1707 is as old as Great Britain is, and it’s only 20 years after the Glorious Revolution which said that the monarch doesn’t have absolute power. It’s not that it’s rarely used, it’s never used, and it never can be used without destroying the monarchy.
The only reason the monarchy is still around is because it makes the British feel good. It lets them pretend there’s some sort of objective sovereign around from whom all blessings flow.
That’s a bit patronizing, don’t you think? The Brits participating in this thread haven’t said anything that could be interpreted that way.
And what about the Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis and so on? She’s their queen too.
I don’t think you thought this one out very well before hitting the “submit” button.
Yes, and I’ve read somewhere the other day that the husband, a commoner, is undergoing a 18 month intensive training about how to be the husband of the queen regnant (customs, protocol, political sciences and so on…)
Why on earth would people want to marry a future king/queen (or even any close relative)? That’s beyond me.
OK, I haven’t read the whole thread but its an interesting discussion from both points of view.
On the surface a constitutional monarchy looks archaic and pointless.
On a deeper level, a non-political unelected head of state provides the legal nexus which all power derives from. Plus monarchies are popular with their people. If it aint broke, don’t fix it.
In the US your president holds executive powers. Where did those come from? The British monarchy.
I have marvelled for some years at the efforts of American media to deify actors and celebrities. It looks as though the nation wants royalty so it creates it. Look at Paris Hilton. Famous for being rich. Good luck to her - but its kinda shallow to celebrate that.
As for the wealth of the British royalty - this is commonly misunderstood. The estates held by royalty are fee tail which means for their lifetime, after which they pass by succession. So the Queen and Prince Charles do not hold their property personally and are not free to sell it off and go to Acapulco. 
I realize this isn’t entirely germane to your question, given that it’s not the British monarch, but King Juan Carlos of Spain thwarted a military coup that was carried out in his name (though without his knowledge or consent) in 1981 by refusing to accept the power that was offered to him and essentially telling the Spanish military “Don’t do this.”
Maybe then you would like to cite the major international charities comparable to those of Phil The Greek and Ol’ Big Ears set up by the winners of any Reality TV Show or Premier League manager?
No. It removes Head of State from the political sphere and that’s just how we like it.
Any other solution such as making the PM HoS or electing a President would require a monumental constitutional reform effort.
We don’t want our grubby damn politicians being our Face on The World.
Look what a laughing stock Bush made of the USA.
We’re pretty happy with our non-political, tourist dollar earning, charitable set of harmless duffers.
…and Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, and Morocco, and Bhutan, and…
Okay okay, not what he meant, but a bit of pedantry never hurt anyone.
Heck, we got rid of Edward VIII just because he wanted to marry an American!
In Britain, probably in 1911 when the King (George V, I think) threatened to flood the House of Lords with new Liberal peers, if the Lords blocked passage of the Parliament Act (an act to severely limit the powers of the Lords vis a vis the Commons). In effect, the King supported the elected Commons (which had a Liberal majority, although the Lords was dominated by Conservatives) against the unelected Lords, and thereby helped to make the British system significantly more democratic than it had previously been.
Only because the Head of State doesn’t do anything. Forget replacing the Queen with a President. Replace the Queen with a picture of the Queen. You could show the picture at official state events and at meetings with foreign leaders, and it would be a lot cheaper.
No it wouldn’t; we’ve already established she’s a net economic gain. So it would be a lot more expensive.
No you haven’t. The monarchy props up the entire British class structure, which through its deference to talentless assclowns has damaged the British economy.
It’s simply not possible to measure the costs/economic benefits of the monarchy. We just don’t know how many people would tour Buck House if it was a museum, or stay at Windsor Castle if it was a hotel, or pay $49.95 to see the family guillotined on PPV.
In case this isn’t a joke: no, not really. Mrs Simpson being an American would not have been a problem: the problem was that she had been married twice, and divorced once. So Edward wanted to marry a woman already divorced, but still married to her second husband. If she had still been Miss Bessie Warfield, with no significant scandals in her life, the government might not have liked the King marrying a commoner, but would not have had a serious reason to oppose the marriage.
Does anyone know where to go to see entertainment celebrities, and their homes etc in the UK. Do they actually have world class celebrities in the UK ?
Except for the royalty anyway.
Any time Britain produces a world class celebrity the celebrity moves to the States and pay their taxes there.
The queen can never move to the States. The Brits have locked in their very own celebrity.
But she could move to Canada and share Rideau Hall with David Johnston. Perhaps she doesn’t because the weather isn’t as pleasant as in London.
This is probably the most retarded question anyone has ever asked on these boards.
I want you to be wrong on this, but I don’t think you are.
For The Flying Dutchman’s benefit, we also have electricity and running water.
No, you see, he’ll (or somebody else) will claim it’s a “whoosh” and therefore oh-so-clever, not stupid. :rolleyes: Most so-called whooshes are just dudes backtracking on foot-in-mouth postings.
It strikes me that countries without or with a different notion of class structure to us Brits have pretty damaged economies at the moment. Deference to talentless assclowns has been apparently pretty common even without a monarchy propping up the system.