Does England Need The Royals?

by Englishman 17 Replies latest jw friends

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Course we do!

    There's lot's of reasons why we need a monarchy. Here's 1 reason, outlined by Peter Hitchens:

    Uniquely in all the world, monarchy stands for liberty...The British form of monarchy is preferable to most forms of republics. Its not like other monarchies. It's not like an autocracy, it hasn't been since the middle ages...Monarchy provides colour and majesty in a nation. And a sense of history and continuity. It's much better it seems to me to have a gold coach going down the mall with an escourt of lifeguards, then it is to be in the kind of country where you celebrate the majesty of the state with a parade of red tanks going through red square, or a torchlight procession through the middle of Berlin. These things are necessary - monarchy provides them in a much more civlised way then fascism, national socialism or communism.

    More on the way!

    Englishman.

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    If memory serves, England once did without the monarchy in the mid-1600s with Oliver Cromwell as Protector. Pretty good film made it about him called "Cromwell" with the late Richard Harris and Alec Guiness as Charles I.

    At any rate, if I remember correctly after Cromwell died the people missed the monarchy and wanted it back. But I believe this is when Parliment became the superior power and the condition of James II's return was he would not be absolute monarch as his father was hence the birth of the consititutional monarchy.

  • Doubtfully Yours
    Doubtfully Yours

    England does not need the royals at all, but... IT'S TRADITION!!!

    DY

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Did you know that the Queen has her own website?

    It's pretty cool too: http://www.royal.gov.uk

    Englishman.

  • TresHappy
    TresHappy

    I've been to Her Majesty's website. And since Camilla can become Queen afterall, I'll refer to her as HM The Rottweiler.

  • Pwned
    Pwned

    sorry dumb question but... do they have any power?

  • TresHappy
    TresHappy

    No power, although I think the Queen has tea with the Prime Minister every week to "go over" things.

    And of course, the reigning monarch is the "head" of the Anglican Church.

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Just pasted this:

    .

    In the C19th Walter Bagehot described the monarchy as being ?symbolic and ceremonial? but with little actual power. In the C21st this is even more true.

    ?The Queen reigns but does not rule?.

    What are the royal prerogatives:

    Ø The Queen has the right to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. However, in the C21st this is convention as opposed to reality. In fact, after an election, the Queen chooses the leader of the majority party to lead the Commons. However, what happens if the Prime Minister refuses to quit after losing a vote of no confidence is unclear ? as it has never happened in recent political history. Theoretically, the monarch can exercise powers of appointment and dismissal. How this would fit in with a democracy is difficult to decide.

    Ø The monarch has other powers of appointment (ministers, peers, senior C of E officials, head of BBC, senior civil servants etc) In reality these are chosen by the Prime Minister; only the Order of the Garter and the Order of Merit are at the personal disposal of the Queen. Therefore, a vast amount of power with regards to senior appointments rests with the Prime Minister.

    Ø The Queen opens and dissolves Parliament. She also approves all statutes of law. In reality, the date of a general election is set by the Prime Minister and the Queen, in the State Opening of Parliament, simply reads out the proposed bills for the next 5 years of a government and plays no part in deciding them. No monarch has refused to give the Royal Assent to a government bill (passed at this stage by both the Commons and Lords) since 1707. Now it would appear to be completely untenable that the Queen would refuse to sign a government bill that had passed the Commons, select committees, the Lords etc. It would spark off a major (the major?) constitutional crisis.

    Ø In theory, the monarch has the right to grant pardons and input some sentences. In reality this power is exercised by the Home Secretary; a classic example was when Jack Straw stated that Myra Hindley?s life term meant life.

    Ø The monarch, via proclamations or Orders in Council, may declare war or treaties, without the input of the Commons/Lords. In reality, the declaration of war and the signing of treaties is done by the Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Crown. The 2003 declaration of war against Iraq was done by a Prime Minister and not by the monarch. One is a democratically elected politician accountable to the electorate via an election; the other is in the position by a quirk of birth.

    The monarch is above the law and has crown immunity. The legal immunity conferred by the Royal Prerogative may extend to institutions and servants of the Crown. Cabinet ministers may try to use crown immunity to avoid the release of parliamentary documents as they are servants of the Crown. This remains an issue that lawyers discuss and analyse to this day ? can ministers of the government use the Royal Prerogative to stop an investigation in to the work that they do on certain issues?

    For British Politics Index - click here

    [email protected]

    April 2004

  • Xena
    Xena

    England wouldn't be England without the Royals....

    It would just be America lite

    lol sorry Eman I'm in a naughty and saucy mood today

  • Inspector Clouseau
    Inspector Clouseau

    I see Xena is flirrrting with le Englishman as she is in a naughty mood today. This is allowed in France as we are a civilized country which understands La Passion. The Engishman will not cope, he is preoccupied with his real ale.

    As for the English Royalty - Off With Their Heads!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit