4 ms·
Just to offer a royalist British viewpoint (yes, it is possible to be liberal and a royalist :D). I really enjoy having a Queen as head of state; and I wish th
by ErrantX 16y ago
Just to offer a royalist British viewpoint (yes, it is possible to be liberal and a royalist :D).
I really enjoy having a Queen as head of state; and I wish the role hadn't become so namby pamby (basically as described in this article). Here the Queen has "effective"/moral power - but it is just accepted she wont use it.
This is a departure even in recent times; go back 60/70 years and that sentence would have read: Here the Queen has "effective"/moral power - but it is just accepted she wont use it if the politicians behave. I wish we could go back to that.
But, anyway, that is to one side - I meant to explain the idea of royalty. You see a lot of people consider it quaint and ye-olde English. But really in modern times the Queen is just our version of American patriotism. You know that patriotic support for ones country etc. I've always liked that; the idea of believing in an "ideal" (even if the reality is a bit rubbish).
I wish there was more of it, instead of less and less.
(I realise this is mildly tangential to the point of the piece; which actually, IMO, had a solid point to make)
- mcantelon 16y agoHumans are pack animals and it comforts the pack to have an alpha.
- mpk 16y agoWell, yes. It's not just comforting, it's also practical. Nobody ever gets to be head of state because that position is already taken by the royal family, who in turn are expected to behave and not mix in with politics. Works well where I'm living.
- argv_empty 16y agoHere the Queen has "effective"/moral power - but it is just accepted she wont use it. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how many here would trust monarchs or anyone else not to use their power.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- socksy 16y agoSure, technically the monarchy have power. But the reason they don't use it is because it would be taken away from them if they used it...
- alextgordon 16y agoWell, not always. There's really two situations where the power can be used in practice. Firstly, if the government supports the actions of the monarch (although you could argue that this isn't much of a power). More importantly, if there's no government to remove them. The monarch could have the power to resolve a disputed government, or to appoint a government in the absence of one. It's also important to remember that monarchs are often rich, connected people, so even if they can't use their official powers, they may have influence in other ways.
- arethuza 16y agoFYI Edward VIII was pretty much forced to step down in the 1930s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_abdication_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_abdication_crisis Maybe not the best of reasons (his choice of partner), but it does demonstrate that they aren't immovable.
- cromulent 16y agoThe Queen of Australia's representative dismissed the Prime Minister in 1975. That power has not been removed.
- ErrantX 16y agoIn practical terms there is no power; it is just tradition. But your point is sound; from my observation US culture isn't suited for a monarch.
- gaius 16y agoIt is a bit more important than that. The Constitutional function of the monarch is to occupy the position of the head of state so the PM can't have it. The Americans have what they call "checks and balances". This is ours. The PM cannot say to the police, go and arrest the head of the opposition, because the police don't actually report to him - they report to the Queen. Same with the Army, the civil service, etc. The last government did their very best to politicize these services, and I don't know exactly what she should have done, but the Queen's job, her only mission, is to prevent that happening.