I think that saying Her Majesty only cuts ribbons and opens hospital wings is totally disrespectful and well un-informed.
The Queen plays such an important role in the life of the British people and of the other countries of which she is head of state..
Respect has nothing to do with common sense. If you can tell me what the Queen does that affects our every day lives, as politicians do, I shall become a monarchist once more.
BeatrixFan, your beloved Latvian president visited our Most Gracious Queen earlier in the year and admitted in an interview that if the Queen had not been born a monarch, she would have made a brilliant politician and won a lot of elections. Latvia's president also stated that The Queen plays an important role and realises the advantages of having a monarchy and why other countries such as Canada and Australia, even though she is not native, are lucky to have her as there sovereign..
Not quite. Her Excellency did indeed say that she believed the Queen could have won elections but she also stated that whilst residing in Canada during the Soviet occupation of Lativa, she felt it strange that a country should have a monarch that didn't reside in that country. Yes, she spoke of the advantages of monarchy but in other interviews, the former President has spoken of the importance of democracy and elections. Maybe if Britain had been a territory under the USSR we would have a different view of what real democracy is.
The Queen does wonders for the foreign negotiations of our British government, which is why I think she is an integral part of British and international diplomacy. There is nothing more rewarding than having a monarchy which has a unifying role in the country which is dignified and substantial to the United Kingdom as a whole.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office do wonders for foreign policy, not the Queen. She may shake hands with the guests but it's the Government who invite them and deal with the real business behind the pomp and circumstance. If you look at Iraq, the decisions were made by the Government and not the Queen. Those decisions she did have to make were made for her by politicians acting in her name - so why not cut out the middle man and let the politicians do it in their own names?
Even when The Queen does the State Opening of Parliament, everybody knows there place and that is of constitutional importance. Even the House of Commons who symbolically shun The Queen's messengers, know that this woman is of great importance and have the utmost respect.
Prime Minister's need the Queen and so does the UK.
I suggest you have a chat with the Beast of Bolsover sometime. Or for that matter, the nearly 30 MPs who annnually refuse to attend the Sovereign's address in the House of Lords. Whilst you're at it, you may want to go through the many soundbites accredited to various key figures who have all said they are republicans. Look at John Prescott - a raging republican who didn't symbolically shun Black Rod; he meant it! Prime Ministers do not need the Queen. Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Italy and so many others have a Prime Ministers who are second to a President - Prime Ministers don't need a crowned head to tell them what to do, that's the public's job.
The abolition of monarchy in Great Britain, is a notion for those of the minority. It would never stand, and wouldn't even be debated.
There is a law which states that the government serve the Queen and the people, as in the term, 'Her Majesty's Government', and that talk of abolishing the monarchy or defacing the Queen on official material such as coins, notes etc is high treason. Now even though it would be barbaric to put this law into effect in this day and age, and would probably not even be enacted, the basis of the law still remains in this country and I feel that with or without that law, such talk would be rubbished with regards to a republic.
I disagree. As the House of Windsor falls apart at the seams, it's becoming more and more usual to hear people openly questioning the role of the Royal Family. Even if they don't call for a republic, the automatic idea that there's no other option is gone now. People know there's a choice and it's a choice we'll make in the future. To rubbish the very idea of those choices is actually at odds with the so-called constitutional monarchy you seem to be so proud of because if we can't even discuss the possibility of a republic, surely we're living under a kind of absolutism?
I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe in the concept of "Her Majesty's Government" - it's our government. We elect it, it's answerable to us and so it should be. The Queen doesn't vote, therefore it's nothing to do with her. She's just a rubber stamp in a house dress. The issue of monarchy and republic is debated in Britain regularly - we're debating now. It's an issue of our time and soon enough, the debate will lead to a choice.