Why is the Queen our "Head of State" ?

[Tony]

I'm not advocating regicide, i don't want to see Liz swinging from the rafters, but you can't truthfully tell me that monarchy is a good idea. The idea is inherently terrible.

 

A terrible 21st century idea it may be but it actually works remarkably well doesn't it?

 

And from the individuals in line it looks like our democracy is secure for at least the next 50 years. How many other nations can say that?

 

It may be a black art but by gum it works well in practice. Maybe we have something really great we can export to other nations so that they can benefit from it too?

[Chris_Sleeps]

A terrible 21st century idea it may be but it actually works remarkably well doesn't it?

It works no better than any other western European republic, or America. We're strong because we're strong, not because Elizabeth is sat on the throne. We we're strong when George III sat on the throne, and he couldn't tie his own shoe laces.

[Tony]

Doesn't that suggest that our system is really really good?

[Chris_Sleeps]

A terrible 21st century idea it may be but it actually works remarkably well doesn't it?

We could put a baboon on the thrown and the same logic would apply.

[Tony]

Up to a point but that isn't the point because we have a hereditary Royal Family.

 

The real point is that the constitutional monarchy is vested in the Crown, of which the Monarch is the representative. Allegiance to the Crown isn't the same thing as allegiance to Elizabeth Windsor / Saxe-Coburg.

 

I'm no constitutional expert but it's always been pretty clear to me that the Crown is the point, not the person sitting on the throne at any particular time and because of the way that the Constitution was formed and applies the Crown / Monarch is there to serve the people and is there only by the consent of the people. If the government of the day gets out of shape we have the unique ability to have the Crown chuck them out, if necessary by force of the military / police / etc who serve the Crown, who in turn serves us rather than any Jonny come lately Government.

 

So in truth the People have more real power through a monarchy than through elected head of state.

[flamingjimmy]

So in truth the People have more real power through a monarchy than through elected head of state.

 

That does not follow. The people have no more or any less power. The Monarch has that power. In theory they're supposed to serve the people.

 

That absolutely does not translate to the people having any 'real power' whatsoever in this regard. What the people have is some sort of nominal in theory indirect power, and that's not good enough.

[upinwath]

Yes, an education!

 

Too right. The OP clearly has no clue at all about the political make up of the UK and the historical reasons behind it.

I have seen many daft questions on this forum but that shows the most stupidity in someone trying to look bright.

[Tony]

That does not follow. The people have no more or any less power. The Monarch has that power. In theory they're supposed to serve the people.

 

That absolutely does not translate to the people having any 'real power' whatsoever in this regard. What the people have is some sort of nominal in theory indirect power, and that's not good enough.

 

 

As it says (and I am no constitutional expert) the power ultimately vests in the fact that the government is not in control. The Crown is, and the Crown serves the people - by law.

 

So what happens is that the monarch dissolves the government on behalf of the people calls in the Army and parks a Challenger tank outside Number 10 while the incumbent is dragged out in straightjacket. Yes you have to make some leaps of imagination and faith but looking at the actual recent history of the monarchy and the future ones I don't see what's wrong with what we have.

 

If you want to have a theoretical discussion about what would be perfect in an ideal world where politicians weren't (collectively) lying cheating self serving shysters then go ahead elsewhere. I'm simply talking about the reality that what we have is most definitely not broken and in most respects beats the alternative. The other reality is that a change from the system to what would purport to be a 'fair and democratic system' would in reality be a disaster for you and me. Far from being 'not good enough' it's really much better.

[andyofborg]

That does not follow. The people have no more or any less power. The Monarch has that power. In theory they're supposed to serve the people.

 

That absolutely does not translate to the people having any 'real power' whatsoever in this regard. What the people have is some sort of nominal in theory indirect power, and that's not good enough.

 

the people never have any real power though no matter what the form of government.

[flamingjimmy]

As it says (and I am no constitutional expert) the power ultimately vests in the fact that the government is not in control. The Crown is, and the Crown serves the people - by law..

So... exactly like I said. You were wrong when you said that the people have some degree of 'real power'. What the people in fact have is wishy washy reliant on the monarch in theory indirect power.

 

So what happens is that the monarch dissolves the government on behalf of the people calls in the Army and parks a Challenger tank outside Number 10 while the incumbent is dragged out in straightjacket.

I do not trust our current Monarch to ever do that, and nor do I trust any of her family to do it in future. I just don't see it happening, do you?

 

If you want to have a theoretical discussion about what would be perfect in an ideal world where politicians weren't (collectively) lying cheating self serving shysters then go ahead elsewhere.

Similarly, if you want to ascribe positions to me that I do not hold in order to make your own stronger, go ahead.

 

I'm simply talking about the reality that what we have is most definitely not broken and in most respects beats the alternative. The other reality is that a change from the system to what would purport to be a 'fair and democratic system' would in reality be a disaster for you and me. Far from being 'not good enough' it's really much better.

How would it be such a disaster if we had a system with a president?

 

also, why did you put 'fair and democratic' in inverted commas like it's some sort of silly made up concept?