A Question For The Brits

[Tony]

What role does the monarch play in British politics?

Can Queen Elizabeth influence policy?

[richardm]

None, really. She certainly can't influence policy, as is clear from her cheerfully promising to outlaw hunting in her last speech.


Edited to add: the last "Queen's Speech", that is, which is the speech she makes at the opening of Parliament each year, outlining what "her" government intends to do.

[BillyTK]

This is my (albeit limited) understanding. The relationship between the monarchy and parliament could be looked at as a gentleman's agreement--there may be some legislation which sets this out, but I'm unaware of it.

The Queen is leader of the Church of England, commander-in-chief of the British military and the head of state. As head of state she opens and closes Parliament, appoints the government and passes all legislation. This is where the gentlemen's agreement comes in; she passes all legislation, but she wouldn't not pass it, and it's doubtful she has any power to refuse to pass legislation. She appoints the government, but the prime minister tells her who to appoint; as well as asking her to open and close parliament; again it's unlikely she'd refuse to do so.

Only parliamnet and/or the prime minister actually gives orders to the military and these orders are notionally approved by the Queen as CIC. She could over-ride such orders, as all military personnel swear an oath of loyalty to the monarchy and not the government, but doing so would cause a crisis, and she wouldn't anyway.

I'm not too sure about her relationship with the Church of England but I suspect it's just as symbolic as her other roles...

Hope that helps? Explaining the rules of cricket is prolly simpler :)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tony
What role does the monarch play in British politics?

I'm in Canada. Technically, our head of state is the Queen. All of our laws are 'approved' by the Queen (or her representative here in Canada, the Governor General.) The government also has to ask permission of the Queen/Governor General to dissolve parliment and hold an election. Each province also has a representative.

All very symbolic; she doesn't really have any authority here in Canada.

There was only one situation where they could have made a difference... A few years ago, we had a 'minority government' in Ontario. (No party had a majority of seats.) At one point, the head of the largest party asked the Queen's representative to disolve parliment and hold an election. At that point, they had a choice of either following through (which was actually done), or asking one of the other parties to try to form the government.

[Richard G]

Another question. In all seriousness, and respect, why do you continue to pay the royal family? How many millions go to fund their little cricket games and social parties/palace/gaurds every year?

They should all get a job.

[Wile E. Coyote]

My father calls them the world's richest welfare recipients.

On a slightly off topic note, I was visiting Ottawa several years ago when I was in college. My family and I were taking a tour of one of the government buildings and I happened to be wearing a hat.

For a couple of the rooms on the tour, the guide asked those of us wearing hats to please remove them in respect for the Queen. On neither of these occassions did I remove my hat, as I have absolutely no respect for the Queen, a woman who was born into her position without merit, although she may be a good person.

The guide appeared slightly disturbed by this fact, but acted as though this happened frequently. I did, later on, remove my hat when asked to honor the veterans and victims of World War II.

My father said I was justified in not honoring the Queen, as that was one reason we fought the Revolutionary War: to remove ourselves from the power of the monarchy.

Looking back, I am not sure if my actions were justified or impudent. I realize one should respect other cultures, but where should the line be drawn?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Richard G
Another question. In all seriousness, and respect, why do you continue to pay the royal family? How many millions go to fund their little cricket games and social parties/palace/gaurds every year?

They should all get a job.

Off the top of my head figures:-

Civil List. These are moneys paid directly to the Queen and her hubby and total about 7million. Call them pay if you like. I believe "executive compensation" is the term favoured when you have to carry the loot home in a wheelbarrow though.

Misc. A further 20 to 30 million is paid in expenses, i.e. travel, staff, equipment, buildings maintenance, horseshoes, etc.

The Queen is of course wealthy in her own right although much of the land, artworks and property could, in practice, never be sold for political reasons. The Queen subsidises certain members of her family out of her own resources.

In fact all heads of state are expensive to run, even those models, such as ours which are designed to have little political power. I did once read that the monarchy was not unusually expensive compared to similar systems but no figures spring to mind.

As regards why do we continue to do it,......well:-

a) Its often more trouble than its worth to change a functioning if imperfect part of a complex working system. Major constitutional reforms only occur in most states when you lose major wars or experience civil war and revolution. We try to avoid the first option and the second seems improbable.

b) For the price of the salary paid to a Hollywood celebrity we get a popular institution with a lot of international credibility. Not a bad deal really.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by tjwojo
My father calls them the world's richest welfare recipients.

On a slightly off topic note, I was visiting Ottawa several years ago when I was in college. My family and I were taking a tour of one of the government buildings and I happened to be wearing a hat.

For a couple of the rooms on the tour, the guide asked those of us wearing hats to please remove them in respect for the Queen. On neither of these occassions did I remove my hat, as I have absolutely no respect for the Queen, a woman who was born into her position without merit, although she may be a good person.

The guide appeared slightly disturbed by this fact, but acted as though this happened frequently. I did, later on, remove my hat when asked to honor the veterans and victims of World War II.

My father said I was justified in not honoring the Queen, as that was one reason we fought the Revolutionary War: to remove ourselves from the power of the monarchy.

Looking back, I am not sure if my actions were justified or impudent. I realize one should respect other cultures, but where should the line be drawn?

Hmm tricky one.

In fact you're being asked to show respect to the institution rather than the individual. So in the unlikely event that I was introduced to President Bush I would say something on the lines of "pleased to meet you Mr President" rather than "how's tricks chimp".

Incidently feel free to wear a hat to Royal Ascot ( an upmarket horse race favoured by the Queen ) everyone does.

[max]

The reason the queen has no say in parliament stems from Charles the 2nd (Or was it charles the first?) he was such a bastard he got beheaded and Oliver Cromwell took over for five years until a new parliament with new rules was installed.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by tjwojo
For a couple of the rooms on the tour, the guide asked those of us wearing hats to please remove them in respect for the Queen. On neither of these occassions did I remove my hat, as I have absolutely no respect for the Queen, a woman who was born into her position without merit, although she may be a good person.


Personally, I don't feel your actions were justified. (Although I don't think it would be serious enough to cause a disturbance over it.)

As someone mentioned, it is not the person you are respecting, it is the institution. The Queen is head of state for Canada, so in theory by 'disrespecting' her, you are disrespecting Canada and its culture. (On the other hand, if a Canadian or British citizen did the same thing, it may be a little more justified; after all, they live 'under' the rule of the Queen, and it is up to the citizens of Britian or Canada to decide on how much respect she deserves.)

Hope that makes sense.

If I had to draw an anology, your act of not removing your hat would be the equivalent of a non-Jewish person not covering their head when they entered a Synagoge. (I may be wrong here, but aren't all men supposed to cover their heads in a temple, even if they aren't Jewish?)

[LillyThePink]

Breakdown of the civil list (and some pretty Flash stuff)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,407144,00.html

[Richard G]

I'm not removing my hat for any man, or institution,unless I'm at that mans funeral.

Nothing wrong with what you did. We are all equal, and I certainly would not ask another man to remove his hat for me.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Richard G
I'm not removing my hat for any man, or institution,unless I'm at that mans funeral.

Nothing wrong with what you did. We are all equal, and I certainly would not ask another man to remove his hat for me.
Why would you bother removing a hat at someone's funeral then? (Just wondering.)

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Richard G
I'm not removing my hat for any man, or institution,unless I'm at that mans funeral.


Don't go to Malawi then. Not removing your hat in presence of a photograph of the President is (or was) on offence!

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Richard G
Another question. In all seriousness, and respect, why do you continue to pay the royal family? How many millions go to fund their little cricket games and social parties/palace/gaurds every year?

They should all get a job. This is the problem with the royal family. They don't pay for enough cricket games.

Some minor royal picking a side to play the touring teams in their first game of the tour at Arundel doesn't suffice.

The MCC and Royal family two outdated institutions could be combined to bring them right up to date.

There must be room in the grounds of the palace to put a pitch. Buck house would make a fine pavilion and they have years of experience of making teas. You could watch the game and in the interval have a trip round the palace to see the treasures we have paid for. The Queen Mother’s ashes could be even be put up as a prize. Countless possibilities.

[richardm]

Just to be clear:

Although the Queen is C-in-C of the military, and opens and closes Parliament, and has to put her moniker on every bit of legislation that is produced before it becomes law, she has no, none, zero, zip power whatsoever. She could - in theory - command the military, but in practice could not. She could - in theory - refuse to sign a bit of legislation, but in practice could not. In reality, if she tried to do such a thing she would find herself sidelined before you could say "That was unexpected".

She is purely a figurehead, in a legal sense.

On the subject of "Why do we keep them?", well, why not? We have thousands of years of history and tradition to work with. For my money (which is what it boils down to), I'd rather have that than the French system of electing a presidential figurehead.

Another question. In all seriousness, and respect, why do you continue to pay the royal family?


Because lots of tourist dollars and yen depend on it.

I have no problem with the monarchy. Given the choice between President Moron and Queenie I pick Queenie every time. At least there is a limit to the damage she can do.

[LillyThePink]

According to the hype, she's really good at diplomatic stuff as well.

As a figurehead, we could do worse. (and prolly will once Queen Camilla's enthroned)