, with a constantly evolving idea about what impact and privieleges the Royal Family will have.

 

Nasty in what way exactly? And why don't you actually engage with the argument rather type the hyperventilating piffle above?

 

On a broader note, anyone but a pure dimwit would define Britain's 'greatness' by monarchy. How 'great' are we that we foisted on ourselves a King of such insanity as George III, or one so utterly dissolute that he and the monarchy were held in the deepest contempt by pretty much everyone as George IV, or such a pathetically weak, Nazi-loving character as Edward VIII? Britain's greatness, if defined by its people, is surely NEVER defined seriously by monarchs, but by great engineers (Brunel), artists (Turner), architects (Wren), writers (Dickens), poets (Shelley), historians (Gibbon), philosophers (Russell), medics (Harvey), etc, etc.

 

These and THOUSANDS more are more significant and have contributed more to 'greatness' to this country than these freeloading, inbred nobodies.

 

And that's not 'nasty' - just a simple, unarguable fact.

[alpine_saint]

Nasty in what way exactly? And why don't you actually engage with the argument rather type the hyperventilating piffle above?

 

On a broader note, anyone but a pure dimwit would define Britain's 'greatness' by monarchy. How 'great' are we that we foisted on ourselves a King of such insanity as George III, or one so utterly dissolute that he and the monarchy were held in the deepest contempt by pretty much everyone as George IV, or such a pathetically weak, Nazi-loving character as Edward VIII? Britain's greatness, if defined by its people, is surely NEVER defined seriously by monarchs, but by great engineers (Brunel), artists (Turner), architects (Wren), writers (Dickens), poets (Shelley), historians (Gibbon), philosophers (Russell), medics (Harvey), etc, etc.

 

These and THOUSANDS more are more significant and have contributed more to 'greatness' to this country than these freeloading, inbred nobodies.

 

And that's not 'nasty' - just a simple, unarguable fact.

 

No, its your opinion you nasty arrogant bigot.

 

You have deliberately focused on the less illustrious of our monarchs, whilst choosing to ignore the likes of the two Elizabeths and Victoria, all of which had lasting impacts on the country and world at large

[Verbal]

No, its your opinion you nasty arrogant bigot.

 

You have deliberately focused on the less illustrious of our monarchs, whilst choosing to ignore the likes of the two Elizabeths and Victoria, all of which had lasting impacts on the country and world at large

 

Not really. It's pretty easy to name elected heads of state who've done FAR more in much less time - Nelson Mandela and Vaclav Havel come to mind. In any case Vicky was only half there - once Albert died she withdrew for decades from public life, pretty much until her death. And Liz 1 was by no means a ceremonial head of state now was she?! Liz II did well to keep the commonwealth - which is important for some, I suppose. The two 'less illustrious' (hilarious phrase, well done!) monarchs are about par for the course.

 

How is this in your odd little mind 'bigoted'? actually, don't tell me: I am not curious as to the workings of the bizarre spectacles you appear to see the world through.

[alpine_saint]

Not really. It's pretty easy to name elected heads of state who've done FAR more in much less time - Nelson Mandela and Vaclav Havel come to mind. In any case Vicky was only half there - once Albert died she withdrew for decades from public life, pretty much until her death. And Liz 1 was by no means a ceremonial head of state now was she?! Liz II did well to keep the commonwealth - which is important for some, I suppose. The two 'less illustrious' (hilarious phrase, well done!) monarchs are about par for the course.

 

How is this in your odd little mind 'bigoted'? actually, don't tell me: I am not curious as to the workings of the bizarre spectacles you appear to see the world through.

 

I cannot be bothered with this any longer. You just keep moving the goalposts anyway. And I have better things to do than react to the snide little undercurrent and tone to your posts.

 

Yes, Verbal, you are very clever, and are always right. And you have now bullied me into being a card-carry revolutinary that wants to execute the Royal Family.

 

OK ? Is that what you wanted to hear ? I hope its made your day.

[alpine_saint]

I've always thought that people spouting ridiculous bullsh*t should be met face on and have their rantings challenged and ridiculed, rather than ignored. I think I am going to make a wee exception.

 

Bye Verbal. Carry on raping people with your opinion....

[solentstars]

Nasty in what way exactly? And why don't you actually engage with the argument rather type the hyperventilating piffle above?

 

On a broader note, anyone but a pure dimwit would define Britain's 'greatness' by monarchy. How 'great' are we that we foisted on ourselves a King of such insanity as George III, or one so utterly dissolute that he and the monarchy were held in the deepest contempt by pretty much everyone as George IV, or such a pathetically weak, Nazi-loving character as Edward VIII? Britain's greatness, if defined by its people, is surely NEVER defined seriously by monarchs, but by great engineers (Brunel), artists (Turner), architects (Wren), writers (Dickens), poets (Shelley), historians (Gibbon), philosophers (Russell), medics (Harvey), etc, etc.

 

These and THOUSANDS more are more significant and have contributed more to 'greatness' to this country than these freeloading, inbred nobodies.

 

And that's not 'nasty' - just a simple, unarguable fact.

 

Agree but we have some people who love kissng backsides and fairy tales I would say the people of this great country made it great .just wish Oliver cromwell lived longer And established a republic after getting rid of a traitor king.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

[pap]

I've always thought that people spouting ridiculous bullsh*t should be met face on and have their rantings challenged and ridiculed, rather than ignored. I think I am going to make a wee exception.

 

Small question. Why don't you practice what you preach?

[buctootim]

Small question. Why don't you practice what you preach?

 

Anyone picks him up on it the answer would be "would love too, next time Im in England and at a match". 12th of never then...

[alpine_saint]

Small question. Why don't you practice what you preach?

 

I havent the slightest clue what you are on about, but I dont particularly care either.

[LGTL]

Have we concluded that Gove is a complete fool yet?

[pap]

I havent the slightest clue what you are on about, but I dont particularly care either.

 

You could save yourself a lot of brain cycles and trouble if you used this as your response to any post.

 

HTH.

[alpine_saint]

You could save yourself a lot of brain cycles and trouble if you used this as your response to any post.

 

HTH.

 

I dont mind if you just keep going on with the oblique insults. After all, making lots of noise, criticising everything and lecturing others is what lefties are known for, and the rest of us get desensitised to it.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

US Army allegiance for reference...

 

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

 

They largely seem to get on okay...

 

As you point out the US armed forces take their orders from a politician who is also their Commander in Chief - The President of the United States. As you seem very concerned about constitutional safeguards so I would have thought you'd approve of the fact that our constitution does not give any one person quite that much power. Our Armed forces take their everyday orders from ministers but swear allegiance to the monarch, thus providing a possible additional safeguard against the threat of a unconstitutional dictatorship one day. Now in praticial terms the oath our armed forces take may not be a very important matter at this time - but who knows it might be in future.

 

I must say it is of course glossly unfair to imply that this question of military oaths is a important mainstay of the argument re the constitution ! A subject I have commented on at some length on here.

 

I feel it is worth mentioning nevertheless.

[pap]

I dont mind if you just keep going on with the oblique insults. After all, making lots of noise, criticising everything and lecturing others is what lefties are known for, and the rest of us get desensitised to it.

 

I am not sure that there was anything oblique about my comments. I just find it ironic that you spend time accusing people of the same things that you do.

 

Is this how you carry on in your own house? Does Mrs Alps get accused of being bigoted or making nasty comments every time she utters something you don't agree with?

 

I am more than happy to fashion a proper response to your posts when they warrant one, sir. Problem is, you invariably attack the posters instead of the posts. Might pass for debate in primary school, but cuts little mustard with fully armed and operational adult brains.

[badgerx16]

Have we concluded that Gove is a complete fool yet?

 

Was it ever in doubt ?

[Verbal]

As you point out the US armed forces take their orders from a politician who is also their Commander in Chief - The President of the United States. As you seem very concerned about constitutional safeguards so I would have thought you'd approve of the fact that our constitution does not give any one person quite that much power. Our Armed forces take their everyday orders from ministers but swear allegiance to the monarch, thus providing a possible additional safeguard against the threat of a unconstitutional dictatorship one day. Now in praticial terms the oath our armed forces take may not be a very important matter at this time - but who knows it might be in future.

 

I must say it is of course glossly unfair to imply that this question of military oaths is a important mainstay of the argument re the constitution ! A subject I have commented on at some length on here.

 

I feel it is worth mentioning nevertheless.

 

Do you really think, in the event of a British Hitler, that the existence of a ceremonial monarch will be some sort of constitutional safeguard? It's plainly self-contradictory: any dictator is going to set aside the constitution, written or unwritten. That is, there are, by definition, no constitutional safeguards against those who, in order to rise to and secure power, must subvert the constitution.

 

In a more realistic context, the duality isn't allegiance and 'everyday' command. You overstate allegiance (it's ceremonial, and seriously trumped by political will) and understate political control by calling it 'everyday'. Blair wasn't making merely 'everyday' decisions about the conduct of the war in Iraq - he made the case for going to war and, in cabinet, decided to do it. There was the trip to Her Maj to inform her of this, but it was little more than protocol and of little but ceremonial value.

[Saintandy666]

As you point out the US armed forces take their orders from a politician who is also their Commander in Chief - The President of the United States. As you seem very concerned about constitutional safeguards so I would have thought you'd approve of the fact that our constitution does not give any one person quite that much power. Our Armed forces take their everyday orders from ministers but swear allegiance to the monarch, thus providing a possible additional safeguard against the threat of a unconstitutional dictatorship one day. Now in praticial terms the oath our armed forces take may not be a very important matter at this time - but who knows it might be in future.

 

I must say it is of course glossly unfair to imply that this question of military oaths is a important mainstay of the argument re the constitution ! A subject I have commented on at some length on here.

 

I feel it is worth mentioning nevertheless.

 

In reality, it's exactly the same though. Ours take orders from David Cameron, the US Barack Obama. It makes little difference, except a technical one. The difference in the US of course is the rigidity of the constitution and the fact that the Supreme Court can stop any law or action that goes against it. So really, the US has more protection! Parliament if it wanted to could vote to take away all freedom tomorrow and insert an actual fascist state(that would shock the morons who seem to think we live in one at the moment, but anyways...). In the US, that would be impossible... as it would be unconstitutional.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Do you really think, in the event of a British Hitler, that the existence of a ceremonial monarch will be some sort of constitutional safeguard? It's plainly self-contradictory: any dictator is going to set aside the constitution, written or unwritten. That is, there are, by definition, no constitutional safeguards against those who, in order to rise to and secure power, must subvert the constitution.

 

In a more realistic context, the duality isn't allegiance and 'everyday' command. You overstate allegiance (it's ceremonial, and seriously trumped by political will) and understate political control by calling it 'everyday'. Blair wasn't making merely 'everyday' decisions about the conduct of the war in Iraq - he made the case for going to war and, in cabinet, decided to do it. There was the trip to Her Maj to inform her of this, but it was little more than protocol and of little but ceremonial value.

 

Well Comrade Verbal let me paint you a picture of one possible (if very unlikely) scenario that neither you, nor I, might like very much.

 

In a few years time some national emergency arises & the government of the day decides that the General Election due to be held in the next few years would be a unwarranted distraction from the urgent business of addressing the issue. So the Prime Minister & his cabinet, using their large parliamentary majority, force a Bill through a reluctant House of Commons suspending the democratic process for a unspecified period. The House of Lords rejects this bill in its entirety, but after much toing & froing the government forces the legislation through employing the provisions of the Parliament Act 1949.

 

To become law the Queen needs to grant her 'Royal Assent' before this egregious piece of legislation can come into force. But Queen Elizabeth ever mindful of her sacred Coronation Oath to "govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland according to their respective laws and customs" decides to withhold her consent - and quite rightly so in my view.

In the midst of the ensuing grave constitutional crisis, mass civil disorder breaks out & the government calls upon the Army to intervene. In this crisis situation that unimportant & strictly 'ceremonial' oath you (& Sandy 666) dismiss so very glibly suddenly becomes a crucial issue as the Army staff must decide who's side they are on. I say the oath of allegiance to the Queen now grants the generals the possibility at least of siding with her & protecting the British people from the actions of a unconstitutional government. The Government is now left with no choice but to resign & call a new election.

 

We've been discussing fine points of constitutional practice for a while now, but behind all that nice theory lays a deeper truth that someone of your political leanings should understand I would have thought:

 

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Tse-tung

 

In that at least the old despot was right for once.

[Verbal]

Well Comrade Verbal let me paint you a picture of one possible (if very unlikely) scenario that neither you, nor I, might like very much.

 

In a few years time some national emergency arises & the government of the day decides that the General Election due to be held in the next few years would be a unwarranted distraction from the urgent business of addressing the issue. So the Prime Minister & his cabinet, using their large parliamentary majority, force a Bill through a reluctant House of Commons suspending the democratic process for a unspecified period. The House of Lords rejects this bill in its entirety, but after much toing & froing the government forces the legislation through employing the provisions of the Parliament Act 1949.

 

To become law the Queen needs to grant her 'Royal Assent' before this egregious piece of legislation can come into force. But Queen Elizabeth ever mindful of her sacred Coronation Oath to "govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland according to their respective laws and customs" decides to withhold her consent - and quite rightly so in my view.

In the midst of the ensuing grave constitutional crisis, mass civil disorder breaks out & the government calls upon the Army to intervene. In this crisis situation that unimportant & strictly 'ceremonial' oath you (& Sandy 666) dismiss so very glibly suddenly becomes a crucial issue as the Army staff must decide who's side they are on. I say the oath of allegiance to the Queen now grants the generals the possibility at least of siding with her & protecting the British people from the actions of a unconstitutional government. The Government is now left with no choice but to resign & call a new election.

 

We've been discussing fine points of constitutional practice for a while now, but behind all that nice theory lays a deeper truth that someone of your political leanings should understand I would have thought:

 

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Tse-tung

 

In that at least the old despot was right for once.

 

And for all the time you were composing this missive, one simple problem with it didn't occur to you? Dictators that overthrow democratic governments tend to be the MILITARY. For example: the Colonels in Greece, Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, Pinochet in Chile, a succession of animalistic generals in Argentina, Brazil, etc, etc. Greece is interesting for your supposed counter-example. King Constantin - a relative of the Queen - tried for weeks to intervene. In the end, he not only failed, but was forced by the Colonels into a humiliating accession to all their demands, and the constitutional guarantees of democratic and other rights were simply abolished, with the King signing all the necessary paperwork.

 

So clearly, on your own assumption of the paramount need to protect the constitution and the rights therein, it's by far the best thing to do to boot out royalty and replace it with deeper democratic structures like a properly elected second chamber and an elected head of state.

 

And what's the garbage about 'comrade? If anyone, I'm an admirer of that dangerous Trotskyist Tom Paine. Try telling an American constitutionalist that Paine was simply an evil revolutionary and he'll take you for a tiny bit of a twit.

Edited 23 January, 2012 by Verbal

[pap]

Well Comrade Verbal let me paint you a picture of one possible (if very unlikely) scenario that neither you, nor I, might like very much.

 

In a few years time some national emergency arises & the government of the day decides that the General Election due to be held in the next few years would be a unwarranted distraction from the urgent business of addressing the issue. So the Prime Minister & his cabinet, using their large parliamentary majority, force a Bill through a reluctant House of Commons suspending the democratic process for a unspecified period. The House of Lords rejects this bill in its entirety, but after much toing & froing the government forces the legislation through employing the provisions of the Parliament Act 1949.

 

To become law the Queen needs to grant her 'Royal Assent' before this egregious piece of legislation can come into force. But Queen Elizabeth ever mindful of her sacred Coronation Oath to "govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland according to their respective laws and customs" decides to withhold her consent - and quite rightly so in my view.

In the midst of the ensuing grave constitutional crisis, mass civil disorder breaks out & the government calls upon the Army to intervene. In this crisis situation that unimportant & strictly 'ceremonial' oath you (& Sandy 666) dismiss so very glibly suddenly becomes a crucial issue as the Army staff must decide who's side they are on. I say the oath of allegiance to the Queen now grants the generals the possibility at least of siding with her & protecting the British people from the actions of a unconstitutional government. The Government is now left with no choice but to resign & call a new election.

 

We've been discussing fine points of constitutional practice for a while now, but behind all that nice theory lays a deeper truth that someone of your political leanings should understand I would have thought:

 

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Tse-tung

 

In that at least the old despot was right for once.

 

The moment you have to invent scenarios to justify the position of the Queen, your argument is over. I am sure that if it happened, there would be an Oscar-winning film off the back of it. Probably won't happen though. The last time Royal Assent was refused was 1707.