It certainly isn’t absolute power. The Prime Minister can only govern so long as he has the support of Parliament. A simple majority in the Commons vote for a motion of non-confidence and the PM is out on his ass.
Sorry; I was unclear. I didn’t mean that she was a sage source of advice after Diana’s death. I meant that, even during two of the most difficult times of her reign, the Thatcher years and right after Diana’s death, those who were working most closely with the Queen didn’t think she was a dolt or useless.
This is an excellent recent book with a whole chapter on the Queen’s relationship over the years with the various leaders of her Government, and her effective but quiet role as a behind-the-scenes counselor: http://www.amazon.com/Year-Queen-Robert-Hardman/dp/1416563482/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291686927&sr=1-5
Friend** villa** doesn’t seem to understand that “privately educated” does not mean “uneducated.” Princess Elizabeth was the heir to the throne of the highest profile monarchy in the world, the crown of what was then the world’s greatest power. Such a child could have the best tutors in the word. Not the same thing as some poor person trying to home-school their own children & making a hash job of it.
Not how things work. I’m trying to imagine someone doing that, & getting an image of Sihanouk after the CIA deposed him.
The US is an elective monarchy according to David Starkey.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzSQsQwHoxA#t=3m20s
A bit long but well worth a watch
Speaking as a republican, the current constitutional settlement works quite well. British democracy works better than most - certainly nothing I’ve read on the SDMB would encourage me to aspire to the American version in preference. I think most republicans are content to keep the monarchy for so long as it continues to work - that feels preferable to some reckless experimental change.
Many of the criticisms of constitutional monarchies in this thread seem exaggerated. American over-literalism against British pragmatism. The queen and prime minister do not wield unfettered power over the cowering masses. Our legislature seems much more bound by the will of the people than say Italy’s.
The British monarchy has two compelling advantages for the time being:
- the royal veto (and immediate dismissal of parliament and new elections) is a valuable check on tyrannous behaviour by elected leaders. Really, it is. A veto would be a consequence of a constitutional crisis, not the cause, and
- it gives us room for manoeuvre. If the system starts to creak, we can move to a republic with a clean sheet. Contrast America, where if it goes wrong you have to make it work within the confines of the existing settlement.
Indeed. I’ve often thought that there’s a difference in how the British and Americans view democracy. To me, democracy is a means to an end. I want a stable, well governed society. I don’t particularly care how that comes about. At the moment, what we have seems to work. Who really cares if we have a hereditary monarch? The impact on my day to day life is effectively zero. It affects me nought, other than continuing a system of government that’s worked well for the past few hundred years.
Contrast (perhaps my unfair view) that Americans see democracy as the end. If it isn’t democratic, it isn’t worth having. The immediate consequence of this is, from a British perspective, bizarre practices like electing dog catchers, and other minor roles, and the often American incomprehension that the British seem relatively happy having an unelected monarch as head of state.
She had a governess. No further education at all. A level of education that would lead to her resume being discarded for an entry level position at a think tank, for example.
I think you are misunderstanding me. A no-confidence vote doesn’t result in the PM being out on his ass unless the Queen determines it does. The root of the power is the monarchy, and it is unbridled in theory. That it isn’t in practice is of course relevant, but doesn’t alter the basic fact that everything we consider to be a “right” can be suspended at the whim of the government via the monarchy’s sovereignty.
Republicanism isn’t a huge thing for me, especially because I don’t live in the UK any more. But I think a hereditary monarchy is, on balance, a bad thing not just for the counter-democratic aspect (which as Capt Ridley’s Shooting Party correctly says can be looked at in different ways) but also because I believe it has negative practical aspects, such as its reinforcement of the class structure.
I’ll not agitate for a republic, but nor will I tug the forelock to these people.
So? That doesn’t mean that she’s uneducated or not intelligent. For example, Sophie Germain had no formal schooling either - until she surreptitiously studied with the Ecole Polytechnique - and Nobel prize winner Grazia Deledda was educated by a private tutor.
Not that Elizabeth II is necessarily in their league, either intellectually or historically, but George Washington and Abraham Lincoln did pretty well for themselves with very little formal schooling.
Indeed - I’d probably describe Lincoln as self-educated. And it is possible to be not uneducated when one has a governess, but I’d argue the burden shifts onto that person to demonstrate their education despite having a lack of formal schooling.
But as I have said, it could be that Lizzie is the smartest, brightest, bestest advisor that any royal has ever been. It doesn’t, and won’t alter my opposition to the institution, and doesn’t and won’t make me view the lot of them with anything less than complete contempt.
Given her role, her life has been the best education possible for that role. Granted, this is amazingly circular, but hey, we breed Heads of State.
I’ll give you that. Lizzie Windsor is the person best trained to be Queen.
In theory, your rights can be suspended at the whim of the government in the US, too. The theoretical and entirely impractical procedure differs to an extent, but it’s still there.
In practice, no monarch will ignore a non-confidence vote, so the PM is answerable to Parliament. In practice, no monarch will defy Parliament, as the last one who tried ended up without a head. Parliament is sovereign. Not the monarch, and not the PM. And Parliament is just as answerable to the voters as the US Congress.
According to wiki:
Note it says supervision. It doesn’t say they didn’t have a tutor, just that the Queen Mum and Crawford supervised their education.
And as Heiress Presumptive:
:rolleyes:
(Next time, do a little more research)
Please forgive me for failing to include the 1st Buckingham Palace Girl Guides, where I am sure Lizzie socialized with people from all backgrounds and classes.
She was also in the Auxiliary Territorial Service during WWII.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
More so in fact. It’s easy for me sitting here in the middle of the USA to say I’d rather have the ridiculous Windsors than the ridiculous US Senate, but I probably would. The Yank commitment to the present rusty old constitution, with its fixed & rather long terms, actually serves as a greater drag on democracy–and millstone around the country’s neck–than the UK’s pet royal family.
Look into the informed opinions of various heads of state of Commonwealth nations on this issue, and get back to us.
The monarchy has no effect on whether or not the elected members of Parliament decide to create a bill of rights, or whether or not the upper chamber is elected. In Canada, we have a very powerful Charter of Rights and Freedoms, despite our having the same monarch. You can no more say that the reason for England not having a bill of rights can largely be traced back to the existence of a monarchy than we in Canada could say that the reason for Canada having a Charter of Rights and Freedoms can largely be traced back to the existence of that same monarchy.
As far as an elected upper chamber goes, it has been up for discussion in Canada, but never once have I come across any hint of involvement by the monarchy, or any practical or constitutional issues involving the monarchy that would impinge on our ability to have an elected upper house. Quite simply, at this time the members of our upper house are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, so whether that advice first requires an election or not is constitutionally immaterial vis a vis the monarch, and is entirely in the hands of Parliament to decide (noting that the monarch accepts what the rest of Parliament decides). Beyond that, there is nothing to stop us from going beyond that and simply removing the upper house, for the monarch acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, not the other way around.