Not educated? You mean that she did not study constitutional history under the Provost of Eton? That the Archbishop of Canterbury did not instruct her in religion? That she did not learn French? That her King did not instruct her in statesmanship?
Check into the facts, and get back to us.
And if you take away the monarchy, then everything you consider a “right” can be suspended at the whim of the government.
What it comes down to is that the monarch is constitutionally obligated to act on the advice of the Prime Minister. Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are what the constitution system is based on, through statutes, judicial decisions, and conventions. As the constitutional scholar Bagehot put it: “The Queen reigns, but she does not rule.”
Fine. She is wonderfully educated. It really doesn’t matter to me (as I have said earlier). I still refuse to accept (a) she is uniquely qualified as an adviser; (b) that she deserves any degree of deference from me; and (c) that she should not have all traces of privilege stripped from her. The monarchy’s very existence serves to enshrine a class structure that should be purged from society.
And we are going in circles on the constitutional aspects. It is hardly an uncommon (though no universal) view amongst political theoreticians that the existence of a sovereign monarchy makes embedding a written constitution difficult, and that the powers that derive from that sovereign monarchy can be abused by the government. Of course, were that monarchy abolished and nothing else done, the powers devolving to the government would still be ripe for abuse. But no one is suggesting nothing else be done. I’m tired of repeating that, though.
There’s not public support for what I view as the “right” course. If people generally want to keep the monarchy, then I wouldn’t suggest they shouldn’t. But I can still feel they are wrong, and I will offer no fealty to such a ludicrous institution. Damn it, I will even smoke between grace and the loyal toast if I feel like it.
Villa - I’m nto sure I understand what you’re getting so worked up about. You can’t be required to swear fealty to the Queen or any such jazz if you don’t want to. Even if you were in a situation where you were going to meet her and told what protocol was you are perfectly free to disregard it if you want. What exactly are you protesting against if you accept that our constitutional set up works fine?
Ooh ooh, unless you want to become a British citizen – my husband will have to do this in two years when he is eligible.
Then your husband will be choosing to take the oath, it’s him who wants to be a citizen. If you’re born one I can’t think of any situation in which you have no choice but to make the oath unless it’s something you’ve chosen to do (like enter the army or something).
And anyway, so what if you do have to take an oath to her? It’s not like it really means anything, it’s to her as head of state. The only situation in which you could be accused of breaking your oath an it having consequences are in a case of someone being charged with treason, and I think there you’d have some more pressing things to worry about.
Yes, I agree with your main point, which is that there aren’t palace guards wandering up and down the streets commanding people to swear oaths of allegiance or anything. Except at the Lord Mayor’s Show, but everyone knows about that. 
Because I object to be considered anyone’s “subject.”
And I don’t accept that our constitutional set up works fine - I think the existance of the monarchy is a flaw to it that has negative consequences.
(b) and (c) I can respect. Not being a British citizen, I myself don’t have much of an opinion one way or another. But (a)? She isn’t “uniquely qualified to be an advisor?” She’s the fucking Queen of England. She had a front seat to European history from WWII on. How many other people have chit chatted with every PM since Churchill. Met every U.S. President since Roosevelt? Every Prime Minister of France since WWII? How many people living today took a primary PR role in getting their country through WWII? Frankly, if her advice is just “I’ve learned over the years that most Heads of State do not appreciate it when my corgis jump up on them, I’d recommend you make sure the pets are not in the room when the Prime Minister enters” she still has more experience on that front than anyone else on the planet (and could teach recent U.S. Presidents a thing about protocol). But I suspect she can tell you more than that about how things have shaken out over the past 60 years.
Now, I wouldn’t look to Lizzie for advice on how to stretch a buck (or a pound). I wouldn’t look for her to be in touch with the “average people.” And in terms of public policy, I have no idea if she deserves a voice or not. But if we expect to learn for History, Queen Elizabeth does have a unique and valuable perspective.
In a way, she’s like the late Senator Robert Byrd. Valuable if for nothing else but longevity, consistency, and ability to reflect on that. (Of course, both have other value).
Truman, I think.
A collection of other pics of HM with PsOTUS:
http://www.allpics4u.com/lifestyle/queen-regina-and-11-presidents.html
I agree with everything else you wrote.
Ah, so it’s just another version of “You’re not the boss of me!”. Got it.
To be fair, that’s the basic principle of liberal democracy.
God perish the thought that I don’t kowtow to someone and consider them my superior because of an accident of freaking birth. That people do saddens me, because it damages the country I love.
Pfft. Some human beings are wired to kowtow to someone. You really want that to be a politician or a captain of industry?
Well, now we can consider this exhibit.
I love that picture of Chuck & Cam.
Really, though, it’s not like he’s to blame for the LibTory austerity measures. He was just caught in a riot.
That picture is just begging to be macro-ed.
But you don’t HAVE to kowtow to anyone due to accident of birth. Again, you can’t be forced to take part in protocol. As for being a subject, what material difference does that make to you rather than being a citizen? (and within government we don’t refer to subjects anyway, so the term subject is in use anymore.)
I get your points on this, in many areas I agree with you, I’m just struggling to understand what you see as the practical, realistic problems with having a monarchy in our set up. You’ve talked about the possibility of power being abused and how things could happen, but that’s not how things do happen, so… what’s the problem?
I don’t know how many times I have already said this, but it is multiple. One of the damaging aspects of the grovelling servitude shown to the Windors is the way it props up the British class structure.