End of the Monarchies

[CHRISinUSA]

I would imagine that Norbert was probably referring to the new President of France - who will pay a State Visit to the UK this year.

Regardless, it seems quite true that a state or official visit with the Queen is considered by many the height of international prestige and diplomacy.  What presidency would be complete without the requisite official picture at a State Banquet with HM The Queen?  It does seem to lend an air of "legitimacy" to one's administration to be received by The Queen.

[HerrKaiser]

Well, this is a matter of opinion it seems, since nothing the queen can do or say has any impact on policy in the U.S and little, if any, in the UK.

I rather think that few people would consider the queen's visit a real or token event to legitimize any U.S. President. Sure, it's fun and exciting as is any state visit. but, this isn't 1776. Had QEII actually been severe and issued public statement that she not only would not accept a White house invitation but she detests the president, do you really think that would have any effect? I think none at all other than a day or two of media fodder and bad news days.

 

[dmitri]

There is an endless list. Check out the Baltic States and others. 

[HerrKaiser]

 

[Alixz]

When a head of state visits the Queen in the UK, don't they also usually find time to go to 10 Downing Street?

As for the Queen visiting other countries, that is purely ceremonial.  Interesting from a publicity point of view, but certainly not in any policy point of view.

I have no contempt for the Queen or the Windsor family.  She and they are "window dressing" and they don't do as fine a job as they could, but they do all right.  "God Save The Queen!"

[Ilias_of_John]

And Ilias_of_John, do you mean croquet?   ;-)

Yes I do!


Queen Elizabeth II is the Sovereign of Australia and her Governor General is the Head of State.
She cannot resign nor abdicate!  She has appointed the GG to represent her here and to ensure that our system of govement works effectively according to our constituition and the conventions created by the Westminster System over the last 700 odd years.
Subsequently I can never understand why some people, especially Americans and some French, keep asking why she should abdicate from her role as Queen of the UK when there is no need!
The Prince of Wales is a Privy Counsellor and has acted as a regent of sorts when Mummy has been away!. Literally exactly the same as what our GG does every day of the week on behalf of Her Majesty!.
In my humble opinion,a possible resignation, abdication, similar to Edward Windsors(Uncle David)would create a situation whereby the Monarchy demeans itself and may theoretically destabilize the established order which can only open a can of worms.
Just look at the suggested break from the Union,  of Scotland, and take a deep breath!. (and a double scotch)
Unfortunately I dont know much about the Dutch Monarchy, aside from the fact that they own some oil company shares (wink!) but how can a Monarch ever be an ex-Monarch?  Isn't that like a gross violation of  trust?
Oh and by the way. King Konstantine is King of the Greeks solely because he was annointed as such, and the Greek Church continues to regard and address him as such, irrespective of what the Republican rabble in Athens have to say! He may not be the Head of State, but the title and rank cannot be taken away!

[dmitri]

It is quite wrong to suggest that HM The Queen has no influence. The content of discussions between the Monarch are her Prime Ministers are never revealed. She is far more than a rubber stamp and is treated with great respect by her Prime Ministers.

[Alixz]

Dmitri - I bow to your much more thorough information.  I truly have no idea what this queen does, only what Victoria and George V and George VI did because their interaction with their government is now available to the public.

However, if the British monarch were truly all that influential, then Edward VIII would not have had to make the choice between the monarchy and Wallis Simpson.

And as we see now, divorce is common in the royal family and Charles is divorced and married to a divorced Camilla, which was not allowed to Edward VIII.  And it was his Prime Minister and Queen Mary (who should not have had more authority than her son the king) who worked against him.

So the Royal Family has demeaned itself with its scandals and divorces and "airing of dirty laundry". Under the old interpretation of the laws, Charles is no longer eligible to be king as he is divorced and married to a divorcee.

Charles is now 59 heading toward 60.  If Queen Elizabeth II lives as long as her mother did, she will still be around in 2027 and Charles will be 79 (that is if the men live as long as the women in the family) actually pushing 80!

So if QEII is a lucid as her mother all is fine, but suppose she is not?  Do they then go back to the Regency as they did for George III?  But it looks like no matter what, Charles will have a very short reign, just as Edward VII did and maybe even shorter.  And if the Queen does hang on until 2027, Prince William will be 45.

There people aren't getting any younger!

[Robert_Hall]

The role of the British monarch is more complex than  most may think, even the Brits themselvers in many cases.  No law of Parlaiment  may become effective without the monarch's approval.  Unlike a bill  sent back by the House of Lords, the Commons cannot overide or ignore a bill sent back to them [and it is stressed that this would only be done on the advice of her ministers]. All acts of government are only legitimate with the approval of the sovereign.
 Another common misconception is that the succession is automatic. It is not. Only an act of Parlaiment passes the throne from one monarch to the next.  This is now  pretty much pro forma, automatic, as the Act of Succession is not really contested, but the myth of "The King is dead, long live the king" is just that- a myth. Parlaiment can bar an inheritor, if it so choose to, and risk the dire consequences.  The same is true for abdication. A monarch cannot abdicate of his/her own free will. It takes an act of Parlaiment.  Even if the present queen were incapacitated, it is highluy unlikely abdication would take place. A regency would be much more likely.
 Also, the constitutional function of the sovereign may come into place with the total breakdown of Parlaiment- that is, the inability to come to compromise or coalition between the parties.  The monarch may disolve the House, appoint a "caretaker" PM and call new elections. Although in the UK, so far, this has not been called for, as the various parties do reach agreements, in other countries, it has proven  vital to the continued running of the country. Namely, Belgium, Netherlands and Denmark.  In  European republics, the president, elected or otherwise would  preform this stabilising function.
 There are a lot more subtleties in the running of the country, just everyday life, that are in one way or another directly linked to the monarchy. [NOT necessarily the monarch herself] and it could be dismatled.  We shall see just how much so if the move towards Scottish independance goes, but the process would be very cumbersome and indeed costly.
 But personally, from my own experience, I do not see much enthusiasm for such drastic action, at least amongst my English friends.

[Alixz]

So then Edward VIII had to have Parliament give him permission to abdicate?  The could have stopped him, but didn't?

So, when Tony Blair decided to become part of the coalition, the queen was in agreement?  He needed her approval to send the British troops into Iraq?

And, I again ask, what good is a regency?  If the monarch is incapacitated, why should the country be ruled by a regent when all that would be required would be an act of parliament to remove the incapacitated monarch and then approve the next one.  Of course I mean incapacitated by old age or illness, not by youth or the fact of being too young to rule and a regent being placed by the child's side.

This is much more complicated than I knew.  Does the queen ever "veto" an act of parliament?

[Robert_Hall]

Yes on EVIII, but no on Blair [and Thatcher, for that matter]. The PM is responsible for the defence ministries, EXCEPT for the Royal Navy, that, technically, answers only to the monarch! Thatcher made a big mistake in  okaying the US invasion of Grenada without telling the Queen first. She did not repeat the mistake with the Falklands.
 The Queen, in her long reign  does not "veto" anything. She can send measures back to the Commons for  further discussion, but that would be done only  with the advice of the PM. Eventually, if something is to become law, it must have her signature or seal.  Ther is no "overide" as in the US Congress's ability [so-called] to over-ride a presidential veto.
 A regency preseves the rights of the crown from further erosion.  If a monarch were to abdicate, for instance, and there was dissention about the next to take the throne, it could become, in theory, in abeyance [vacant] or a new candidate put foward. The instabilty of such a situation is best be avoided at all costs.
 Most people just look at monarchy as historical window dressing, which it is in most situations. But it is also a viable mechanism of government in many cases. When it goes wrong [perhaps as in Nepal] it is hard to restore the credibility. When it creaks along smoothly and functions well, it is comfortably securing to those who live with it.

[Adagietto]

Mrs Thatcher did not appove of the American invasion of Grenada beforehand, Reagan did not tell her and (understandably) she was hopping mad that he should have sent troops into a Commonwealth country without informing her!

There can be no question of a British monarch ever abdicating; as you suggest, the monarchy would be weakened if there was anything other than service for life and an automatic succession. If she becomes weak or incacpacitated, the Prince of Wales will simply deputize for her as necessary.

[dmitri]

Actually the events that took place in Grenada had nothing to do with Britain or Mrs.Thatcher. They effected HM The Queen in her position as Queen of Grenada. That is an entirely separate role from Queen of the United Kingdom. Reagan invaded Grenada without notifying the Grenada Head of State. Thatcher had nothing to do with the issue.

[Robert_Hall]

Dmitri, I would disagree with your viewpoint,  but be that as it may... the discussion is about the pregotives of monarchy and the end of them. In that vein, my point was that  the Queen's role as head of state of Grenada was violated and ignored by the powers at hand.
 My aim here is to disengage the  monarchy from a personality. See the institution for what it really is. If it is a viable  form of government, realtive to the people that it governs?
 If not, is it an anachronism ?
 Cultural curiosity is not enough to justify  a public expense, is it?
 Neither is glam royalty.
The topic here is the institution itself, not the occupants so much.

[Ilias_of_John]

This conversation is actually going along swimmingly.!

By the way, as Queen of Grenada she should have been advised by the Commonwealth Heads rather than Maggie Thatcher!.
The Falklands are different, they are not an independant state, ala Grenada, but a dominion of the UK!


hm, I might go and have another cucumber sandwich!