The "Royal Touch"

[smashy]

The Obama couple was here in London for the G20 and went to the Buckingham Palace to have tea with H.R. Majesty.

The Queen touched Michelle Obama slightly on her back and Michelle returned it by putting her hand on the Queen's back as well for just a few seconds. This was enough to became front page news on the newspapers, saying that Michelle broked the protocol "Do not touch the Queen"!

I saw the touch on t.v. and it was a friendly gesture that shows the caring and down to earth person that Michelle is, and the Queen seemed to appreciate it as well! I don't understand however how can the press here in the U.K. be so sensationalist and make this front cover news with so many important issues going on in the world like people dying from starvation!! This was just a real and sweet moment of genuine interaction and for a moment, the Queen was treated as a real person! By living here in London, I can see how many britons are so uptight and demand the Queen to be like that as well, I think they should just losen up and take off the stick off their as***!! The Queen is a lovely lady and she's human too! On one hand they complain the Queen is too aloof, on the other hand they complain when she has a caring moment (after all she touched Michelle first). It's hard to please these Britons!

I think Michelle did very well and maybe it can be the beginning of a new era. You go First Lady Girl!!

But then, again, I think there are much more important things to be on the front cover of newspapers.

[uncon]

The Obama couple was here in London for the G20 and went to the Buckingham Palace to have tea with H.R. Majesty.

The Queen touched Michelle Obama slightly on her back and Michelle returned it by putting her hand on the Queen's back as well for just a few seconds. This was enough to became front page news on the newspapers, saying that Michelle broked the protocol "Do not touch the Queen"!


I think it was a planned publicity stunt.

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Franklin D. Roosevelt

What saddened me was when they showed pictures of the gathering of the G20 wives, except they called them spouses. There wasn't a male among them. Same ole BS men running things, same ole wives in their pretty dresses being judged on their style and their ability to cook and write either cookbooks or children's books. Oh well.

The queen is an anachronism and frankly, it's a little embarassing that these roles still exist.

[Ersatz]

Call me a pinko-commie new worlder, but I think that to create restrictions of behavior based on the mercantilist notion of hereditary lineage is not only annoying but immoral, no matter what "her majesty" means to people.

[Night Runner]

I hadn't even heard of it until now - that's what I get for not following "mainstream" media. By paying attention to this non-issue, and bringing it up in a forum, you are playing their game. The sheeple must be distracted and entertained at all costs. Don't mind our trillion-dollar deficits, forget about the fact that Bin Laden is still on the loose, ignore the fact that we are currently in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression (and it's likely to get even worse than that), and whatever you do - do not question the electoral college. Here - look at this pretty kitten instead. Or listen to our breaking news about yet another cute little white blonde-haired blue-eyed girl that was kidnapped/killed/food-poisoned. Oh, and did you hear about Mrs.Obama's new dress? Still feeling down? Here, have some Prozac - it will help.

...

[Fineline]

By paying attention to this non-issue, and bringing it up in a forum, you are playing their game.

Or, you could say that by bringing it up and criticizing it, you make other people, who may have been complacent, aware of the idiocy. Now these informed people can stop caring about Michelle's matching-purse-and-shoes, go forth and accomplish [insert accomplishment]!

[smashy]

I hadn't even heard of it until now - that's what I get for not following "mainstream" media. By paying attention to this non-issue, and bringing it up in a forum, you are playing their game. The sheeple must be distracted and entertained at all costs. Don't mind our trillion-dollar deficits, forget about the fact that Bin Laden is still on the loose, ignore the fact that we are currently in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression (and it's likely to get even worse than that), and whatever you do - do not question the electoral college. Here - look at this pretty kitten instead. Or listen to our breaking news about yet another cute little white blonde-haired blue-eyed girl that was kidnapped/killed/food-poisoned. Oh, and did you hear about Mrs.Obama's new dress? Still feeling down? Here, have some Prozac - it will help.

...

I studied Sociology so for me all social issues are social issues to talk about, or I rather say, social phenomenons. There's nothing I wouldn't bring to the forum or comment about, not because the media decided to speak about this, but because I like to see and comment the social dynamics that are created by a situation created by the media. And better for me to realize what it is than a lot of people that just comment because they don't realise they're being puppets.

[MaleVolentworld]

The Queen is just an old lady with a posh voice and she is the ultimate dependent.

[eternaltriangle]

What saddened me was when they showed pictures of the gathering of the G20 wives, except they called them spouses. There wasn't a male among them. Same ole BS men running things, same ole wives in their pretty dresses being judged on their style and their ability to cook and write either cookbooks or children's books. Oh well.

The queen is an anachronism and frankly, it's a little embarassing that these roles still exist.

1. Angela Merkl is a female. A woman was nearly President of the United States not too long ago. A woman was also nearly president of France in the last election. The UK has had a female PM. Canada has had a female PM. India has had a female PM. Obviously more needs to be done, but there hasn't been zero progress.

As to the Queen (my Queen!), I will defend the concept. Americans have problems because they have combined the role of head of state with head of government. The head of state is the symbolic leader of the nation - they should be a non-partisan figure that all can rally around. The head of government has to make the tough calls on the business of the day. Combining these roles has created a kind of metapolitics wherein American presidents must always be seen to be "presidential". Minute details of the personal lives of say, Bill Clinton, become national news. Having a separate head of state creates a lightning rod for that kind of coverage, and enables voters to make a clearer choice ("who is the best man/woman for the job").

Some people here think protocol is a silly relic. Perhaps, but I would put forth that it actually performs a critical role. Now that the monarchy is a figurehead body it is of the utmost importance that they not allow any political or other preferences be publicly known. Sticking to protocol in greeting important people helps prevent situations that might arise wherein subtle facial expressions or motions might be interpreted as the Queen expressing such a preference.

Of course Michelle Obama (or Paul Keating, who was dubbed the Lizard of Oz for putting his arm round the queen) can be forgiven for occasional breaches of protocol. Yet by in large formal traditions are not merely of emotional value, but help preserve the monarchy in its current role.

I would add that the monarchy brings in way more in tourism than it costs to the taxpayer.

[qwerty123]

I would concur that it could have been a publicity stunt. I didn't know about the protocol of not touching the queen, but I do now. Media is a business too. It's easier to gossip about touching the queen than the intricacies of the IMF, or origins of NATO, or (hyper conservative) Israeli papers removing female heads of state from pictures, or how the G20 probably fumbled the economic crisis as expected. All of these require thought, knowledge of issues, and some sort of editorial stance. They do get covered, but because they demand an intellectual public, not everyone is interested.

Britney Spears is cheap for media outlets, I don't see how this is much different. It's easy to give the people cake in this case, because it's cheaper than bread.

[Tragic Hero]

Thankyou triangle, I was just about to bring up Merkel. From the others posting I assumed that perhaps she was unmarried. But don't forget New Zealand, back to back female Prime Ministers and the current head of Chile is a woman.

You really did learn a bit about Keating didn't you. Did you watch the youtube thing that someone posted on Keating in another thread? He continually trash the G8 for being full of budget deficit countries. His other pet dislike was Australia's longest serving Treasurer Peter Costello naming him something like, 'the laziest Treasurer in Australian history.' The irony is that Costello got the country out of debt and ran it with a surplus. While the asian markets fell, Australia kept strong.

Again, on the whole female leaders thing; There are at least two well known female leaders of the past who took over war/poverty stricken countries and really fixed the country. Do you know who I'm talking about triangle?

[dalidaisy]

If, by some chance, I was made queen (or supreme ruler, dictator, whatever), I would make a rule that no one touches me, either. If someone did touch me, there would be repercussions. However, I don't know if it would be a newsworthy event.

As for the media in general, well, they are here for our entertainment, nothing more. They spin everything & blow most news way out of proportion. I've decided to go with the "I'm happier just not knowing" stance & taking all my media with a big spoon full of sugar. What does knowing the news really do for me? Nothing. And, who cares if someone (GASP!) touched the queen? I think the whole issue is between the queen & Mrs. Obama. It's really none of anyone else's business...

[eternaltriangle]

Again, on the whole female leaders thing; There are at least two well known female leaders of the past who took over war/poverty stricken countries and really fixed the country. Do you know who I'm talking about triangle?

Well the answer to that sort of question is always tricky - some folks will love one leader, while others won't.

Some debatable contenders:
Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Ellen Sirleaf in Liberia (I have met the former president incidentally - not Charles Taylor), that lady with a really long name in Sri Lanka (googled it: Ratwatte Dias Bandaranaike), Benazir Bhutto, or Arroyo in the Philippines.

I am going to guess that the two you thought of are... Bhutto and Gandhi.

[zibber]

Monarchy is direly, direly archaic and the media just needs to fill pages. News isn't an appropriate term for most publications.

[uncon]

1. Angela Merkl is a female. A woman was nearly President of the United States not too long ago...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Where, oh where, is here husband? Saving face, hiding from the photographer so he won't look ball-less to other men. Where are the men, even though there would only be a couple anyway? Aren't their dresses pretty?

Women are 50% but they are nowhere close to this percentage with regard to representation. When that % can at least be 25% then we will have made some progress. There was a spouse in the pic wearing a burka (pretty much). Some progress indeed. Women are still the nigger of the world.

As to the Queen (my Queen!), I will defend the concept. Americans have problems because they have combined the role of head of state with head of government.

I would add that the monarchy brings in way more in tourism than it costs to the taxpayer

The Queen is an embarrassment b/c she's a symbolic mother. Now, so is the US President (a symbolic parent), but it's at least masked. The first step in maturity is at least pretending that you're more mature than you are. Why not just call her The Mommy? You don't have to be Freud to see the obvious transference going on here. It's an anachronism and it's paternalistic which government shouldn't be (although I'm not saying that it isn't).

She's probably the richest person in the world with regard to wealth but yet has no one to answer to really. Maybe this particular Queen is a benevolent one but history has shown that this isn't always the case. The point is that someone not answerable to anyone else, who received their power through an archaic hereditary line (blue) blood line is simply something that will not be there in the future. That amount of power is dangerous. Governments go toward representation and away from monarchy - not the other way around. You may say she's just a tourist figurehead but she still takes your money and provides you with nothing but so-called figurehead appearances with a mandate for life. If she's as powerless as you say then she shouldn't be a billionaire through taxes. You shouldn't suffer both.

Of course, all power tells you that they really don't have any control over anything. Same in the US - "the president doesn't really have any influence over the economy". Yeah right. Believe me, she has power.

Combining these roles has created a kind of metapolitics wherein American presidents must always be seen to be "presidential". Minute details of the personal lives of say, Bill Clinton, become national news. Having a separate head of state creates a lightning rod for that kind of coverage, and enables voters to make a clearer choice ("who is the best man/woman for the job").

You're forgetting the heir to the throne Charles, and the horse he married and all that drama that was on Page Six or whatever rag over there that's the equivalent to the Natl Enquirer. The US got the tabloid thing from Britain b/c we're the ultimate copiers of anything that's been proven to make money.

I will be satisfied with women's position in society when we don't even talk about their gender when they actually get power b/c it will be so common. Women are the majority of the voting public in all western countries where they can actually vote - the majority - but yet a tiny percentage of the representatives. It's not about feminism but about simple fairness. The world won't be perfect but it will necessarily be fairer by definition.





uncon added to this post, 6 minutes and 31 seconds later...

"Enslave the queen, she aint no human bean"

Or how does it go again...Sex Pistols song...


Pure aggressive poetry:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

God save the queen
The fascist regime
They made you a moron
Potential H-bomb

God save the queen
She ain't no human being
There is no future
In England's dreaming

Don't be told what you want
Don't be told what you need
There's no future, no future,
No future for you

God save the queen
We mean it man
We love our queen
God saves

God save the queen
'Cause tourists are money
And our figurehead
Is not what she seems

Oh God save history
God save your mad parade
Oh Lord God have mercy
All crimes are paid

When there's no future
How can there be sin
We're the flowers in the dustbin
We're the poison in your human machine
We're the future, your future

[Alderamin]

Well, be all this as it may, there is a disturbing contrast between how Barack treated Queen Elizabeth II and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Just look at this:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Appalling.

[LionsPride]

I agree with eternaltriangle's first comments with regards to the queen and the importance of protocol. To place a different spin on the discussion, I have heard that placing a hand on someone's back is often a sign of dominance. This is why the Queen can do it, but people can't do it back. It might not seem that way when you are out and about with friends, but when you are in the political world it's a little different. Having looked at the picture, I have to admit the gesture looks innocent enough, but it does convey dominance. Not in a heavy handed sort of way, but in the "there, there now you frail old woman" sort of way. If people didn't know the women in the picture and were asked which one was the dominant in the photo, I think they would pick Michelle. Given the Queen's status, that's a huge faux pas.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. summit_th110.jpg?x=233&y=345&q=85&sig=4YN4XG7CsJHoKE_h0H3QmA--

[eternaltriangle]

You're forgetting the heir to the throne Charles, and the horse he married and all that drama that was on Page Six or whatever rag over there that's the equivalent to the Natl Enquirer. The US got the tabloid thing from Britain b/c we're the ultimate copiers of anything that's been proven to make money.


No I'm not - I said the royal family is a lightning rod for scandal and the trashy press - but because they are generally irrelevant to the policy-making process it doesn't affect the nation as a whole. Each steamy story about the latest idiocy from Harry is one less steamy story about how Tony Blair is Catholic or "did Gordon Brown look at a woman in a certain way." The American president doesn't have that luxury because he is both father of the nation and somebody who needs to make tough choices.

[uncon]

No I'm not - I said the royal family is a lightning rod for scandal and the trashy press - but because they are generally irrelevant to the policy-making process it doesn't affect the nation as a whole. Each steamy story about the latest idiocy from Harry is one less steamy story about how Tony Blair is Catholic or "did Gordon Brown look at a woman in a certain way." The American president doesn't have that luxury because he is both father of the nation and somebody who needs to make tough choices.

I guess I'm just for a choice in the matter, not automatic hereditary reward. I have to compete in a meritocracy and they should have to also. I disagree that the Royals are irrelevant b/c of my previous point - if they are irrelavent then there's no justification for exorbitant tax revenue in the name of tourism. I think they do have a LOT of power but they don't flaunt it b/c they're not idiots. Our presidents pretend that they have no power also.

Are you saying that this figurehead, who's only there for tourism according to you, is worth the billions (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in net worth her family has acquired from the citizenry of your country who didn't even have a choice in the matter? I'm not asking you whether you like the Queen b/c I certainly like her, as a personality. I'm asking you whether you think this is a fair deal for your citizens. You get a powerless figurehead (according to you but I disagree) who's good for tourism and they get billions of your wealth?

[LionsPride]

Whatever it costs to keep the royals, the return on investment is a good one. Just the tabloid industry driven off their antics alone must be huge. Combine that with tourism and you have quite a revenue generator.

Aside from that, the royals "perform" for their duties. Their schedules of events would make an introvert cringe. They work for their money any way you put it. They are partners in all manner of charities and their celebrity status benefits all in those cases.

[Tragic Hero]

Well the answer to that sort of question is always tricky - some folks will love one leader, while others won't.

Some debatable contenders:
Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Ellen Sirleaf in Liberia (I have met the former president incidentally - not Charles Taylor), that lady with a really long name in Sri Lanka (googled it: Ratwatte Dias Bandaranaike), Benazir Bhutto, or Arroyo in the Philippines.

I am going to guess that the two you thought of are... Bhutto and Gandhi.

I am just relaying an opinion but one that I was thinking of was Corazon Aquino of the Philippines.

[eternaltriangle]

I am just relaying an opinion but one that I was thinking of was Corazon Aquino of the Philippines.

Dammit - wrong Filipino lady whose name starts with A.

Sexist joke I just thought of that should get me shot:

Q: Why are there so many female presidents of the Philippines?
A: Imelda Marcos proved that with power, comes lots and lots of shoes.





eternaltriangle added to this post, 27 minutes and 3 seconds later...

I guess I'm just for a choice in the matter, not automatic hereditary reward. I have to compete in a meritocracy and they should have to also. I disagree that the Royals are irrelevant b/c of my previous point - if they are irrelavent then there's no justification for exorbitant tax revenue in the name of tourism. I think they do have a LOT of power but they don't flaunt it b/c they're not idiots. Our presidents pretend that they have no power also.

Are you saying that this figurehead, who's only there for tourism according to you, is worth the billions (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in net worth her family has acquired from the citizenry of your country who didn't even have a choice in the matter? I'm not asking you whether you like the Queen b/c I certainly like her, as a personality. I'm asking you whether you think this is a fair deal for your citizens. You get a powerless figurehead (according to you but I disagree) who's good for tourism and they get billions of your wealth?

1. The case against a meritocracy (in a few situations)
I generally prefer meritocratic systems. The problem is how to select somebody. You can elect a separate figurehead head of state, as some countries do. The problem is that elections are always divisive and partisan, meaning that the ultimate winner is less able to serve as a rallying point for the nation as a whole. Alternately the PM (or whatever you call the head of government) could pick the head of state. The problem there is obvious - he will tend to pick a partisan, and even if he doesn't, the head of state will be seen as such. Often this is the case with, for instance, Canadian governor-generals (they are a representative picked by the PM to represent the Queen, and in practice exercise the Queen's powers).

By contrast, her Majesty was raised by birth to do nothing other than conduct herself in a dignified and neutral manner. No, the monarchy is never perfect, but there are some things they have done very well. We know Harry is a bit of a screw-up, but we don't know if he say, likes Gordon Brown or David Cameron. That makes his decision to fight as an ordinary soldier a powerful symbol to all, just as say, the decision of the royals to stay in London during WWII helped rally the country.

Thirdly, you need a head of state with a long-term vested interest in the survival of the institution of head of state. if you just have a 4-year term you could be persuaded to favour one side or the other. If you have a term for life which you want to see passed on to your children, you would realize that favouring either side would destroy the institution of the monarchy.

2. Separate Heads of state and constitutional crises
Now, I seem to be a broken record on the non-partisanship thing - why? In the Westminster system, the rules of parliament are based on convention and a series of documents, rather than a single constitution. The same is true of the parliaments of Canada and Australia (even though Canada has a constitution, and Australia probably does). Sometimes there is a constitutional crisis. In the US, constitutional crises are handled by the supreme court, like the 2000 election. Of course because the supreme court is appointed by the president, the results are seen as partisan. By contrast, in the Commonwealth, the Queen or her representative makes the call in constitutional crises.

For instance, Canada had an election in Fall 2008, which produced a minority government (the Conservatives had the most seats and continued to govern). In December, a group of opposition parties banded together to topple the government and take power themselves with a vote of no confidence. The Conservative government called on the governor-general to prorogue parliament, delaying the vote such that the coalition would fall apart as people started asking more questions. A lot of things were unclear: could the governor-general prorogue parliament (King Charles was the last person to do so)? If the VONC went through, did the governor-general have to accept it, or would she have to call an election before a change of government? There were no exact precedents, but many similar ones. Ultimately, the governor-general decided to prorogue, a decision that was widely accepted by all, averting a constitutional crisis - or accusations that the government was illegitimate (the governor-general, unlike a Queen, is sometimes partisan, though the current one is not in any obvious way, and was appointed by the Liberals).

Separate heads of state offer a more flexible way of navigating through constitutional crises without ripping the country apart (which is a big problem in Canada).

3. The break even argument
I am a Canadian, so I pay essentially nothing for the Queen. However, the monarchy and the pageantry it promotes is one of the things that makes the UK unique. People don't come to London for great food. People don't visit Britain for great sex, with a continent of horny Europeans but a chunnel away (no offence). They come for castles, a pleasant countryside and a country with interesting traditions. The monarchy costs ~38 million a year (that includes security costs and a bunch of others stuff). If the average tourist spends $1000 in the UK (in almost all cases those planning a trip spend more) the monarchy would only need to attract 38,000 people a year to break even (to put that in perspective, 33 million people visited the UK last year). So the Queen does not cost taxpayers anything (moreover much of their wealth is inherited anyway and not from the taxpayer).

[uncon]

The monarchy costs ~38 million a year (that includes security costs and a bunch of others stuff). If the average tourist spends $1000 in the UK (in almost all cases those planning a trip spend more) the monarchy would only need to attract 38,000 people a year to break even (to put that in perspective, 33 million people visited the UK last year). So the Queen does not cost taxpayers anything (moreover much of their wealth is inherited anyway and not from the taxpayer).

The queen's family has been collecting taxes a LONG time before tourism brought this kind of money. This a modern argument against and ancient injustice, namely despotism. This is what the US was founded on in principle. Sure, Eliz is benevolent but the system is in place so that if the next blue blood happens to be a despot that things can quickly devolve.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This woman is wearing a golden crown on her head. This is the height of depravity. Most of her money nowadays is made from investments and rents collected, blah blah - but ALL of her wealth ultimately comes from taxes from your people through a history of exploitation. Every gold ring, every silly diamond encrusted tiara, etc. This isn't an economic argument fundamentally but one of fairness.

The US isn't perfect but one thing that has always ringed true was the fundamental ideas of the declaration of independence. King George sucked, Queen Elizabeth doesn't but that doesn't matter overall b/c this is beyond our penchant for adoring the quaint and the cult of personality. Removing royalty doesn't make this penchant go away b/c it's a human foible but it does provide a system where this can't be used against the people as much. These royals are no different than you - maybe more intelligent, I'm willing to admit that royal-ness is somewhat genetic - but they're not any better. They don't deserve subjects and bowing and taxes without representation, etc. b/c no human being deserves this.

I get why people like it though. I completely get it but that's actually all the more reason why I'm against. I understand the pride about the jewels. Sure, she's your representative in a way - her golden robes show the world that England is a rich area. Her poise says England is sophisto, aren't we so smart - the world gets it - you're rich b/c of the golden crown and such - it's pretty obvious with such non-subtlety. The time has come for people to grow up beyond such gaudy displays of their wealth. The time has come for people not to be satisfied with non-elected (at least) representatives living in decadence with their money. It's time to stop watching this movie and start living this ourselves. It's a relic from the past that we can't forget like a lot of other relics that people rationalize by love of quaintness.

I'm done b/c I wouldn't attempt to argue against quaintness but I conclude with this prediction. In the future there won't be kings and queens wearing golden crowns and diamonds bought with the public purse in the most civilized areas of the world. Leaders, sure, but not royalty based on blood lines. Choose the future or rationalize living in our primitive past, the choice is yours.

[LionsPride]

The queen's family has been collecting taxes a LONG time before tourism brought this kind of money. This a modern argument against and ancient injustice, namely despotism.

So you are suggesting that people should completely ignore the current situation and base their decisions on righting the wrongs of hundreds of years ago even if you piss away significant gains you have today? You're a member of the "revenge no matter the cost" side huh? Logically, I don't think ousting the monarchy makes a lick of sense and I don't think the United States is the glorious model we should all pattern ourselves off of. I think I'll take a pass on that type of future.

[uncon]

So you are suggesting that people should completely ignore the current situation and base their decisions on righting the wrongs of hundreds of years ago even if you piss away significant gains you have today? You're a member of the "revenge no matter the cost" side huh? Logically, I don't think ousting the monarchy makes a lick of sense and I don't think the United States is the glorious model we should all pattern ourselves off of. I think I'll take a pass on that type of future.

Never said the US was glorious but the US did have that one idea right (getting rid of the divine right of kings) - nor that this was about revenge, it's about protection and fairness. The queen is worth billions, those billions were taken from the people and that is not fair and this is still happening in the present tense. You are not wearing golden crowns, she is, and that crown belongs to you and your people. Ousting the monarchy makes perfect sense if you want to protect the people from absolute despotism potential and it has nothing to do with modeling. It's one of the great legacies of the Enlightenment period in history.

The Brits do a lot of things better than the US but supporting monarchy is an embarrassing anachronism. But hey, it's your choice to keep giving your country's wealth to one family to buy artwork and jewels and property and such - sorry, actually it isn't your choice at all. Their position is divine.

[thod]

Never said the US was glorious but the US did have that one idea right (getting rid of the divine right of kings)

Since when was that a US idea? The British got rid of kings on a regular basis for better kings. The English civil war got rid of royalty all together, chopping off Charles' head.

The same problem arises when a crime lord is arrested. You don't stop the crime, you just create a power vacuum. The contenders then fight it out, creating misery for all. Once a new crime lord (king) wins out, peace returns. The police know very well who that is. They know he keeps the peace using his own means and its better to leave him in place than have constant turf wars.

[Night Runner]

I hadn't even heard of it until now - that's what I get for not following "mainstream" media. By paying attention to this non-issue, and bringing it up in a forum, you are playing their game. The sheeple must be distracted and entertained at all costs. Don't mind our trillion-dollar deficits, forget about the fact that Bin Laden is still on the loose, ignore the fact that we are currently in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression (and it's likely to get even worse than that), and whatever you do - do not question the electoral college. Here - look at this pretty kitten instead. Or listen to our breaking news about yet another cute little white blonde-haired blue-eyed girl that was kidnapped/killed/food-poisoned. Oh, and did you hear about Mrs.Obama's new dress? Still feeling down? Here, have some Prozac - it will help.

...

See? Exactly what I described. Instead of paying attention to real issues, you got stuck in a pointless debate about historical and financial merits of monarchy... Media: 1. INTJ: 0.

[eternaltriangle]

The Brits do a lot of things better than the US but supporting monarchy is an embarrassing anachronism. But hey, it's your choice to keep giving your country's wealth to one family to buy artwork and jewels and property and such - sorry, actually it isn't your choice at all. Their position is divine.

This kind of lack of knowledge is a good example of why it is important to maintain historical symbols. The "divine right of kings" hasn't been argued since before the English civil war (and the Stuarts didn't exactly convince that many people when they put forth that argument - which is part of why they lost the English Civil War).

[uncon]

This kind of lack of knowledge is a good example of why it is important to maintain historical symbols. The "divine right of kings" hasn't been argued since before the English civil war (and the Stuarts didn't exactly convince that many people when they put forth that argument - which is part of why they lost the English Civil War).

It's the undercurrent of all monarchy. What's behind the symbol is very important when considering whether that symbol is fair or even rational. The Queen derives her power from divine birth - maybe they don't call it that but that's what it means. They are the "chosen" ones and God is who chose them. I disagree.

Even if I was completely ignorant of history it wouldn't make my argument invalid. Even a simpleton can look at an Emperor and see that he's really naked and that we're all believing a mythology. The Queen is no different than you. She doesn't deserve crowns of gold bought with the public purse and owned by her family. Her family's bloodline is nothing special. Her royal stature did not come from God (even if I wasn't agnostic). The Queen may only be a figurehead but this is what she's symbolic of - a sordid authoritarian past of feudalism and a primitive belief in the divine right of kings.

Sure, the English Civil War resulted in a compromise between Parliament and the Royals and the Royals lost some power but we couldn't get rid of the nasty "royalty" altogether without moving to another continent and starting over. The only reason there's no struggle now is that the bread and circuses are so rich (b/c of oil exploitation) not b/c the Queen has no power.

[Solus]

Actually the Royals lost, not just some but pretty much all the power to Westminster Parliament (the latter, at least in theory, being free to legislate on anything it wishes). Even the royal prerogative is no exception as it can be curtailed at will by Parliament.

[eternaltriangle]

Actually the Royals lost, not just some but pretty much all the power to Westminster Parliament (the latter, at least in theory, being free to legislate on anything it wishes). Even the royal prerogative is no exception as it can be curtailed at will by Parliament.

They still held and occasionally used their power of appointment in the 18th century. I don't think it is till Victoria that you have a truly powerless monarchy. Even today, the monarchs might have influence in a minority government situation where it was not entirely clear who the government is.

The governor-generals, who occupy essentially the same role in Canada and Australia, have made impactful decisions on rare occasions. In the early 1870's the PM of Canada was caught up in a scandal, and asked the governor-general to delay parliament (to avoid a vote of non-confidence). It was not granted. In 1926 Liberal government of William Lyon Mackenzie-King lost a vote of no confidence and was replaced, without election, by the Conservatives (who were also defeated on a VONC). In Australia Gough Whitlam's Labor government faced a situation where the Liberal/National's in the senate (they are bicameral) wouldn't move forward with some critical legislation (I believe a budget, which tends to be the definitive confidence motion). The governor general dismissed Whitlam as PM, appointing Malcolm Fraser as caretaker PM on the agreement that Fraser would call an election. In the 1980's in Canada the Liberal-dominated (unelected and basically powerless) senate refused to pass an unpopular tax (the GST). The Prime Minister appealed to the Queen to create additional senate seats, which he filled with Progressive-Conservatives. Finally more recently, the Conservative minority government of Canada faced an impending vote of no confidence, put forth by a coalition of Liberals, the socialist NDP and the separatist Bloc Quebecois. The governor-general prorogued parliament for two months, and the coalition collapsed.

The monarchy does have power in rare circumstances that has been largely prevented by Britain's two-party system since the Depression. Even where Britain has not looked like a two-party system, such as in the 80's when the SDP-Lib alliance ran a very strong third, the first-past-the-post system prevented a minority government. Additionally, there is a convention that "hung parliaments" are unworkable and require a new election - usually within a year. By contrast, Canada has been governed by a minority government from 2003-the present; from 1962-1968. That said, if there was a minority, fun things could happen.
eg. what if David Cameron wins a narrow minority government (which is not impossible - the distribution of seats heavily favours Labour), but Gordon Brown is able to get a majority by working with the Lib Dems and SNP (dour Scotsmen stick together). Who does the Queen appoint PM?

That vagueness is one of the strengths of the Westminster system though. They can carefully consider the implications of a decision, instead of being compelled to act by some law.

[Solus]

Additionally, there is a convention that "hung parliaments" are unworkable and require a new election - usually within a year.

I'm not entirely sure that such convention exists in the UK. This article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) might shed some light on the issue (I've just scanned through it so, for all I know it might actually transpire that it claims the opposite, but I still doubt it).

That said, if there was a minority, fun things could happen.
eg. what if David Cameron wins a narrow minority government (which is not impossible - the distribution of seats heavily favours Labour), but Gordon Brown is able to get a majority by working with the Lib Dems and SNP (dour Scotsmen stick together). Who does the Queen appoint PM?

It happened in February 1974 when the Labour Party gained the largest number of seats but no overall majority. Although it was expected that Ted Heath who was the Conservative Prime Minister would resign he didn't. Instead he opted for negotiations with Liberal MPs which eventually failed. Harold Wilson who led the Labour Party insisted that he was ready to form a minority government but it wasn't until Heath finally resigned that Wilson was called on by the Queen to form a new government. The Queen, in effect, allowed the parties to resolve the situation. It was a decision which demonstrated the strength of the system that you wrote about. There is, of course, no guarantee that this will happen again if Cameron is in position to form a minority government. I doubt it however that the Queen will decide to act in any way that could be seen controversial or unconstitutional. If she were to do that, the royal prerogative would be curtailed by a statute which would clearly outline what is to be done in such a situation. In a situation where you have the parliamentary sovereignty as the core doctrine of the British constitution, the Queen could do nothing about it.

[eternaltriangle]

"I doubt it however that the Queen will decide to act in any way that could be seen controversial or unconstitutional. If she were to do that, the royal prerogative would be curtailed by a statute which would clearly outline what is to be done in such a situation. In a situation where you have the parliamentary sovereignty as the core doctrine of the British constitution, the Queen could do nothing about it."

That is true - and I think that is what most Americans don't get about the monarchy. They assume that if you give somebody power, it will be abused. What they don't realize is that when it comes to the monarchy, if the monarchy ever did something stupid or massively unpopular, there would be an outcry and they would be abolished.

So you think the UK could have a sustained minority government? I guess we will have to wait and see (the Tories are probably in majority territory just at the moment, and it would probably take an economic recovery to save Brown... If he loses he can start a club with James Callahan and the corpse of Douglas-Home).

[Solus]

So you think the UK could have a sustained minority government?

I see no reason why the UK couldn't have a minority government though the Brits here are better placed to say why.

I think that is what most Americans don't get about the monarchy. They assume that if you give somebody power, it will be abused. What they don't realize is that when it comes to the monarchy, if the monarchy ever did something stupid or massively unpopular, there would be an outcry and they would be abolished.

Absolutely. The same principle applies to governments and parliaments which are the ones calling the shots in constitutional monarchies. I feel it all comes down to the relationship between legal and political sovereignty, the latter being ultimately in the hands of the people. Even though the UK is a special case in this respect as it doesn't have a written constitution which would clearly define the limits of governmental power the government is still dependent on the electoral mandate given to it by the people. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty may place Westminster Parliament above anyone else but it would be a political suicide to insist on passing and enforcing legislation that would be seen as unjust by the public at large. The "poll tax" that the Conservatives tried to introduce twenty years ago provides a very good illustration of how true this is.

[eternaltriangle]

I think the factor that American civics classes leave out involve a vibrant civil society. If the president suspended habeus corpus and ruled like a dictator indefinitely, the military would not follow him. We are not protected by laws, but rather, by the existence of our own liberal democratic values. That is precisely why new democracies set up abroad often fail. I mean, legally - on paper, there is not a lot of difference between Pakistan's system of government and the UK's. However, de facto, the military views itself as a branch of government of its own, and has seized power on numerous occasions with minimal difficulty or public outcry.

[jesse]

As for the media in general, well, they are here for our entertainment, nothing more. They spin everything & blow most news way out of proportion. I've decided to go with the "I'm happier just not knowing" stance & taking all my media with a big spoon full of sugar. What does knowing the news really do for me? Nothing. And, who cares if someone (GASP!) touched the queen? I think the whole issue is between the queen & Mrs. Obama. It's really none of anyone else's business...

Spun news, er I meant entertainment, and you still get a good chunk of the population believing every damned word they say. If it's on TV it has to be true!

Even if the Royals have been stripped of any power and influence, there still is some perverse cult following and romanticism going on about them. I don't make it my business to get bothered by these things anymore because they are utterly pointless.