Where Does Everyone See The Monarchy in 50 to 100 Years?

[Bella]

You're all very knowledgable about this subject and I have been both educated and impressed with what you all have said. I do understand several things differently now, which I believe is one of the reasons for these threads. I may not agree with everything you have to say yet I will admit I do agree with some things and I appreciate them being pointed out in a way I can easily understand. Hope there's no hard feelings. What strikes me most (besides how much you all seem to know) is your loyalty to your beliefs. I respect your opinions and I've enjoyed (and learned from) the debate and I do look at monarchies a little bit differently now.

 

[Iluvbertie]

You're all very knowledgable about this subject and I have been both educated and impressed with what you all have said. I do understand several things differently now, which I believe is one of the reasons for these threads. I may not agree with everything you have to say yet I will admit I do agree with some things and I appreciate them being pointed out in a way I can easily understand. Hope there's no hard feelings. What strikes me most (besides how much you all seem to know) is your loyalty to your beliefs. I respect your opinions and I've enjoyed (and learned from) the debate and I do look at monarchies a little bit differently now.

I am glad that that has happened Bella as we are then able to all learn from these boards.

 

[Iain]

The Queen isn't just a promotion tool - she's a monarch. One of the last proper monarchs left in the world with the exception of the Emperor of Japan.

Just wondered what you mean by "proper monarch."

I think if any monarchy in Europe is going to be abolished it will probably be the U.K. I can't see it lasting for very long after Elizabeth dies. It doesn't enjoy the same high approval rates among it's people like the other monarchies do.

Even if the monarchy lasts the United Kingdom will not. The latest opinion polls in Scotland show a majority in favour of independence so it looks as if it's days are numbered.

 

[Skydragon]

Not this old chestnut again, Iain. Can we see a link to these opinion polls?

Lets guess the poll was done by the SNP, how many did they ask this time, 1000, 1200.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

In the countries with monarchies in Europe the majority of people are in fact monarchists.

When most monarchies were abolished, it was not the question of monarchy or republic but absolutism or democracy (or dictatorship, like in the communist countries).

Today the question in the remaining monarchies would be: a monarch or a president as head of a democratic state. I'm convinced you won't find a majority of people to vote for a simple replacement, when they personally have nothing to gain from it, as presidents are even more expensive in their keep (you have to pay pension for each of them and change them so often!) than a monarch and his family but don't attract tourism or interest people worldwide in a nation's fashion like princess Mary of Denmark does on wearing Danish designer clothes.

So where should the energy for a change come from?

 

[BeatrixFan]

Just wondered what you mean by "proper monarch."

I mean a monarch who has actual constitutional or absolute power, not just a figurehead. I'd be interested to see these opinion polls you talk of because I for one really doubt the outcome. And anyway, why is it vital to have Scotland for the Monarchy to continue? She could just be our Queen if you lot don't want her.

So where should the energy for a change come from?

You've hit the nail on the head Jo. Whenever someone says, "Change", anyone with an ounce of sense asks, "What with?". If we get rid of the monarchy, what do we have in it's place? It's not as simple as just having a President. So much would have to change and we'd have nothing to work from. Looking through history, countries that lost their monarchies went to an extreme as Jo says. Look at Romania - that went from monarchy to communism. So, do we go to an extreme or do we struggle to find something new?

 

[juliana]

I think that certain Republics are good examples of how a Republic can work but interestingly, they tend to be the ones where the Presidents behave like Monarchs. Vaira Vike-Freiberga for example, is a good President of Latvia and seems to show how well a Republic can work. I just wouldn't like the gamble of having a President like her, toppled by a military coup and ending up with a President like Ferdinand Marcos, which - without the safety net of Monarchy, could happen.

Vaira, though born in Riga, left in 1945 was educated in Canada and worked there until 1998- and Canada is a monarchy and I agree with you- I think she acts more like our Governor- General. She has grown up with the stability of a monarchy for the majority of her life.

 

[BeatrixFan]

That might be it juliana. It might be that she has tried to bring in the same feeling of having a monarchy without actually having one.

 

[juliana]

It could be a nightmare if she decided to crown herself of course- good idea to stabilise Latvia as she is doing.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Oh I don't know. Queen Vaira has a ring to it.

 

[Next Star]

The queen has no political power which is sad she is mainly a ceremonial figure being on the throne for 54 years and cann not do anything. she does not have to be a abolute monarch but have a little power. I could not be in her postion I would try to get a little power but the main power who be still be in the hands Of The Prime Minister.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Next Star - you're right. The Queen doesn't have any political power. She is not political. She is free from politics. She has constitutional power which is greater and I promise you, it's very very real. She may devolve it but the powers remain hers. The "main power" isn't in the hands of the Prime Minister. It's in our hands and we allow the Queen to exercise it for us because unlike our various Prime Ministers, she isn't corrupt, a liar, a cheat or a complete waste of space.

 

[Next Star]

Please listening closely there are monarchs who have political power and their not poiliticans . Who says you have to be a politican to be involued in plotics and goverment? You do not have to. The Prime Minister does have power he can dissolve the parilment and call for new elections but you can not.

 

[BeatrixFan]

No, you don't understand me. The Queen has power. But it isn't political. She is not a political institution. She doesn't have political beliefs or a political agenda or manifesto. She has constitutional power which is then devolved to her ministers which we elect based on their politics, not the Queen's politics. The Queen isn't a politican - thats the whole point of having her. The Prime Minister certainly can't dissolve Parliament. Only the Queen can do that. And only the Queen can open Parliament which she'll be doing on November 15th.

 

[Next Star]

Show me proof I do not believe you about the prime minister not being able to dissolve the parilament he is head of the goverment while the queen is head of state. I always thought he had more power than the monarch being that he is head of goverment.Oh and I did not say that the queen did not have constitutional power I know she does (example the queen is the only one who can actually pass a law or laws in Briatain.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Proof ; from http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4691.asp

In addition to opening Parliament, only The Queen can summon Parliament, and prorogue (discontinue without dissolving it) or dissolve it. When a Prime Minister wishes to dissolve Parliament and call a general election, he or she is obliged to seek the permission of the Sovereign to do so. For this purpose, the Prime Minister usually travels to Buckingham Palace before announcing a general election.

The Prime Minister asks the Queen to dissolve Parliament. He does not dissolve it himself and the Queen can refuse to dissolve it if she wishes. The Prime Minister does not have more power than the Monarch and indeed, there are higher-ranking political officials than the Prime Minister.

http://www.royal.gov.uk
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4691.asp

 

[Madame Royale]

Is it not the Monarch (Queen) who decides (as in approves on the advice of her Prime Minister and government) whether or not Britain goes to war?

I'm sure I have read that this is the case, but I can't recall where and that is very frustrating

Can anyone verify?

 

[BeatrixFan]

That's right. The Armed Forces all "belong" to the Queen and only she can deploy them on a mission. They serve in her name and they answer only to the Queen. So, the Minister of Defence will get the information and advice from the civil service and the MoD, Generals etc - and then he asks the Prime Minister to take that to the Queen and request military action. The Queen then decides whether to deploy the troops or not.

In a war like situation, the war is declared in the Queen's name and only she may declare states of war, peace and emergency. The Prime Minister has to ask the Queen to declare war and peace but he has no say in the declaration of a state of emergency.

 

[Roxsteve]

The monarchy will be extinguished in less than 20 years. As much as we love to read and look at pictures, it has become obsolete...IMO only, of course.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Why do you think that Roxsteve? And why so soon?

 

[Next Star]

The prime minister still has power but not much as the queen. But BeatixFan who are those politican that are higher than the priime minister?

 

[BeatrixFan]

The Speaker, The Lord Chancellor. The Speaker for example, is an MP who can silence the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. He can eject the PM if he wants to.

 

[Royal Fan]

Roxsteve, For the Sake of Britian I Hope your wrong, We here in the U.S. Just wrapped up Mid Term - Elections And I Must say the ads were so Low and nasty I Much Perfer a Monarchy.

 

[Royalist0007]

British monarchy.

The prime minister still has power but not much as the queen. But BeatixFan who are those politican that are higher than the priime minister?

Next Star,here in New Zealand,the Governor-General actually has very little power.He is expected to sign every Bill that is presented to him.To me,the idea of Parliament having unbridled power is really dangerous,as the people are not even consulted.I favour a system in which the Crown & people are joint rulers,but Parliament would be forced to obey the will of the people.

The President of India actually has more power than the Governor-General of New Zealand does.He can veto a Bill,& can demand that a candidate prove that he is able to form a Government.In at least one of the British Commonwealth Dominions in the Caribbean,the Governor-General appoints both the Prime Minister & the Leader of the Opposition.

Here's an article about the President of India & his role; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_India .

As to the administration of the Royal Honours System,I believe very strongly that it should be the Queen alone who should be entitled to decide who gets what honour,& who gets a peerage,not Parliament or the Prime Minister! The Queen should also be free to award titles to all of her subjects,including those in Canada,Australia,& New Zealand.Here's a couple of articles that will interest you; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_titles_debate & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Black .

Aidan.

 

[Madame Royale]

That's right. The Armed Forces all "belong" to the Queen and only she can deploy them on a mission. They serve in her name and they answer only to the Queen. So, the Minister of Defence will get the information and advice from the civil service and the MoD, Generals etc - and then he asks the Prime Minister to take that to the Queen and request military action. The Queen then decides whether to deploy the troops or not.

In a war like situation, the war is declared in the Queen's name and only she may declare states of war, peace and emergency. The Prime Minister has to ask the Queen to declare war and peace but he has no say in the declaration of a state of emergency.

Thank you Beatrix Fan I was certain that this was the case.

You however, have explained it much more eloquent than I.lol.

 

[Skydragon]

I was certain that this was the case.

I'm afraid that BeatrixFan was slightly 'off key'. Parliament normally decides if we go to war, but, Blair threatened to use the royal prerogative.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldconst/236/6032906.htm

This partway explains the Royal Prerogative

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-03861.pdf#search='royal%20prerogative'

as does good old wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative

The Queen is head of all the armed services and not so long ago, when you joined you were said to be 'taking the Queens shilling', you still swear allegiance to the Queen if you join the army or airforce.

‘I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.’

 

[Madame Royale]

I'm afraid that BeatrixFan was slightly 'off key'. Parliament normally decides if we go to war, but, Blair threatened to use the royal prerogative.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldconst/236/6032906.htm

This partway explains the Royal Prerogative

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-03861.pdf#search='royal%20prerogative'

as does good old wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative

The Queen is head of all the armed services and not so long ago, when you joined you were said to be 'taking the Queens shilling', you still swear allegiance to the Queen if you join the army or airforce.

‘I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.’

Thank you for the clarification I appreciate it.

 

[Skydragon]

Thank you for the clarification I appreciate it.

As has been pointed out by one of my offspring, this is the modern day Oath for the army,

"I SWEAR BY ALMIGHTY GOD THAT I WILL BE FAITHFUL AND BEAR TRUE ALLEGIANCE TO HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS AND THAT I WILL AS IN DUTY BOUND HONESTLY AND FAITHFULLY DEFEND HER MAJESTY, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS IN PERSON, CROWN AND DIGNITY AGAINST ALL ENEMIES AND WILL OBSERVE AND OBEY ALL ORDERS OF HER MAJESTY, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS AND OF THE GENERALS AND OFFICERS SET OVER ME"

 

[Jo of Palatine]

As has been pointed out by one of my offspring, this is the modern day Oath for the army,

"I SWEAR BY ALMIGHTY GOD THAT I WILL BE FAITHFUL AND BEAR TRUE ALLEGIANCE TO HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS AND THAT I WILL AS IN DUTY BOUND HONESTLY AND FAITHFULLY DEFEND HER MAJESTY, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS IN PERSON, CROWN AND DIGNITY AGAINST ALL ENEMIES AND WILL OBSERVE AND OBEY ALL ORDERS OF HER MAJESTY, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS AND OF THE GENERALS AND OFFICERS SET OVER ME"

But if for example prince William "asks" something of a fellow cadet - isn't he as an "heir" (a direct line heir as that) of the queen higher in rank per se as the commanding officer? I mean, is it by free decision of prince William that he accepts the authority of his commanding officer?

 

[Iain]

Not this old chestnut again, Iain. Can we see a link to these opinion polls?

Lets guess the poll was done by the SNP, how many did they ask this time, 1000, 1200.

Actually it was carried out by the Scotsman Newspaper which has always been a supporter of the union. I don't know how many people were asked but if you go on to the Scotsman web site you might find out.