Jump to content

The Queen's Diamond Jubilee


doc47

Recommended Posts

What do our English members think of the maintenance of the royal family? An anachronism best done away with? An ancient institution worth continuing? Useful in the 21st Century?

 

A Brit riding buddy seemed to think there needs to be a person to represent the State. As an American I always thought the president did that, for good or ill. Never really have understood my friend's viewpoint on that.

Link to comment
moshe_levy

I'm not English, but I am a tourist, and I kind of liked the idea of the Royal Family and all that goes with it, good and bad. Lots of history there, good and bad. And as for the Queen, I was amazed to learn that she sets English policy! I learned this on HBO's documentary "Game Change." :rofl:

 

-MKL

Link to comment
...A Brit riding buddy seemed to think there needs to be a person to represent the State. As an American I always thought the president did that, for good or ill. Never really have understood my friend's viewpoint on that.

 

In the U.S., the President is both Head of State and Head of Government. In the U.K, the Queen is Head of State and the Prime Minister is Head of Government. It's the same in Canada (Queen is Head of State and PM is Head of Government. The Queen's representative in Canada is the Governor-General).

Link to comment

I'm fine with the Royal Family, they bring a lot of tourist money and provide a suitable ceremonial head of state. If when QE2 shuffles off Charles decides to retire the monarchy I'd be fine with that too, not that he can do that on his own anyway.

Link to comment

It does seem nicer to have the Queen representing your country instead of a Kardasian or Paris Hilton in the media.

 

-----

 

 

Link to comment
What do our English members think of the maintenance of the royal family? An anachronism best done away with? An ancient institution worth continuing? Useful in the 21st Century?

 

A Brit riding buddy seemed to think there needs to be a person to represent the State. As an American I always thought the president did that, for good or ill. Never really have understood my friend's viewpoint on that.

 

From the outside, the President of the USA can often look to represent the party he stood for, rather than the USA as a whole. Our queen is apolitical, so represents her people. I do not know if that is how she appears to you rebel colonists though.

 

I also wonder what the cost of a presidency is compared to a monarchy? At least Betty Windsor brings in tourist money. I do not see abolition of the monarchy as a way to save money. I do not see it as an anachronism, just a different approach to the same end.

 

The bigest advantage I see to the constitutional monarchy, is that the queen is apolitical. Remember, our head of state does not set policy - that comes from the incumbent prime-minister - and so helps to provide a non-partisan point of reference for the country.

 

 

That said, I understand that during her weekly meeting with the incumbent prime-minister, she takes an active roll, having a depth of experience gained from many PMs of all political hues.

 

An elected president is almost by definition partisan, which could well help to deepen plotical divisions. On the other hand, having a head-of-state from the opposite politcal viewpoint may help to temper the extremes.

 

One other benefit this year - we have been granted an extra day public holiday, which has been tagged onto the traditional spring bank-holiday. This weekend starts a close-of-business on Friday and lasts until start of business on Wednesday. I am taking a tour of Scotland on my RT to celebrate ;)

 

Andy

 

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
If when QE2 shuffles off Charles decides to retire the monarchy I'd be fine with that too, not that he can do that on his own anyway.

 

Can he not abdicate?

Link to comment
If when QE2 shuffles off Charles decides to retire the monarchy I'd be fine with that too, not that he can do that on his own anyway.

 

Can he not abdicate?

Yes he can, but that doesn't end the line of succession which is what I was suggesting.
Link to comment
And then all of these assets revert to the gubamint.

They already belong to the government and all income from them goes directly to the government, which then gives HM an allowance. I'm sure some arrangement could be made if Charlie wanted to end the monarchy, maybe give him Windsor Castle and some of the smaller baubles in the crown jewels for Camilla.

Link to comment

Right, gov't owns, but Royals possess.

If monarchy ended, the royals would no longer be possessed...

:/

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
If when QE2 shuffles off Charles decides to retire the monarchy I'd be fine with that too, not that he can do that on his own anyway.

 

Can he not abdicate?

Yes he can, but that doesn't end the line of succession which is what I was suggesting.

 

Edward VIII abdicated for himself and for his kids:

 

400px-Edward_abdication.png

 

If Charles were to do the same, would the crown automatically pass to one of his siblings, or could that be prevented?

Link to comment

Interesting subject!

 

As a (USA) ex-pat I always thought for Canada the ‘Queen thing’ was a bit of a relic, obsolete idea, Canada is a sovereign nation after all, having moved at least a bit beyond, as Andy puts it, one of the rebel colonies. It all seemed kind of weird when viewed from the USA side of the 49th.

 

But OTOH, since moving here I’ve realized the concept of still having a monarchy does add a certain touch of civility to the whole political process/system by having a common apolitical element of government that all of the people can rally around, support. In Canada the Queen takes a far less active role that in the UK of course, but the monarchy as a whole still seems to be item of pride. Even more so since Will & Kate came onto the scene. I think those two display a tremendous amount of down to earth sensibility, civility, and intelligence hope/potential for/from the next generation to run the world, time will tell. I’ve come to think of it all as more of value as a spirit uplifting, unifying thing as much as anything. Which in and of itself is a positive.

 

I think the number I heard is Canada overall across the provinces is spend something like $500M to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee. While not exactly chump change, if it makes living a bit more interesting, furthers national pride, creates a bit of comradely/unity; I say what’s the hurt in it? There’s got to be (or at least should be) some aspects of life, even at a government level, that are just for the fun of it. That’s part of what makes life grand, eh?

 

Link to comment

If Charles were to do the same, would the crown automatically pass to one of his siblings, or could that be prevented?

 

That is interesting, I didn't know you could abdicate your descendants as well. It may be that he negotiated that in order to remain part of the Royal Family when he married Wallis-Simpson (he became HRH Duke of Windsor) I imagine the royal hierarchy wasn't keen on the idea of their children applying for the monarchy. If Eddy had been a real King he would just have told them all to get lost and made her Queen. Henry VIII wouldn't have put up with all that nonsense!

 

Probably a good thing he left though, my mother still thinks that George VI and the Queen Mum are gods because of their leadership during WWII.

 

I don't think there is actually a mechanism defined for ending the monarchy, some other European countries have done it peacefully and a number of others have just faded into the background. I don't think Charles would even consider it either.

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
Probably a good thing he left though, my mother still thinks that George VI and the Queen Mum are gods because of their leadership during WWII.

 

Interesting. I'll have to ask my mom what she (or her parents) thought of all that. Granted, she was only six when the war ended.

 

FWIW her dad was opposed to the monarchy, at least in his later years (don't know about when he was younger). He always objected to the idea of paying out to support the royal family who, in his mind, did nothing useful for the country.

Link to comment
FWIW her dad was opposed to the monarchy, at least in his later years (don't know about when he was younger). He always objected to the idea of paying out to support the royal family who, in his mind, did nothing useful for the country.

 

I bet he didn't know that the monarchy had given all that property to the government for just that reason earlier. I'm sure most people don't.

Link to comment

If Charles were to do the same, would the crown automatically pass to one of his siblings, or could that be prevented?

 

That is interesting, I didn't know you could abdicate your descendants as well. It may be that he negotiated that in order to remain part of the Royal Family when he married Wallis-Simpson (he became HRH Duke of Windsor) I imagine the royal hierarchy wasn't keen on the idea of their children applying for the monarchy. If Eddy had been a real King he would just have told them all to get lost and made her Queen. Henry VIII wouldn't have put up with all that nonsense!

 

Probably a good thing he left though, my mother still thinks that George VI and the Queen Mum are gods because of their leadership during WWII.

 

I don't think there is actually a mechanism defined for ending the monarchy, some other European countries have done it peacefully and a number of others have just faded into the background. I don't think Charles would even consider it either.

 

Good thing he wasn't king during the war. He was a Nazi sympathizer!

Link to comment

Good thing he wasn't king during the war. He was a Nazi sympathizer!

He claimed otherwise of course, saying he hoped the Nazis would take care of the Communists, there's no way to know the truth of course. There were lots of Nazi sympathizers both in Britain and the US.

Link to comment

My view is that the Monarchy adds a little bit of independence to the tribal politics we have on this side of the pond. Whilst the Queen is the Head of State, she has by little real power ass it rests with the Government of the day acting in her name.

 

It is also refreshing to see that she gives the impression that she takes it seriously. All interviews with people, who know her closely, suggest that she is incredibly duty bound and I could not see her doing anything else other than carry on in her role. Whilst it may look like she has all the trappings of power, she is bound by convention and seldom comments on anything that would be seen as contentious.

 

It was earlier suggested that she sets policy, I don't think this is the case. I think it is more that she may express an opinion in private and never in public as to do so would be against the unwritten British Constitutional position.

 

Of course, you rebals on the other side of the pond may not agree, but I like having a non-political head of state. :grin:

 

 

Link to comment

Yep, Killer! Unfortunately, you folks had Moseley's Brown Shirts. We had Father Coughlan, the American Nazi Party, and plenty of other pea-wits!

Link to comment

Quite right Doc. And there are still quite a few of them around in whatever guise, or shirt.

Now, I happened upon BBC News online yesterday morning with their online live coverage.

And quite enjoyed all of it, having been familiar with the Handel story about the relationship with the British monarch of the time, George or whoever, and the water music. And the river boats.

Also, having been a boater, and in particular a river boater, I did enjoy the spectacle.

dc

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...