• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

The Queen- not powerful enough?

The Queen- more power?

  • The Monarchy should have absolute power

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Royals should take some control

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • If it aint broke, dont fix it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Long live the Republic of England!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
Today in maths as I idly thought of ways to avoid doing my coursework, I overheard a few of my friends discussing the Queen.Curious I strolled over and had a bit of a listen.

I was shocked to discover that they thought she was a useless old bag, pointless and just something to pay for. Being quite a passionate monarchist i waded in and defended her.

I pointed out that she is what makes the United Kingdom pretty damn unique, being one of the few Western/developed nations with a Monarchy and that without a Royal Family we would become just another republic with a leader who has no history or character (apart from a select few) And that if we ditched her then soon we would we would start getting rid of other British traditions, like hating the French and football hoolaginism.

Eventually my friend pointed out how little control the Queen actually has of the country,(I know technically she has the power to start a war with whoever takes her fancy but would the masses actually support her?) and served little useful purpose, apart from being a figurehad and getting tourists.

So my question is this, If the Queen dissovled Parliament and took full control of the country herself, would you back her?
 
#2
Of course I would. I've taken an oath to that effect.
 
#3
A very important point to remind these f**kwits of is that the Queen's strength is not in the power she wields, but the power she denies to others. I feel bad now for describing these people as f**kwits; the sad truth is that they have never been taught to understand. I truly fear for our future. Blare has already undermined the basis of her right to power by reform of the House of Lords. Where did the Hereditary Peers go? So what legitimacy is there to a hereditary Monarchy? Nothing is ever simple. Take our Oath; her Heirs and successors. Define successor.
 
#4
Successor: person who succeeds to the throne. Bliar has no delusions in this respect, he wants to be president. Presidents don't have thrones.

Alternatively, the heirs of the heirs.
 
#6
She has a Navy, an Army and an Air Force. How much more power does she need?
 
#7
Passed-over_Loggie said:
A very important point to remind these f**kwits of is that the Queen's strength is not in the power she wields, but the power she denies to others. I feel bad now for describing these people as f**kwits; the sad truth is that they have never been taught to understand. I truly fear for our future. Blare has already undermined the the basis of her right to power by reform of the House of Lords. Where did the Hereditary Peers go? So what legitimacy is there to a hereditary Monarchy? Nothing is ever simple. Take our Oath; her Heirs and successors. Define successor.
Successor: someone who assumes the throne in the absence of an heir. For example, when James I succeeded Elizabeth I.
 
#8
crabtastic said:
She has a Navy, an Army and an Air Force. How much more power does she need?
Careful, now. The Navy don't swear allegiance and I seem to remember that there's something dodgy about the Guards.

I've probably got my military history wrong (again), but didn't Queen Vic say something along the lines of "I'm not trusting this fcuking shower to be my servants!" It's something to do with having corporals and not sergeants. :?

:wink:
 
#9
I just wish she could use the royal prerogative, and would use her right to dissolve Parliament when they're being cnuts.

As to the people who think she costs a lot of money, ask them exactly how much the Crown Estates pay into the Treasury, and how much they get back from the Royal list. You'll find that the Crown Estates pay a significantly larger amounts of money into the public pots than the royals receive.
 
#10
There are a few political heads I would love to see on pikestaffs outside the Tower of London. And I think the Queen should dissolve Parliament tomorrow morning and invite them all to the Tower for tea....

Litotes
 
#11
putteesinmyhands said:
crabtastic said:
She has a Navy, an Army and an Air Force. How much more power does she need?
Careful, now. The Navy don't swear allegiance and I seem to remember that there's something dodgy about the Guards.

I've probably got my military history wrong (again), but didn't Queen Vic say something along the lines of "I'm not trusting this fcuking shower to be my servants!" It's something to do with having corporals and not sergeants. :?

:wink:
In the case of the Andew, their officers were not considered gentlemen by QV. This followed the RN actions at the Nore mutiny when ringleaders were invited to step forward and make their case without fear of retribution. The ringleaders promptly stepped forward ..... and were hung. When told of the "quelling" of the mutiny QV was heard to say that although they (RN officers) were officers, they were certainly not gentlemen. Since that time, so has it been (Hence the salutation "Ladies, Gentlemen and Officers of the Royal Navy") and will remain until revoked by another monarch - which probably won't happen as the RN are rather pleased with the distinction!
 
#12
The other thing a monarchy provides is continuity. Governments come and go, but the monarchy remains (relatively!) consistent. Take our present Queen, for example, and think how many Prime Ministers and governments she has seen come and go. She was on the throne when Winston Churchill was an MP!

Every week the PM has an audience with the Queen. Do they just sit there and scoff tea and biccies? I think not! I'm sure tea and biccies get consumed in prodigious quantities, but he point of it is to have a meaningful discussion whereby the PM advises the monarch as to his proposals for the country and (hopefully) takes on board the advice and direction she gives, drawing on her many years of experience, probably having seen it all before.

Of course, she has little control once the basic principles have been agreed and everything gets debated to death and amended out of recognition by the MPs in the political arena, but think what lunacy would get through if this measure of balance and control wasn't there.

With her experience I've no doubt she could run things rather well.
 
#13
Passed-over_Loggie said:
A very important point to remind these f**kwits of is that the Queen's strength is not in the power she wields, but the power she denies to others. I feel bad now for describing these people as f**kwits; the sad truth is that they have never been taught to understand. I truly fear for our future. Blare has already undermined the the basis of her right to power by reform of the House of Lords. Where did the Hereditary Peers go? So what legitimacy is there to a hereditary Monarchy? Nothing is ever simple. Take our Oath; her Heirs and successors. Define successor.
Yes it dispairs me as well when people look at the monarch as some tart that does a bit of waving, if people truely understood our political system then they will cherish her unique role in maintaining democracy and fairness in this nation

Unfortunatly Blair is doing his best to undermine the safeguards in place which makes me all the more worried
 
#14
In the same way that HM invites someone to form her government (usually the leader of the largest party), can she not also dissolve that government without dissolving the parliament?.

HM's powers were exercised in Australia not too long ago by the Governor General (quasi-viceroy).

And bring back the heriditary peers. The remaining ones are more effective than Tony's 'working peers' who largely do not attend debates or even turn up for votes.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
The Navy's allegiance is the the Board of the Admiralty, not the monarch, although the monarch is the Lord High Admiral, so the destinction is a nicety.

Just as an aside - Queen Vicky said that Naval Officers aren't gentlemen, but what about female officers? Can they claim to be ladies?
 
#17
It is also only recently that the men of the Royal Navy have been allowed to become Yeoman Wardens. In the past they were barred from this because they were pressganged or something.

The Guards are part of the Household Division, so they are, on paper, more likely to side with HRH than perhaps the rest of the army.

She does indeed provide stability and continuity, as does the House of Lords.

As stated, she controls the Armed Forces, amongst other organisations, so in effect could take control. But I am pretty sure the bit in the oath about lawful orders may sort of limit those powers, if it ever got to court.

However, say she did say the word, we could slot all the lawyers and judges and to that end legally we'd be sorted.

I think.

ahh, Utopia.
 
#18
:? ...I thought she'd been spotted drinking Cyclone and maxing out the pec deck.... :oops:
 
#19
In a constitutional monarchy such as ours, the monarch reigns but does not rule. That is exactly as it should be, because in a democracy political power must derive from a mandate from the people as expressed in free elections. An unelected head of state should have no political power whatsoever.

I am quite happy with an hereditary monarch as the British head of state, because the very fact that the Queen was not elected makes her apolitical. That’s why the British armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch and not to parliament, because by doing so they also stand aloof from politics.

In reality, of course, the armed forces take their orders from the elected government of the day and that is absolutely right. As much as we as individuals may disagree with any given government or their policies, they were elected legally and it’s not the business of the armed forces to act contrary to the will of the people. That way lies the path to military dictatorship.

What I would change, though, would be to abolish the Royal Prerogatives. They are powers theoretically reserved to the monarch, but in practice exercised by the prime minister on the monarch’s behalf. The most significant from the military point of view are the prerogatives to declare war and make peace treaties. That means that in matters of the exercise of those prerogatives the prime minister is not legally answerable to anyone. For instance the debate in parliament before the Iraq war was completely irrelevant. If the vote had gone against Bliar, he could still have committed the UK to the war in any case. That can’t be right. The abolition of the Royal Prerogatives would require the prime minister to get the assent of parliament in those matters.
 
#20
What I would like to see is H.M. telling BLiar to wind his neck in and feck off. Simplistic, I know, but I like the idea. :twisted:
 

Similar threads

Top