The Queen and I: Jubilee reflections

[CuriousByNature]

4 hours ago, Rudynate said:

While we are waxing sentimental about the Queen, it is worth noting that a significant minority of Britons think that they should do away with the monarchy and the UK should adopt a republican form of government.  More than 20% feel this away.   Within that 20%+ there is a vocal minority who think the Royal family are little more than parasites.

It's a valid point for sure, and likely even a higher percentage feel that way in various Commonwealth countries.  But I think the percentage in the UK who wanted to get rid of the monarchy was even higher 20 years ago.  Since her Golden Jubilee I think many Britons have grown to appreciate the Queen and the monarchy more.  But there will always be those who believe that the monarchy is not worth the cost.  The value the monarchy brings isn't easy to quantify, so I think the argument will always exist about whether or not it should be continued.

[CuriousByNature]

On 6/9/2022 at 1:15 PM, Rudynate said:

It would be different if the presence of the Sovereign were critical to the well-being of the nation, but it isn't.  She could be brain-dead and on life support and her reign would proceed without a hitch.  They don't need her for much of anything.  She's mostly just a feel-good symbol.

I would disagree with that, but I do understand what you are getting at.  I believe she is more than a feel-good symbol.  While her position is largely symbolic and ceremonial, she does represent historic continuity and has offered a source of stability in difficult times.  Perhaps there has not been the same degree of threat recently as there was in WWII, but she was there and lived through the turmoil and the post-war recovery.  No other head of state has the degree of experience that she does, nor I image, the amount of political wisdom that can only be acquired over decades in a position like her own. 

[CuriousByNature]

7 hours ago, Rudynate said:

It doesn't matter if he is.  When QE2 dies the machinery of succession will kick in he will be the next sovereign.  Like his mother, he basically will keep his mouth and do what is expected of him. So his personality hardly matters.

I'm not sure that he will be able to maintain the same level of outward impartiality that the Queen has managed.  We need to remember that one of the guiding forces in her own queenly development was the early influence of her grandmother, Queen Mary.  Charles may make some significant changes given the greater multicultural character of the UK - he expressed in the past that the monarch should no longer be considered 'Defender of the Faith', for instance.  Sorry, I don't mean to bring in politics or religion to this forum - just noting that there are various aspects of monarchy that may be up for reconsideration when the next reign begins

 

[Rudynate]

36 minutes ago, CuriousByNature said:

I'm not sure that he will be able to maintain the same level of outward impartiality that the Queen has managed.  We need to remember that one of the guiding forces in her own queenly development was the early influence of her grandmother, Queen Mary.  Charles may make some significant changes given the greater multicultural character of the UK - he expressed in the past that the monarch should no longer be considered 'Defender of the Faith', for instance.  Sorry, I don't mean to bring in politics or religion to this forum - just noting that there are various aspects of monarchy that may be up for reconsideration when the next reign begins

 

Of course - they are different people and these are different times.    However, the monarch's duties and limits are constitutionally determined.  Redefining the role of the monarch would be the job of Parliament.  I imagine they would give his views due consideration.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, wsc said:

...My point is that without the Crown, Britian would simply become a republic like France or Italy, with an elected President (a strong office in France, weak in Italy) ...

The potential benefit of a republic over a monarchy is that there is a system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. In a monarchy with a figurehead, the PM has essentially unchecked power. I don't understand why the Irish went through all of that trouble to get rid of the monarchy, then set up a figurehead President. I don't know about Italy. Although in theory the monarch can withhold royal assent, in practice that can't really happen. What if there were a rotten PM? 

[Luv2play]

58 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

The potential benefit of a republic over a monarchy is that there is a system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. In a monarchy with a figurehead, the PM has essentially unchecked power. I don't understand why the Irish went through all of that trouble to get rid of the monarchy, then set up a figurehead President. I don't know about Italy. Although in theory the monarch can withhold royal assent, in practice that can't really happen. What if there were a rotten PM? 

The PM serves at the pleasure of his elected sitting party members. If they want, they can kick the PM out, as they did Margaret Thatcher.

[+ Charlie]

The essential difference between the British and American system is that Americans vote for an individual to be the political leader for a specific period of time, while the British vote for a party, whose representatives get to choose the leader for as long as they can maintain a majority in Parliament, and the party can change the leader whenever they wish. The American Founding Fathers thought they could eliminate what they saw as a pernicious power of parties by making the executive independent of a legislative party, and how did that work out?😒