5 ms·

Getting rid of the monarch as the head of state also means your nation has to pick a new head of state, somehow. Regular elections and an office and bureaucracy

Getting rid of the monarch as the head of state also means your nation has to pick a new head of state, somehow. Regular elections and an office and bureaucracy around that isn't free either.

michaelmrose 6y ago
But the Brits already HAVE a head of state what they don't need in effect is another. There is nothing the queen does that couldn't be done by existing members of government.
- kitd 6y ago
  Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability. You don't want one person having both. Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    If a crisis happens, which side do you think the military would support, the one they pledged allegiance to or the one paying their wages?
    - kitd 6y ago
      Well, that's the thing about having the muscle. Ultimately, you can make that decision for yourself.
    - arethuza 6y ago
      I've actually had that discussion with an ex-Army officer and he was adamant that the Army would support the monarch. Mind you - he was an officer and from a rather posh guards regiment so that's kind of what I would expect him to say. Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament: This requirement only seems to apply to British Army, the Navy and Air Force are exempt. W good example of how unimportant the pageantry is.
        kitd 6y ago
        IIRC, it's because the British Army can trace its origins back to the New Model Army, so pledging allegiance to the Crown was more than just a formality back then. In contrast, the 'Royal' Navy was created expressly by the monarch so allegiance is implied.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? Why does the armed forces need to pledge allegiance to a person? > In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability. I don't think there's much evidence of that. > You don't want one person having both Why not? > Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces. The main reason the royals serve in the armed forces is that the royalty (and even the broader nobility) is a remnant of what is notionally a warrior elite that is traditionally barred from servile labor but has position of authority ultimately grounded in military function. The substance of both the authority and the distinct warrior class is almost entirely extinct, but traditions remain, including the tradition that it's pretty much the only thing that looks like work that senior royals are permitted to do, as anything else in government would be seen to violate their distance from that function and anything else would be seen as demeaning the monarchy.
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  No, the prime minister is the head of government, while the monarch is the head of state, those are two different roles. You could merge them, South Africa-style if you wanted, but it's pretty unusual. Most parliamentary systems separate the two.
  - RandomBK 6y ago
    I don't disagree that a unified head of state+government would be unusual, but most parliamentary systems were also heavily inspired by the Westminster System, so that might not be a great argument one way or another.
- jonp888 6y ago
  So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections? Under the Westminster system of government, I cannot see any alternative to having a seperate head of state that is not part of the government, even if they do nothing more than wake up every 5 years, appoint a prime minister and go back to sleep again.
  - oblio 6y ago
    > So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections? We, here in the rest of the world, use a magic number to determine that. 51% (or 50% + 1).
    - jonp888 6y ago
      Sure, that works fine when one party has 50%. But what happens when no-one does?
      - CobrastanJorji 6y ago
        That was the case in the UK from 2010-2015. It's called a minority government. Various factions horse trade until some coalition of parties has a majority, and then they rule as coalition. Members of both the Conservatives and Liberal-Democrats had cabinet seats. The main downside to this sort of process is that sometimes negotiations take a long time. Belgium spent nearly two years bickering over forming their coalition in 2010.
      - oblio 6y ago
        That comment was literally about coalitions ...
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Sure, that works fine when one party has 50%. But what happens when no-one does? Form a coalition that does or have new elections. You can even set a timeline after an election for a coalition to be in place or new elections are mandated by law.
posterboy 6y ago
No it doesn't. You may have Barack Trump the friendly Clown as a costume and post different silent actors each week.

Getting rid of the monarch as the head of state also means your nation has to pick a new head of state, somehow. Regular elections and an office and bureaucracy around that isn't free either.

michaelmrose 6y ago

But the Brits already HAVE a head of state what they don't need in effect is another. There is nothing the queen does that couldn't be done by existing members of government.

kitd 6y ago
Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability. You don't want one person having both. Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  If a crisis happens, which side do you think the military would support, the one they pledged allegiance to or the one paying their wages?
  - kitd 6y ago
    Well, that's the thing about having the muscle. Ultimately, you can make that decision for yourself.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    I've actually had that discussion with an ex-Army officer and he was adamant that the Army would support the monarch. Mind you - he was an officer and from a rather posh guards regiment so that's kind of what I would expect him to say. Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament: This requirement only seems to apply to British Army, the Navy and Air Force are exempt. W good example of how unimportant the pageantry is.
      - kitd 6y ago
        IIRC, it's because the British Army can trace its origins back to the New Model Army, so pledging allegiance to the Crown was more than just a formality back then. In contrast, the 'Royal' Navy was created expressly by the monarch so allegiance is implied.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? Why does the armed forces need to pledge allegiance to a person? > In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability. I don't think there's much evidence of that. > You don't want one person having both Why not? > Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces. The main reason the royals serve in the armed forces is that the royalty (and even the broader nobility) is a remnant of what is notionally a warrior elite that is traditionally barred from servile labor but has position of authority ultimately grounded in military function. The substance of both the authority and the distinct warrior class is almost entirely extinct, but traditions remain, including the tradition that it's pretty much the only thing that looks like work that senior royals are permitted to do, as anything else in government would be seen to violate their distance from that function and anything else would be seen as demeaning the monarchy.
henrikschroder 6y ago
No, the prime minister is the head of government, while the monarch is the head of state, those are two different roles. You could merge them, South Africa-style if you wanted, but it's pretty unusual. Most parliamentary systems separate the two.
- RandomBK 6y ago
  I don't disagree that a unified head of state+government would be unusual, but most parliamentary systems were also heavily inspired by the Westminster System, so that might not be a great argument one way or another.
jonp888 6y ago
So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections? Under the Westminster system of government, I cannot see any alternative to having a seperate head of state that is not part of the government, even if they do nothing more than wake up every 5 years, appoint a prime minister and go back to sleep again.
- oblio 6y ago
  > So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections? We, here in the rest of the world, use a magic number to determine that. 51% (or 50% + 1).
  - jonp888 6y ago
    Sure, that works fine when one party has 50%. But what happens when no-one does?
    - CobrastanJorji 6y ago
      That was the case in the UK from 2010-2015. It's called a minority government. Various factions horse trade until some coalition of parties has a majority, and then they rule as coalition. Members of both the Conservatives and Liberal-Democrats had cabinet seats. The main downside to this sort of process is that sometimes negotiations take a long time. Belgium spent nearly two years bickering over forming their coalition in 2010.
    - oblio 6y ago
      That comment was literally about coalitions ...
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Sure, that works fine when one party has 50%. But what happens when no-one does? Form a coalition that does or have new elections. You can even set a timeline after an election for a coalition to be in place or new elections are mandated by law.

posterboy 6y ago

No it doesn't. You may have Barack Trump the friendly Clown as a costume and post different silent actors each week.