NEW Welcome Ad

Collapse

Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Queen of England- a regal tradition or an outdated PITA?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Queen of England- a regal tradition or an outdated PITA?

    Post deleted. Although it was meant as a joke and was posted as such, I misjudged the reaction. Apologies to my UK friends who took offense.
    Last edited by BrickCop; 03-12-2006, 09:46 AM.
    Disclaimer: The writer does not represent any organization, employer, entity or other individual. The first amendment protected views/commentary/opinions/satire expressed are those only of the writer. In the case of a sarcastic, facetious, nonsensical, stirring-the-pot, controversial or devil's advocate-type post, the views expressed may not even reflect those of the writer.

  • #2
    "If there wasn't any Royal family in the UK, where would the Americans go for history, tradition and ancestory".....

    (Posted in the same good humoured 'tongue in cheek'...)
    "Decent people sleep soundly at night, because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm"

    Comment


    • #3
      Hey,

      The queen holds the legitimate power to dissolve parliament at her own disscretion, though this only now happens in practise when the Prime-minister requests that such an action should be taken (ie, at the end of a prime-minsterial term before an election). Though in theory the queen could exercise this power when ever she wished....thus the queen is expected to be politically neutral and superior to national politics.

      Also with out the queens consent the the country is unable the declare War, the country can enter into conflict, yet with out the queens expressed consent the UK can not call a conflict 'War' in the traditional sense.

      The position of the monarch is highly complex in the UK system of governance, the two points above are the main points relating to the power of the monarch. If you want me to go into greater detail give me a shout and will be able to write off a quick essay!

      Hope this helps

      Comment


      • #4
        Forgot to add, the monarch is the head of state! thus theorectically superior to the Head of Government (whom is the Prime-Minister)

        On an interesting side-point the office of Prime-Minister does not exist, his official title is the 'First Lord of the Treasurey'!

        Comment


        • #5
          I didn't know her approval was needed to declare war, that's very interesting. I'm curious, what if she would not give her consent- is it just protocol where the PM could do it anyway?
          Disclaimer: The writer does not represent any organization, employer, entity or other individual. The first amendment protected views/commentary/opinions/satire expressed are those only of the writer. In the case of a sarcastic, facetious, nonsensical, stirring-the-pot, controversial or devil's advocate-type post, the views expressed may not even reflect those of the writer.

          Comment


          • #6
            BC

            The simple answer is that Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen Head of the Commonwealth Defender of the Faith is obliged to accept the advice of her Prime Minister. If She didn't, the PM would likely resign and ask for an election over the issue.

            Just to pick up the other points:

            1. How much does it cost to protect The Queen?

            No idea. Quite a bit I should think. But in fairness, The Queen is a Head of State and I can't imagine that there are many Heads of State who don't have any official protection. How much does it cost to guard the President?

            2. Who protects The Queen?

            Close protection is the responsibility of the Metropolitan (London) Police. If The Queen is visiting or staying elsewhere in the UK, the local force will work with the Met Protection officers. The British Army also guards The Queen's various residences, like Buckingham Palace and Balmoral.

            I would challenge you to duel over your other remarks about The Queen but I'm sure you're a much better shot than I am.
            I'm a little bit waayy, a little bit wooah, a little bit woosh, I'm a geezer.

            Comment


            • #7
              Posting a smiley every other sentence whilst insulting our head of state doesn't mean you're not trolling.

              Comment


              • #8
                Brickcop ...............

                I suppose I could go on the ask a cop board and ask something like this -

                Why do Americans insist on having guns due to a piece of paper that was written 200 + years ago which stated that they needed guns so they could be in a militia as there wasn't a proper professional army at that time ?

                So the reasons you all carry guns are outdated ?
                But then again I wouldn't as it would be downright rude of me to question the standards and morals of your country whilst not being constructive or polite.

                Now if you had worded your point in a different manner and were a bit more friendly then maybe you wouldn't have had such abrupt replies.

                Trojan.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The President of the US is both the head of state and the head of government. In that respect, he has the roles both of the PM and the monarch. In Britain, the roles are separeted. In the US, they are combined.

                  Interesting how things work.

                  Also, while it costs money to "protect" the monarch, I'm sure it brings in much more money in tourism than it costs the taxpayer. Have you ever seen the people in front of Buckingham Palace? I have. If I were more cynical, I would suggest a financial motive for the monarchy, but I'm not more cynical, am I?
                  You can now follow me on twitter.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Psst......don't ever insult the Queen or the monarchy.

                    Very poor form. Just between me and you.
                    You can now follow me on twitter.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Its difficult to actually compare the US and UK.

                      Strictly speaking the Queen is the head of the government, head of state and head of the Judiciary. All power stems from her, i.e. Her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the judges are also appointed by the Queen. Barristers (crown court lawyers for our American friends) are QC's - Queens Council. She is the embodiment of the law, and is the only person I cannot arrest. (Even foreign diplomats can be held until I establish their credentials).

                      Unlike the US we do not have a written constitution - custom and common law over hundreds of years has set precedents. Yes, in practise the PM is in charge, and the Queen would never stop or hinder lawful legislation, but in theory she can.

                      And perhaps more relevant, and the reason perhaps why you have had some blunt replies, police constables when being attested (sworn in) state the following (which we take seriously):

                      "I (NAME) do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of Constable, without favour or affection, malice or ill will; and that I will to the best of my power; cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty's subjects and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

                      So, yes she may seem to you to just be a lady who 'smiles and waves stiffley' but its what she represents that matters.

                      Anyway, stay safe whichever system you keep the law under!
                      carpe diem

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by SO19Trojan
                        Brickcop ...............

                        I suppose I could go on the ask a cop board and ask something like this -



                        But then again I wouldn't as it would be downright rude of me to question the standards and morals of your country whilst not being constructive or polite.

                        Now if you had worded your point in a different manner and were a bit more friendly then maybe you wouldn't have had such abrupt replies.

                        Trojan.
                        Trojan (and others who took offense).

                        I respect your opinion but don't you think you're being a bit thin skinned here?

                        It was not my intention to offend you. I purposely put the self deprecating disclaimer and the 's in there to let you know it was in jest. I suppose I could have asked these questions in a straightforward, starchy manner. I obviously did not appreciate that this is a touchy subject for some of you.

                        Having said that I would not care or take offense if you took verbal shots, as it were about a US Head of State, particularly on the internet. In fact if you've read any of my posts you'd find that I frequently slam Bush (see Iraq).

                        To those with thick skins and a sense of humor I thank you for your replies, they were very educational.
                        Disclaimer: The writer does not represent any organization, employer, entity or other individual. The first amendment protected views/commentary/opinions/satire expressed are those only of the writer. In the case of a sarcastic, facetious, nonsensical, stirring-the-pot, controversial or devil's advocate-type post, the views expressed may not even reflect those of the writer.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Does the Queen have any veto powers? If so, then I assume her veto can be overturned by a majority vote in Parliament?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by histfan71
                            Does the Queen have any veto powers? If so, then I assume her veto can be overturned by a majority vote in Parliament?

                            Once again this goes into the realms of theory........the final step of a bill to become law is the signature of aproval from the monarch, this is now no more than a formality.....if the queen refused to sign a law, there would be problems to say the least! I don't believe a British Monarch has refused to sign a law since the end of the 19th Century.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              histfan71, as Detroit1st says your question is pure theory which would never be a reality. It may difficult to understand but there is no written constitution.

                              Strictly speaking the Queen does not need veto powers as all acts of parliament are from her anyway. Nothing becomes law without her signing it so she would never need to veto anything, as the law she would want to veto would have to have been signed up by her in the first place! (I hope this makes sense!!). Keep in mind that the government is Her Majesty's Government and the opposition party is even called Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

                              In practise if the House of Commons in Parliament has approved a Bill to become an Act of Parliament i.e. become law, the Queen will sign it, even if she personally doesn't like it. (That has happened, for example, the Queen enjoys hunting but she signed the Act of Parliament banning it)

                              The bottom line is that strictly speaking, in theory, the Queen is the highest authority, and she is advised by her government. So very hypothetically Parliament cannot overturn the Queen (but this is so far out its fairyland stuff). Of course in practise the Prime Minister, with authority from the Queen, runs the country with the support of Parliament.

                              Detroit1st, yes your right, last time the monarch refused to sign an Act was in the 19th century I think. I'll try and find out!

                              And to BrickCop, I understand you were trying to be tongue in cheek but your opening paragraphs were a bit rude. I accept that you have no problem with people criticising Bush and the Iraq situation. There is a bit of a difference though. Bush is a politician, who makes decisions (some bad) who will go in time. Tony Blair also takes a lot of flak, and rightly so sometimes, as he is also a politician and makes the decisions.

                              The Queen is a bit different. In reality, to many people she is like our 'Stars and Stripes', Golden Eagle or whatever national symbol you want to use. Its not the woman its what she represents. As already pointed out, police officers swear an oath to her, as do our armed forces personnel. So perhaps thats why people got a bit miffed at your comments.

                              I'm not saying our system is better than yours or anything like that, just that perhaps you don't quite understand our system and what she represents. Of course not everyone here likes the Monarchy and some would like to abolish but I think I'm right in saying the majority of the British public like the way we are.

                              All that said, I took no offence, life's to short for it! So whichever form of democracy you enforce the law in, stay safe!!
                              Last edited by BritPC; 03-03-2006, 09:14 PM.
                              carpe diem

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 2294 users online. 98 members and 2196 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X