181–190 of 599 posts
How does one even become a monarch? They weren't always hereditary, and it would be interesting to see what they were based on. Seems like you need some kind of divine recognition, as otherwise you're just a dictator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. This isn't really guaranteed to be a "moderating" influence except in the most technical sense. The current queen does not seem very eager to grab more power, but one could easily imagine a more devious and power-hungry monarch parlaying the ability to interfere with some laws into greater political power. Ima…
I view the monarchy as Britain's system32. A backup in case the OS fails, or something like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still remember, all the way back in the Nixon era, my dad grumbling: "Most people just want to be ruled by a king." But I think a symbolic monarchy could serve a useful purpose by giving those people a ceremonial role in return for promising that they will never attempt to actually govern. Edit: Deleted first sentence per comment below.
What does a monarchy have to do with Jan 6? And how does a ceremonial role impact operations or anyone’s life?
I happen to agree with the GP that monarchies should be abolished outright, but it is clear that people feel strongly and build identities around ceremonial roles.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_and_image_of_Eliza...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. This isn't really guaranteed to be a "moderating" influence except in the most technical sense. The current queen does not seem very eager to grab more power, but one could easily imagine a more devious and power-hungry monarch parlaying the ability to interfere with some laws into greater political power. Ima…
You could say this about a president, too. If one president grabs more power his/her successor can be assured of trying to exploit that power. All of these systems rely on people respecting established political norms. There's no way to get around it. I'm not defending the monarchy, mind you, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't matter if the chief executive is the monarch or a president.
I like my queen. The problem arises what happens when she leaves. The other family members are not likeable at all.
Have you ever met her? Brenda's media team are some of the best in the business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The monarch isn’t above the law, it has been granted immunity from being sued but this is all entirely on the gift of parliament. Inside the robing room used just before she addresses the House of Lords is a copy of the death warrant for Charles I as a little reminder of who really is in charge.
The courts are literally the Queen’s. As for Charles I that was the result of losing a civil war and in case it’s not blindingly obvious exactly the kind of extralegal remedy I was referring to.
I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…
Ignoring that the Queen and much of her staff would likely be dead, where exactly do you think Governments come from? Parliament would just reform and be recognized de facto until the laws were either reconstructed or replaced. Sometimes words have no meaning, and the queen has no practical power to do any of this, so it's basically irrelevant in my view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does a monarchy have to do with Jan 6? And how does a ceremonial role impact operations or anyone’s life?
I'm not going to try to answer the first, but as to the second question: Britain is exactly the example of this. The Queen (or King) is a symbol of national pride and unity. The British people regularly give her an approval rating of over 90%[1], which is astounding for someone who lives off of the public welfare. I happen to agree with the GP that monarchies should be abolished outright, but it is clear that people…
It isn't welfare if the person works in an official capacity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're 100% right. The UK would be served just as well by a nonpartisan president.
And a republic. That said - what would happen to all the stuff owned by the crown? I'm not sure if the postal service still is, and the prisons could probably be let go - but I think there's a lot of land, especially in the south owned by the crown.