# Parliament vs the Queen **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2015, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360 "2015-12-13T21:00:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2016, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/101 "2016-04-21T16:49:15Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Bumped. HM turns 90 today. > > [The Queen's 90th birthday marks release of 3 poignant portraits | Daily Mail Online](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3550750/Three-poignant-portraits-released-mark-Queen-s-90th-birthday.html) > [In pictures: Queen Elizabeth II at 90 in 90 images - BBC News](http://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-36013958) I don’t know why but it seems odd to me that she’s being photographed instead of painted. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2016, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/102 "2016-04-21T17:36:34Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > I don’t know why but it seems odd to me that she’s being photographed instead of painted. Perhaps she’s much more certain to live long enough for the photograph to be completed. Just kidding, she certainly looks like a spry 90, I’m betting in 10 years we’ll be saying how sharp she is at 100. It sure is going to be hard to get used to saying King Charles (assuming he takes that name) when she goes. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2016, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/103 "2016-04-21T17:46:20Z")
Oh, she’s been painted many times. But how about automotively sculpted? [Car parts sculpture honours Queen Elizabeth's automotive links | Stuff.co.nz](http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/79075198/car-parts-sculpture-honours-queen-elizabeths-automotive-links) ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/104 "2016-04-23T00:37:51Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Perhaps she’s much more certain to live long enough for the photograph to be completed. > > Just kidding, she certainly looks like a spry 90, I’m betting in 10 years we’ll be saying how sharp she is at 100. It sure is going to be hard to get used to saying King Charles (assuming he takes that name) when she goes. What odds are the professional bookies giving that she’ll outlive Charles? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2016, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/105 "2016-04-23T05:09:03Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > I don’t know why but it seems odd to me that she’s being photographed instead of painted. It would be hard to do a painting with all of the young children, though. It was probably a heroic effort just to get them in the photograph. > [@Senegoid](#): > > What odds are the professional bookies giving that she’ll outlive Charles? If there are any odds on that, they’re probably quite low since Charles has never been known to be in poor health either. ---
**Author:** ![SeniorCitizen007](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8baadc/32.png) [@SeniorCitizen007](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeniorCitizen007)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2016, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/106 "2016-04-25T10:17:56Z")
What use is our monarchy? Well … on three occasions, after getting no joy from my MP or from Number 10, I wrote to the Queen. It’s amazing how “powerful people” react when they get a letter from Her Majesty informing them that one of her subjects is disatisfied with their performance. The reciprients of each of my letters were faced with the fact that Her Majesty had instructed her staff to forward my letters. One response was a 5 page letter from the Foreign Office. Another was an abject apology from the TV licensing people … who promised to stop sending me menacing letters cos I didn’t have a TV. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2016, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/107 "2016-04-25T10:37:17Z")
Didn’t the UK did away (for the most part) with the term _subject_ instead of _citizen_? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2016, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/108 "2016-04-25T12:42:40Z")
> [@SeniorCitizen007](#): > > What use is our monarchy? Well … on three occasions, after getting no joy from my MP or from Number 10, I wrote to the Queen. It’s amazing how “powerful people” react when they get a letter from Her Majesty Just to go off on a tangent, I’ve long thought a monarch might be of use hereabouts. Consider the president’s schedule: he’s hosting a banquet for a visiting head of state at the White House, or he’s addressing everyone at the National Prayer Breakfast; or he’s pinning medals on soldiers, or he’s laying _this_ wreath at _that_ monument; or he’s otherwise doing ceremonial stuff at parades or funerals or sporting events or an Easter egg roll or whatever. American astronauts are returning from space? American scientists won the Nobel Prize? Time for a photo op with the president. A general is retiring? An entertainer is being given an award? Time for the president to give a speech. If giving someone _else_ that role could give the guy more time to focus on the actual job of presidentin’, then I’m having a hard time seeing the downside. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2016, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/109 "2016-04-25T12:54:17Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Didn’t the UK did away (for the most part) with the term _subject_ instead of _citizen_? Pretty much yes, the British Nationality Act 1948 made UKers both citizens _and_ subjects (although there’s no real difference from what I can see) and the British Nationality Act 1981 made everyone citizens only. I think there’s some residual cases where Subject status remains, but by default everyone’s a citizen. Although for the purposes of courts of law, we remain subjects (again, no real practical difference anyway) ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/110 "2016-04-25T16:02:11Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Just to go off on a tangent, I’ve long thought a monarch might be of use hereabouts. Consider the president’s schedule: he’s hosting a banquet for a visiting head of state at the White House, or he’s addressing everyone at the National Prayer Breakfast; or he’s pinning medals on soldiers, or he’s laying _this_ wreath at _that_ monument; or he’s otherwise doing ceremonial stuff at parades or funerals or sporting events or an Easter egg roll or whatever. American astronauts are returning from space? American scientists won the Nobel Prize? Time for a photo op with the president. A general is retiring? An entertainer is being given an award? Time for the president to give a speech. > > If giving someone _else_ that role could give the guy more time to focus on the actual job of presidentin’, then I’m having a hard time seeing the downside. If that worked then couldn’t you just have the vice-president do it? The fact is the president does those things because he’s a politician and tries to curry favor by doing so. Besides the stuff you mentioned and deciding if we should launch military strikes on things what else does the president personally do. That’s what his cabinet is for. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2016, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/111 "2016-04-25T17:01:45Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > If that worked then couldn’t you just have the vice-president do it? My point is, if we tried that, people would say _Why Isn’t The President There_, or some such. (I’m not guessing; people _have_ said that, on occasions when we’ve sent the VP.) After all, I know I’d rather be congratulated by the president. And yet, near as I can tell, Brits don’t react that way to the Queen; if anything, they’d say _what, I only rate a meeting with the Prime Minister? Why, it’d be the supreme honor of my life to be knighted by Her Majesty! ‘Prime Minister’ indeed. Do people travel across oceans to see the Prime Minister’s palace? They do not. Does the Prime Minister’s face appear on my money? It does not. For Queen And Country, I say!_ It’d be danged hard for us to announce a brand-new position and have it get that kind of headspace. It _already_ seems danged hard to convince folks that the VP is a passable second-choice stand-in when the President can’t make it. But the Brits seem to already have a first-choice luminary – which I figure usefully frees up the Prime Minister from lots of ceremonial stuff, where _he’d_ be the second-choice stand-in. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2016, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/112 "2016-04-26T01:04:41Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > I don’t know why but it seems odd to me that she’s being photographed instead of painted. Quite possibly she’s being painted as well; she gets painted a lot. But obviously we won’t see the results of that for many months. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2016, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/113 "2016-04-26T01:18:50Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Didn’t the UK did away (for the most part) with the term _subject_ instead of _citizen_? Not quite. > [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > Pretty much yes, the British Nationality Act 1948 made UKers both citizens _and_ subjects (although there’s no real difference from what I can see) and the British Nationality Act 1981 made everyone citizens only. I think there’s some residual cases where Subject status remains, but by default everyone’s a citizen. > > Although for the purposes of courts of law, we remain subjects (again, no real practical difference anyway) Again, not quite. Up to 1948, there was simply a unified status of “British subject” which applied throughout (what was then) the Empire. Whether you were born in Manchester or Madras, you were a British subject. The only exception was the Irish Free State, which had a concept of citizenship. But as far as the UK (and most of the rest of the world) was concerned, that was a purely domestic matter for the Irish Free State; IFS citizens were also British subjects and, everywhere else in the world, that was what mattered. From 1948 onwards they started to change the system. Each Commonwealth country instituted its own citizenship so that everyone would be, e.g., a British subject _and_ a Canadian citizen, or a British subject _and_ an Australian citizen, or a British subject _and_ a citizen of the UK and colonies. As each colony achieved independence it, too, established its own citizenship. During this period the term “British subject” was interchangeable with the term “Commonwealth citizen”. There was a residual category of “British subjects without citizenship” - people who had British subject status and whose primary connection was with a now-independent Commonwealth country, but whose connection with that country wasn’t close enough to give them citizenship of it under its laws. In 1981 they changed the system again. “British subject” ceased to be an overarching category embracing everyone who had citizenship in any Commonwealth country. Instead, it now refers only to what used to be called British subjects without citizenship; people who have grandfathered-in British subject status, but who don’t hold citizenship in any Commonwealth country. The result is that citizens of the UK are _not_ “British subjects”. Most of the remaining British subjects are Irish citizens. Since British subject status is not inheritable, and it’s no longer possible to acquire British subject status, this is a closed and declining group which will have disappeared entirely in another few decades. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2016, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/114 "2016-04-26T01:19:55Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Just to go off on a tangent, I’ve long thought a monarch might be of use hereabouts. Consider the president’s schedule: he’s hosting a banquet for a visiting head of state at the White House . . . > > If giving someone _else_ that role could give the guy more time to focus on the actual job of presidentin’, then I’m having a hard time seeing the downside. You don’t need a monarch for that; you just need to separate the roles of head of state and head of government. Many republics do this. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2016, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/115 "2016-04-26T01:50:30Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > You don’t need a monarch for that; you just need to separate the roles of head of state and head of government. Many republics do this. Well, yes, I know. But, in hopes of having a thin reed of relevance to the thread in general and the post I was replying to in particular, I figured I’d stick with the terms I’d copy-and-pasted: the question asked was “What use is our monarchy?” – and the answer that poster then supplied involved discussing “the Queen” and “Her Majesty”. Figured I’d respond in kind, is all. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2016, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360/116 "2016-04-26T03:57:12Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > What odds are the professional bookies giving that she’ll outlive Charles? Charles is 68 next birthday. Average life expectancy for a man in the UK who is 70 next birthday is is a bit over 14 years. I don’t have a figure for man aged 68 next birthday, but it’s going to be close to 16 years, so on the basis of the tables we would project Charles’s death at age 84. Given that, to survive Charles the Queen would have to live to 106. Which is not impossible, given that her mother lived to 101. But on the same life expectancy tables, a woman aged 90 is only good for another five years, i.e. to age 95. So the odds are that she will not outlive Charles. Of course, you could do this calculation more accurately by using more sophisticated life tables which take account of socioeconomic class, family history, etc. But these factors are going to be very similar for both Charles and the Queen, so the overall picture is not likely to change. The odds are that he will survive her. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-vs-the-queen/740360.md?page=5)