Do you think there’s any way to kick out the royals and keep the land and the jewels and the castles? After all, the public has been paying to maintain them all these years.
Naturally, I don’t think the Queen, much less the others, “deserves” to keep anything. But unless there is a revolution, I can see them carting away the treasury when they leave.
Better, would be to cut their allowance, and tax them instead of pay them. They would sue to be regular people as soon as the limos stopped coming around.
Or they could just be made into Lords. They would retain some of their money and some of their property but they wouldn’t be subsidised by the taxpayer anymore. Given the inevitable evaporation of their cash flow they would have to start supporting themselves and in a couple of generations their wealth would be much reduced. Also as Lords I think they would have more power than they do at the moment, there is the question as to who would knight them however…
True. Much of their wealth is based on personal property, just as you might own your house or car. Some of the castles, limos, and the rest are owned by them personally, and not by the state. The only way to expropriate such property would be a Bolshevik type revolution, in which
everyone else who owned anything would also be dispossessed.
I think the Crown Jewels actually are owned by the state. They’re on permanent public display in the Tower Of London (or so I thought), and the Royals have no more personal access to them than anyone else. It’s not like they can take them out and show them to their friends after dinner, as I do with my modest collection of amethysts, chrysoberyls, and topazes.
In any case, for the UK itself, I think most people still want some kind of monarchy to persist. But as for Oz, there’s no harm trying; we Americans dumped the monarchy
ages ago.
If there’s a saying I hate, that’s it. It’s like saying let’s not make what’s good better, and not make out better best.
The system sucks. It is wrong. People should be given positions of power because they are respected. Not because they are the first born. Those are hardly the credentials I would want for someone who is “running” my country. I want someone who DESERVES it. What did the Queen do to deserve it? SWEET FA.
People, tell me - how much power does the Royal Family actually have? To what extent do they have a say in national policy? Because as far as I can tell, they’re just ornamental, the British equivalent to American National Monuments.
How much money does the U.S. government spend every year on upkeep for the Statue of Liberty? How much money can be made by tearing it down and selling the bronze as scrap metal?
Assailant – your complaint seems to be, if I’m right, that Australia voted in a national Referendum to not become a Republic because the way the question was phrased on the ballot favoured the Monarchists. And this ballot phrasing was the fault of the Australian Prime Minister Australians elected for themselves because he is a Monarchist… What exactly do you want the UK to do, vote for Australia’s Prime Minister ?
I don’t know of a single Brit who doesn’t want for Australia whatever Australia decides. As with Scotland, if the people want independence, they can have it. Really, it is not even the slightest of issue’s here. If you want an analogy that isn’t intended to patronise: Australia is almost 18 years old – you leave home when you’re ready but don’t feel you have to go. Fact is: in the last Referendum, the majority of Aussie’s didn’t quite feel ready for full-on Republicism. They will soon and the very best of luck for when that happens.
Alessan - The ‘Royal Family’ doesn’t have a significant constitutional role to play. However, The Queen does in her capacity as Head of State. All legislation passed by Parliament must be approved and signed by her before it can become law. This is a formality these days (the last Constitutional crisis was, I believe, in 1916 on legislation concerning the formation of the Irish Free State) but nonetheless remains part of the checks and balances within the Executive branch of Government.
It is difficult to envisage circumstances where The Queen or King would decide it wasn’t in the interests of the people to pass legislation approved by Parliament (after all Parliament is elected by the people) but sometimes elected leaders get a little carried away. It might not reach the point where a Constitutional crisis arises because these things get ironed out beforehand and behind the scenes. Last time things got a little strained, IMHO, was during the Thatcher period when Thatcher took on the miners. It wasn’t pretty and it could be argued that what Thatcher did and her methods wasn’t what the people had in mind when they elected her.
Should the situation develop where the Monarch makes a stand against very radical, non-manifesto Parliamentary intentions, it would be for the people / media / unions / etc to affect the outcome by making their ‘voice’ heard.
Policy is the prerogative of the elected Parliament. Governments are elected on the basis of a manifesto and it is accepted that they have a mandate from the people to effect the broad intentions of that manifesto. It is not the Monarch / Head of State’s role in the UK to instigate policy but rather to effect the will of the people by signing the legislation passed by Parliament. Checks and balances, that’s the theory.
I rather like the idea of having a non-party political Head of State who’s outside the normal elected system of day-to-day Government.
About the only real power the our monarch has is the right to declare a state of emergency.To this end all the instruments of state serve the monarch who defers power to the elected parlaiment.
If a political impasse occurs which causes an effective halt to the governance of the country like a vote of no confidence then parliament is dissolved by the monarch and new elections held.
Back in 1972 IIRC there was a strike by the miners which caused serious power shortages, there were also many other groups of workers supporting them such as the railways.
This effectively paralysed the country but the government of the day was not prepared to give in to the demands of the strikers so there was the prospect of continuing disruption.
The Queen dissolved parliament and very nearly declared martial law just to get the roadblocks down etc.
There was an election and the ruling party was kicked out.
Striking miners brought down this government some years later however a state of emergency was not declared.
In my opinion this is the reason that Ms Thatcher destroyed the mining industry as she saw this one group of workers as a threat to democracy.
As a Labour supporter and heavily anti-Thatcher I’m afraid I have to agree with her on this point but the miners power was well on the wane by the time this was done, so now it looks like an act of spiteful revenge.
The Queen does not have the power to declare a state of emergency. As with most of the remaining royal prerogatives, that right is exercised only on the advice of ministers. It requires an Order-in-Council.
Any discussion of the royal prerogatives is now really a discussion on the powers of government ministers, in particular those of the Prime Minister. The ability to act in the Queen’s name has given successive British governments the right to use those powers once reserved to the monarch. The pattern of constitutional reform in Britain over the centuries has tended to take the form not of the powers of the executive being diminished but of those powers being entrusted to elected politicians. There is therefore an argument that some of those powers ought to be transferred to Parliament, but that would make no practical difference to the position of the Queen.
The only substantial political powers the Queen retains are those which can be exercised when the political process fails to provide her with a clear source of ministerial advice. This is what happens when there is a hung Parliament. Even then her discretion would usually be very limited.
One can of course come up with extreme scenarios which would result in a complete breakdown of the political process. However, one argument for a non-elected arbiter who can claim no democratic legitimacy whatsoever is that, in a crisis, he or she will seek out the populist option.
If I’m not mistaken, I thought the Queen HAD to approve every bill. I read in a book recently that if the monarch received a bill calling for his or her execution, said monarch had to sign it or abdicate!
By convention, the Monarch gives Royal Assent to every Act of Parliament but there is nothing, other than convention, to prevent her from witholding it. It’s quite easy to imagine circumstances in which it might happen, for example, the Tony Blair (Prime Minister for Life) Act.
This is one of the arguments often advanced by monarchists (of whom I am not one): if the Govt. tried something really outrageous, as has happened in some other European countries within living memory, Brenda could block it.
** Guinastasia** – The answer my friend is half-way down the thread (having a Dylan evening, excuse me). It’s GD, there is a err…thread of discussion.
** Bill.H.** – What are you agreeing with (apart from a banned poster): That the Australian people voted last year to not become a Republic or that the Australian people voted themselves a Prime Minister who is a Monarchist ? IMHO, there is absolutely no issue here at all for the British – Aussie’s can have a Republic any time they wish. Thanks for your interest, though.
Also:
FWIW and IMHO, it is inappropriate and unhelpful to look at the role of The Queen in some archaic, “ain’t she privilaged in them castles” kind of way. By all means criticise but please understand it has no merit unless you put it in some kind of real, 21st century world context. So for example:
If you want to discuss the cost of maintaining a Monarchy, you might find it easier to substitute the word ‘Queen’ for the phrase ‘Head of State’ and then start comparing costs: i.e. the White House, Camp David, Airforce One, etc with Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, etc
If you want to discuss the constitutional role of the ‘Head of State’ fine, but do it by considering the dynamics of the Executive branch of Government and the function of the Head of State within that context rather than think of it in some seemingly uninformed and not terribly sophisticated 10th grade ‘castles and tiara’s’ manner.
Well said, L_C. Since nobody has made a detailed defence of the Monarchy, I’ll throw in some points.
The present situation is stable and has been for hundreds of years. In the absence of a codified Constitution it is difficult to assess in advance the impact of any proposed constitutional change. A democratically-elected Head of State would no doubt be able legitimately to encroach to some extent on powers that have hitherto been exercised by Parliament or the Cabinet, just as the Lords are now flexing their muscles a lot more now that most of the hereditaries have gone. I don’t recall the exact figures, but I believe that the Parliament Act 1944 has been used more times since 1997 than it was in the first fifty-three years.
The Monarch provides a swift resolution to constitutional difficulties when they arise; we have never had the serious governmental instability that has dogged some other European countries [deliberate overstatement]and appears to be dogging the USA at the moment[/deliberate overstatement].
The Monarch can act as a check on abuse of power by the Government. This might be something as seemingly trivial as a Prime Minister seeking to hold a general election very early in a Parliament in order to capitalise on short-term poll leads.* Or it might be something as serious as an attempt to extend the life of the present Parliament to ten or fifteen years.
Conversely, she can tell a lame duck PM to go rather than clinging on against the national interest.
With a politically-neutral Head of State, we don’t have the cohabitation problems of the French nor do we have the problem of a Tory executive being hamstrung by a Labour legislature or vice-versa (we haven’t had a budget crisis of the US kind since 1910).
If we elected a Head of State now, Mrs Thatcher might get it.
Funny hats, funny costumes. Watch the State Opening of Parliament next week. Does any other country make its Head of State and her flunkies wear such idiotic outfits? I think not.
*Peter Hennessy hints, in The Hidden Wiring that Thatcher might have sought, and been refused, a dissolution in order to stave off the Meyer/Heselting leadership challenge.
I agree there is no issue for the British WRT republicanism in Australia and NZ but LC, to me you do seem to be implying in this post that Australians voted Johnny Howard into power solely on the issue of monarchism. That’s not so. He was voted in as PM, the republican referendum was later. The issue really with that referendum is that it was stacked. The option given if the monarchy was voted out was so unpalatable that it was not really an option. I wasn’t in Australia then (and in any case, I don’t get to vote for another year) but as a lifelong republican, I would have voted to retain the monarchy in that referendum.
I am hoping we will see a referendum here and in NZ where the options are dump the monarchy and a choice which is a fair choice. Then I think we will see a republic and about time too.
Hi Primaflora - Yes, I agree with you. My reply was directed at the exchange (below) in which (I thought) Dick Head might have been implying it was some kind of British conspiracy that led to the Republican’s losing the last Referendum:
In the context of his OP, it all seems to be the fault of the British because ‘we’ don’t want Australia to become a Republic: The fact of the PM’s Monarchist tendencies, the terms of the Referendum and hence the result. I would have left it had Bill.H not decided to stick an uninformed oar in supporting that baseless view.
BTW Tom, I find your point 6 more than a little disturbing. That woman is clearly one valium short of the funny farm (nothing changes) and I suspect even most Tories think she’s something of a loose cannon. It used to be the voice that scared me most, now it’s those mad, staring eyes.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the person who deregulated the food industry in the name of ideology fell victim to BSE. Oh, and sad, of course.
Hear, hear L_C, which is why this Aussie voted in favour of the referendum as proposed, and will vote against a directly elected Head of State, should it ever reach a plebecite.
I don’t know how much attention it got, but there was a televised debate on the Australian referendum held in the Old Parliament House. While it’s structure sidelined the Monarchists, it also showed a very pronounced shift in opinion of the delegates away from direct election to the parliamentary appointed model.
When asked what it would take for a person to get themselves elected as President of Australia one of the forum noted the obvious:
Money
An organisational structure to campaign
Extensive contacts with all forms of media and opinion leaders, government, public service etc.
A body of people to man polling booths, distribute electionact as scrutineers, in all electorates across a substantial land mass.
More Money
This would seem to me to be stating the bleeding obvious that a directly elected President of Australia could only be either a political scion or the nominee of Rupert Murdoch and/or Kerry Packer.
American here, but with an interest in British constitutional law.
My impression is that the Royal Veto is still in place, has not been used since something like 1712 – I’m certain Queen Anne was the last to use it, but not in what year.
The Queen must accept the “advice” (technical term, meaning “considered decision”) of her Government. That constitutes the Ministers she appoints on the advice of the Prime Minister, whom she also appoints – except that she has effectively Hobson’s choice in who to appoint, since the P.M. must command a majority in the House of Commons, and there will be only one person at any given time who does, if that.
She does have the discretion of calling for a “National Government” in times of crisis – but again this will be basically giving authority to the consensus of the public and the political leaders (taking their cue from the public).
A royalist commentator on her political role remarked (before the Lewinsky thing) that the royal veto was like the impeachment provision in the U.S. Constitution – something that may not be used in a full century or more, but an important safeguard against a runaway House of Commons (or President).
As for Australian monarchy, I don’t have a clue what Australians want. I’d question the 80% republican figure, simply on the basis that somebody with political clout would be pushing much harder for it than news that reaches us here would indicate if that kind of majority favored it. And there’s ample precedent, dating back to 1947 and 1960, for one of Her Majesty’s monarchies turning itself into a republic, either in or out of the Commonwealth, if that’s what they choose to do.
