Monarchy or No Monarchy

So what makes the Monarch so special? Why can't I get lots of money for nothing?

 

Ok, Im a little concerned as to why my fellow Englishmen believe that the Monarchy,should be abolished. To many things in this country are 'new.' We allowed Blair to step in and modernize everything. The Monarchy is not just a revenue for tourism, but has constitutional 'and' ceremonial duties and obligations. The two are not intertwined. The head of state, theoretical and nominal source of executive, judicial and legislative power in the UK is the British monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II. The British Sovereign possesses many hypothetical powers, including the right to choose any British citizen to be her Prime Minister and the right to call and dissolve Parliament whenever she wishes. However, in accordance with the current unmodified constitution, the Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, and Parliament is dissolved at the time suggested by the PM. The monarch retains the ability to deny giving a bill Royal Assent! which all know was practiced this last year. Other royal powers called royal prerogative, such as patronage to appoint ministers and the ability to declare war, are exercised by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, with the consent of the Queen. the royal prerogatives are as follow:

* The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
* The dissolution of parliament and the calling of elections;
* Clemency and pardon;
* The award of dignities and honors;
* The declaration of war;
* The declaration of an emergency;
* The grant of Charters of Incorporation;
* The minting of coinage;
* The issue and revocation of passports;
* The expulsion of a foreign national from the United Kingdom;
* The creation of new common law courts;
* The creation of new universities;
* The appointment of bishops and archbishops in the Church of England;
* The printing of the authorized Church of England version of the Bible;
* The publication of all statutes, legislative instruments and Orders-in-Council; existing and new
* The exercise of jurisdiction over numerous Royal foundations of all kinds;
* The appointment of Royal Commissions and Officers for any purposes.
* The choice of the numbering of monarchs
* The accreditation of diplomats;
* The granting of Sovereign Immunity;
* The negotiation of treaties.
* The power to order a subject not to leave the realm;
* Crown ownership of wild unmarked white swans swimming in open and common waters
* Crown ownership of royal fish, meaning sturgeons, dolphins, porpoises and whales
If a time came to pass, for instance, when a law threatened the freedom or security of her subjects and citizens, the Queen could decline royal assent, free as she is from the eddies of party politics. Furthermore, armed removal of her by Parliament or Government would be impossible, as the Monarch remains commander-in-chief of the armed forces, who swear an oath of allegiance to her.

The thing that bothers me most about this discussion, is the subject of the cost to maintain our most sacred institute. The Crown Estate is not owned by the monarch personally, but is an inalienable possession of the Crown, and passes from one Sovereign to the next. During modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have greatly exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid provided to the monarch. For example, surplus from the Crown Estate produced approximately £184.8 million for the Treasury during the financial year 2003/04, whereas parliamentary funding for the Monarchy was approximately £36.8 million during the same period. These funds include the Civil List, Annuities, Grants in Aid, and funding paid directly by government departments.
This Means the Monarch is prepaid at the beginning of the year and shovels out 5 times more than what she received. This year the Privy Purse( Queen's Funds including the 7 million she personally recieves) received about 110,000,000 pounds. The Crown Estate put out 180,000,000 pounds.

I, Lord James Cole Francis Marquess of Northumberland swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Also one last thing, WE need a head of state that will not act on the interest a political party, but one whom will act in the best interest of Our kingdom and its citizens. The Monarch is a perfect example of this. While fulfilling Her constitutional obligations she continues to be politically neutral.


(GOD SAVE THE QUEEN)

-BY COMMAND OF HER MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY-

 

Excuse me? This power was last used in 1707, it has not been used in 300 years because in practice the monarch has no such right to refuse assent against the wishes of the government. Royal assent is a purely symbolic part of the legislative process, similarly royal prerogratives are practiced by the government "in the name of the monarch" on a purely symbolic basis, she has no right to actually do these things herself and if a monarch tried to declare war or appoint or dismiss her own choice of Prime Minister (unlikely in the first instance) we would undoubtedly codify laws to enshrine the protection of accountable democratic process.

The only good argument for having a non-political head of state, but even if we needed such a figurehead it still does not follow that this should be an hereditary monarch granted such privelege on the basis of lineage rather than merit or achievement. The post would be served equally well by an elected or appointed non-partisan head of state, perhaps one who serves for a period or even the remainder of a lifetime in a purely symbolic capacity, someone everyone knows and respects and who the country can unite behind, someone like Noel Edmonds.

 

Wait, what? People still CARE about the monarchy?
I say just leave the fuckers alone and let 'em inbreed themselves into extinction. Problem solved.

 

I have had enough of the monarchy, whenever I go to their house to visit I find they are really snobby and send shit loads of police to stop me from walking up the path to meet them. Not very neighbourly at all is it - perhaps they should fuck off back to germany where they bullong

That bloke harry could do with a few pints and a slap round the face by a decent tart with big tits to wake him up - seems to be sucking his thumb a lot

 

There are some Tories who think that the Royal Family should be privatized ie Buckhouse PLC.

 

as a 'yank' i must confess a certain degree of ignorance in these matters, but:

wouldn't it be possible to support the institution of some sort of monarchy as an aditional political check and balance, WITHOUT it having to remain so tastelessly austentatious?

(i do get the distinct impression that the younger generations of royal decendents have no great love for having to live that way, that quite possibly none ever did, and have always pretty much tried to spend as much of thier lives OUT of the public eye as possibly to avoid, when not being called upon to perform ritual formalities, in order to as much as possible, avoid having to)

=^^=
.../\...

 

THANKYOUUUUUUU!!!!!!!

 

Actually Yes the Monarch does have Constitutional right to refuse assent to Law,shes just not 'suppose to'. With my recent visits to Parliment this week I spoke with a Constitutional Lawyer whom explained to me the function of the Monarch which does include her to refuse assent if nessicery. FOr instance: If the Prime Minister were to postpone a General Election during peacetime the Monarch would have constitutional right to refuse the postponement. Also the Monarch is very functional in todays Government through her weekly meetings with the Prime Minister where she can advise him/her, the Monarch can also at anytime refuse to dissolve Parliment if need be and can also be of an advantage point (on account of her mass political knowlage) if their is an 50-50 election and no party is desided; this happened in 1974.

 

oh yes, they totally hate being unbelievably wealthy without having to lift a finger, and having more totty than you could shake a mace at lining up to shag them.

 

Heres the thing. Politics isnt the be-all and end-all of all the Nations thought, the Monarch is un-political MOST of the time, so there for providing a figure head which is not being fought over or having banners put about saying VOT FOR CHARLES or VOTE FOR WILLIAM. Its just nice knowing that there is someone who we can be united under thats istn making unachievable promises or arguing with the oposition, thus the word UNITED. We are not United under a Prime Minister or a Democratically elected leader, because some people want this person and others dont, some are left-wing some are right-wing. With the Monarchy is is niether left nor right, Labour nor Conservitive. People have no choice about the Monarchy they might not agree but there is nothing they can do, thus we are all United by this Figure Head because its not voteable. There is no opisition. Example, Wikipedia Monarchism in Canada:

Further it is stated that the Crown is a fundamentally unbiased institution, and its apolitical nature enables the Queen, or her vice-regalfederal system.
representative, to not only represent all Canadians, regardless of age, race, gender, income, or political leanings (again demonstrating a democratic nature), but also to be a non-partisan figure who can act as an effective intermediary between Canada's various levels of government and political parties - an indispensable feature in a federal system.

UNITED THE MONARCHY STANDS.

 

Wait, the monarch isn't conservative?
"BREAKING NEWS: Pope is not a Catholic! More at 11"

 

Thats actually quite funny mate, that made me laugh with the whole Pope and whatknot. What I meant was that the Queen is Conservitive but shes techinquely not aloud to anounce she is and is ofcourse not aloud to vote for Conservitive Party (seems so its her Government but...).

 

If she's not allowed to be political, then what's the point? In an absence of politics she can only exist as a figurehead, and a fairly ineffectual one at that.
The monarchy is like the laws prohibiting gay sex - offensive to the modern palate and completely unnecessary.

 

In my post which you first posted to I said she was uninvolved "MOST of the time". And besides just because shes absent from expressing political idealolgies that doesnt mean she is unnesicery, thats the point of being united because she is not bias towards one political side, it doesnt mean she isnt politically bias but because we are compulsary ingnorant of her ideals, it unites us because she is all neuteral.

 

Right. I had my answer nearly finished and then my Internet explorer goes and bloody RESTARTS!! AGAIN!! so annoying. Anyhoo, heres the overview.

The monarchy has mucked up before and I cant believe it wont again. This is why i wont want just a monarchy.
The prime ministers and republic have mucked up and seem to be on a roll. So just as bad as the monarchy though people have the power to get rid of them even if they wont. The republic isnt going to work if people wont vote for the best candidate.
How did gordon brown get there anyway - wasnt there a vote??

I dont trust the PM so its nice to have someone pensioner she may be to be checking up on him. If we do get in trouble with our Gov then its reassuring to have someone to fall back on. (not literally of course )

Im not even going to bother going into Dyslexia since i know L.A. Matthews has a thing with spelling and the other guy spelt something wrong. But dyslexia isnt easy and you cant blame him for making typos or getting the word wrong.

 

You make a good point about the Monarchy. Your right about her checking up on the PM, in their weekly meetings. By the way vote Monarchy on the poll!!

 

Too late. Republic beats Monarchy plus id rather have Gordon Brown than William or Harry. Sorry but at least you get a choice in Republic that is providing its not fixed.

 

Gotta love Harry. He's inherited his mum's penchant for tabloid headlines.

 

arty: