OT- The Queen's Christmas Day Message to the Commonwealth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Romanis

I do realise many or some think it's stupid to have an unelected head of state.

---

It was long said that the Royals bring more in via tourists than they cost. There are many who believe that that story has been debunked.

From a practical viewpoint, many see it as being immoral that we spend millions on the upkeep of the Royal Households when the Family has so much wealth of its own, especially when there are so many homeless people and there are, literally, millions forced to use food banks.

Many of the homeless were members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. We have looked after them well, haven't we?........... not!!

Get to work on forming that Party MA!

Rom, the whole Royal thing is, as I said originally, just an anachronism. If it’s such a ‘good thing’ as you suggest, when was the last time the Queen/Royal Family actually made a real difference to anything at all in this country?

Curious how the two major sources of support for the Royals on this thread come from those who live abroad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadAmster

I may be wrong, it does happen, but I seem to remember that the Monarch in the UK is merely a figurehead. The Monarch has no say in who forms the government. Protocol/procedure demands that she invites the head of the largest party to try to form a government. If they fail, the leader of the 2nd party tries. At some point the Monarch will call for a new election if a government can't be formed. Politicians inform her that a govt can't be formed and, again, protocol/procedure tell the Monarch what to do. the Monarch has no power.

Governor Generals abroad? I also thought that they too were political appointments, decided upon by the PM and then "announced" by the Monarch. Again, I might be wrong.

---

Oh haha, the time has arrived for another 'looooooong' reply from me. So here goes, I'll break it parts.

1) Monarch has no say in formation of Govt? Wrong, she has a crucial role to play. She even had a say as to who she wanted as PM inside her first decade as Queen. In 1963, Macmillan resigned. The Conservative up to then had no process to choose a leader whilst they in Govt. It fell to the Queen to take soundings, Macmillan advised her to send for Lord Home, even though he was a Peer, not an MP rather than the perceived favourite Rab Butler. The same thing in 1957, when Eden resigned. The Queen consulted Churchill amongst others who recommended Macmillan over Butler.

In both cases, she directed her PPS to take soundings from the Cabinet for their preference. In 1963, she decided on Home based on that and her association with him as a Peer. So yes she has or had a say.

2) Technically or even in reality since the Govt is formed in her name, she has the right to choose her PM - simply the member she thinks will command confidence in the House. Where or when a party wins a clear majority, the choice is clear, the Outgoing PM presents his resignation or returns the commission (I think) and she asks him for advice for the last time. He then advises her to send for the Leader of the Opposition. Can she reject such advise, technically yes, nut respecting the vote and party's selection of leaddr, she sends for him or her.
When Parliament is hung, this is where she actually has make a decision. In 1974, Heath's governing Tories failed to gain a majority, despite winning the most seats. She had the right to decide whom to call or reject Heath's advice. To avoid getting embroiled in a political matter, again she send her PPS to liaise with the 3 parties, to decide amongst themselves, the way forward. When the Liberals refused to join Heath in a coalition, he then resigned and she called for Harold Wilson again.

3) It's not she has no say, it's that she prefers not to have a direct say in a political matter capable of being resolved politically. If she intervened it would become a constitutional matter. Thus she keeps this power - to call for a PM or even to remove one who refuses to resign, in reserve. It's power she possess if at any time, the situation becomes so dire, that she has to use her reserve power unilaterally.

4) If I'm not wrong, in 1974, Heath having failed to win a majority but with the most seats, proposed to form a minority Govt alone. The Queen was not keen on this, and urged him to speak with other parties to obtain a majority. I'm not sure now if he proposed calling for fresh elections after failing to do so, if he did then she rejected his advice and called Wilson to form her Govt. Of course, she did not routinely call the leaders for updates or to offer suggestions, her PPS dealt with them and also notified them of HM's position.

5) As for GG's, yes she appoints them solely on the recommendation her PM of that country. And if that or any PM advises her remove the GG's commission, she will act as such, except for some other compelling interest. In fact the reverse has happened in Australia in 1975. The GG, Sir John Kerr acting on his own dismissed the Whitlam Govt which had a majority in the Lower House. He did so by disguising his true intentions from Whitlam and took Whitlam by complete surprise, when he came to advise the GG to call for a half-Senate election to break the Budget deadlock. Instead he received a dismissal letter from Kerr after refusing to advise for a double dissolution and call for elections.

Now would Whitlam have moved to remove Kerr if he knew what lay in store? Probably yes, because a few weeks earlier, he advised the Queen to remove the Queensland Governor as the 'Reserve Administrator' (back up post in case the GG is incapable or dies). This after the Governor made some disparaging remarks about the Whitlam Govt, as such abandoning his neutrality as Governor. Acting on such advise, she remove the Governor as the next in line.

6) A situation arose again this century, when the then GG of Australia, Peter Hollingsworth, I believe, got embroiled in a cover of *****phile priests when he was a Bishop. He did not consider resigning at that point, and as such it would fall to John Howard to advise the Queen accordingly, something he proposed to do, if Hollingsworth refused to step down. In the end, he did and the Queen was not called upon to exercise her prerogative.

So yes, her role is crucial, as a final referee to adjudicate in matters where politicians and elected representatives are unable to reach agreement. As far as possible she rightly acts on ministerial advise and has a right to consult with her PM's. To be informed, to advise and to warn s the case maybe. And given her position, she has many contacts with other world leaders and royals. This allows the Govt to draw on her knowledge or experience. A royal visit or state reception/dinner for a visiting Head of State, can go a long way, in cultivating friendship and other stuff like trade, culture or other forms of diplomacy.

Now imagine, if we had a President, elected or appointed every 5 years. It can only come from the Govt of the day. The Govt has to nominate and propose to the House. Or even if there are elections, inevitably, a politician or someone with close political contact with either of the big 2 parties. How unbiased can this person be, or even if he actually is, any decision he undertakes which is not palatable to the other party, becomes a topic for debate and accusations.

Can he command the respect that the Queen enjoys abroad? Can he maintain the neutrality? Can he possess the 'wow factor' The Queens brings to bear together with other members of the Royal family? Simply put, why change something that has worked so well and contuse to do so? Maybe a time will come when we have a bad Monarch, and his/her heirs are just as bad like the former Nepalese King and Crown Prince? Then we can seriously consider republicanism.

Until then God Save the Queen!


NB: I spotted a cheeky attempt to entrap the Monarch with that oft repeated homeless claim! Whose job is it to care for the homeless, the sick, the poor etc? Is it HM's? Or the duly elected Govt of the Day's?
Why should she sell her palaces or houses and give it all to the poor, down to the last penny?
All her property belongs to her, inherited from Monarchs from eons ago and passed on. Say we remove the Monarchy, is she compelled to sell and donate these properties? Would you sell your properties or whatever worldly goods and give it all to the poor and homeless?
If we remove the Monarchy, all the things she owns goes to her not the State. Why must she be the one doing this? Why not other rich billionaires? Why not you even? Not so simple right? She doesn't have to go on a guilty trip because she's rich or born into privilege. Everyone in a similar position would do the same. And not to say, she doesn't donate, doesn't care, doesn't help, doesn't highlight or promote.


And what about the monies the Royals get? Yes they do, but it's not exorbitant like those in some corrupt countries where royalty and presidents loot the state coffers. The bulk of the Royal Family's expenditure comes not from the state but through their own coffers and businesses. I think the Queen gets around 13 million quid, her expenditure is far more. And it's not like they are sitting on their fat arses doing nothing and spending taxpayer's monies like water. In trade, foreign relations, humanitarian work, charity, helping the sick and promoting causes, all of these not only helps the UK but it brings joys to those who need love.

I hope you enjoy my 'essay! Every word of it - hahaha.

So we can ‘consider republicanism’ when we have a ‘bad monarch’, then Rom?
You’d better hope Lizzie hangs around then...’cos her children don’t amount to much...the next in line seemed, as I recall, to want to be his lover’s sanitary aid and at least one of the others seems deeply suspect:O.

I have often thought that Liz might be our last monarch given the horses arses that she has given birth to.

On balance I think that would be a shame since I think there is a symbiotic relationship there - not just parasitic.

Despite Romanis' long diatribe I dont perceive a political role for a monarch, other than symbollic.

PS i would sooner subsidise the royal family than subsidise the EU.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exilecanada

I can’t agree more, I watched Her Majesties address today, as I always do. The ‘Royals’ are an institution to cherish. They, and what they stand for, bring in so many tourists to the UK, the benefit is incalculable.

Long live the Queen and her heirs.

---

Jeez, it seems a long time before we become a mature democracy when we are happy to kiss ass to a bunch of foreigners who it seems hold a place in the strata of our society by accident of birth!

The French had the right idea, an unelected head of State (even with limited powers) merely enforces the influence of the establishment and kind of accepts that the wealth and land they now "own" is legitimate which was in fact appropriated by the current royal family's ancestors and handed out to those who kissed ass and kept the peasants quiet.

A few contradictions - Head of the Church, where does it say anywhere in that book of fiction aka The Bible that the Head of the Church should live in luxury and amazing wealth (seems the opposite of Jesus's teachings to me ho hum).


The very same people who seem to be in favour of Brexit and against the EU seems very happy to buy into the concept of an unaccountable unelected european Royal family bizarre!

Funny how ex pats are those most fervently in favour of keeping the Royals - guys if you were so ****ing fond of the Uk why dont you live here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

So we can ‘consider republicanism’ when we have a ‘bad monarch’, then Rom?
You’d better hope Lizzie hangs around then...’cos her children don’t amount to much...the next in line seemed, as I recall, to want to be his lover’s sanitary aid and at least one of the others seems deeply suspect:O.

---

The personalities are irrelevant its the role thats a historical anachronism, by all means keep them as a tourist attraction in some Buckingham Palace theme park, though their role in bringing in the tourist dollar is overstated, not sure that France misses having a Royal family - but as continuing reminder that your just peasants and they are somehow on a higher plane, what right thinking person with any self respect could accept that?

If the palaces belong to Lizzie why do the taxpayers have to pay for having them spruced up?

I did not intend, and didn't give IMO, any notion of Lizzie having to sell palaces to feed the poor. My point was and is why do we use taxpayers money to spruce up Lizzie's palaces when we have homeless and underfed people? Let her pay for the upkeep of buildings she only owns because a) someone kissed ass hundreds of years ago b) some floozy had *** with the then Monarch and gave birth to an illegitimate child who became a prince c) somebody murdered the Monarch of the day and took over the crown or some other act that was neither virtuous nor worthy of getting all that power and land and more...... certainly not in perpetuity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaledale

The personalities are irrelevant its the role thats a historical anachronism, by all means keep them as a tourist attraction in some Buckingham Palace theme park, though their role in bringing in the tourist dollar is overstated, not sure that France misses having a Royal family - but as continuing reminder that your just peasants and they are somehow on a higher plane, what right thinking person with any self respect could accept that?

---

7 million who tuned in yesterday for a kick off. Why not have a referendum? There’s be no 52/48....and I say that whilst agreeing with those who think they should manage on a much smaller ‘salary’