4 ms·
Unfortunately not politically irrelevant at all. The Queen has directly interfered in legislation, and she also has a weekly chat with the PM every week. It's
by TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Unfortunately not politically irrelevant at all. The Queen has directly interfered in legislation, and she also has a weekly chat with the PM every week.
It's unlikely they talk about tea and biscuits.
But the real issue is that the Queen legitimises hierarchy and privilege. Instead of modelling democratic authority and meritocracy, she models the opposite - vast inherited wealth and land ownership, without accountability.
She is also the head of the armed forces, who swear an oath of loyalty to her personally - not to Parliament, and certainly not to the people of the UK.
In the UK she has Sovereign Immunity, which means she literally cannot be convicted of any crime. She can't even interviewed.
None of this would be a problem if she was in any way outstanding, but unfortunately the Royal Family have made some exceptionally poor choices. The Prince Andrew trial - and his $12m bailout - is just the most recent scandal in a long series of shady events and associations.
- dTal 4y ago>a weekly chat with the PM every week. To be fair, a weekly chat at any other frequency would be quite eccentric!
- EliRivers 4y ago"She is also the head of the armed forces, who swear an oath of loyalty to her personally - not to Parliament, and certainly not to the people of the UK." Speaking as someone who was just such a person (although at the time I did it, in the service I was in, there was no loyalty oath at all), while I can see the issue with this, I would really not have felt comfortable going on record as loyal to parliament or the the people of the UK. We should just bin it entirely; it's a job, with legal conditions and requirements. No need for any weird oaths.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]