Well, Ok I came on a bit strong 
- but the idea of the Queen willingly passing the fox hunting bill and the Human Rites stuff is surreal.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
the Human Rites stuff is surreal
[/QUOTE]
What’s wrong with sacrificing the odd virgin now and then?
[QUOTE=FRDE]
Ok, so you also studied comparative government - and it is not a linguistic SNAFU
- probably the problem is that I studied it in the UK and you in the USA
My take on the situation is that the American colonies were expensive and a bit of a nuisance. The Southern states were fine as we could trade with them, but the Northern states were not particularly interesting - put crudely they had little to sell. Canada was a different kettle of fish - for some obscure reason people liked beaver hats.
There was little difference between the British and the Americans.
As usual the French were being a nuisance, a French poster would say that the British were being a nuisance.
Sending over Hessian mercenaries was probably a spectacularly bad idea, and exposing anyone to guerilla tactics was not that smart. Britain was only interested in two things, the first was trade and the second was not getting shafted by France (while being thoroughly unpleasant to France).
The loss of America to the Americans was no big deal.
Loss to France would have been annoying.
Moving on to the British Constitution versus the USA Constitution, the similarities are interesting - the President mimics a monarch and the two Houses mimic our two houses. Recalling an essay I wrote about 30 years ago, ‘the main problem with a hereditory monarchy is that of an idiot in the family’
- the USA avoided that problem - well maybe
- the UK system mutated
I totally dispute your assertion that Elizabeth II has any influence over the government of the UK. There is no way in which she can review the volume of legislation that goes through - it is physically impossible. While she has her weekly chats with the Prime Minister, she can’t stick up a finger and say ‘go swivel’ - and the leaks on her real views are almost impossible to detect.
However, if I have any understanding of her views, over the last ten years many things that she has signed off have been against her understanding of what will work.
I hope that I have never lectured you, or anyone else, on how the USA works - and I would consider it a courtesy if you refrained from lecturing British Dopers on something that is complicated and currently a sensitive topic.
You would find it interesting to listen to a BBC series called ‘This Sceptred Isle’ which you could find on Ebay or Amazon - a British view of the past might interest you. Take that as a benign recommendation.
[/QUOTE]
I’m British too, and I must say that (on the evidence of your potted history) given a choice between a lecture from you on British constitutional matters and a lecture from Polycarp, I’ll take Polycarp any day of the week.
[QUOTE=SaintCad]
So what’s to stop Queen Elizabeth to use her veto power to control the Commons or appoint a PM to force an Act to give the Lords back their power?
[/QUOTE]
An earlier thread that may be of interest: Should the Queen veto a bill sometime, just to show she still can? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
I’m British too, and I must say that (on the evidence of your potted history) given a choice between a lecture from you on British constitutional matters and a lecture from Polycarp, I’ll take Polycarp any day of the week.
[/QUOTE]
Polycarp was talking nonsense - QEII has no veto powers - in fact her powers are infinitisimal.
To assert otherwise is arrant nonsense.
As it happens I studied under the guy who is currently considered the senior authority on British constitutional affairs - I was not a good student, I satisficed and was sarcastic - but enough stuck to make me flabbergasted by Polycarp’s assertions.
You’re still coming on a bit strong! What on earth is it that Polycarp has said that has upset you? He has only made three posts in this thread
As far as I can see he says the Queen has the right to advise and warn and a number of reserve powers - such as to refuse to dissolve Parliament - that she could only use in the most extreme circumstances. I don’t think there is anything controversial in either of these statements.
What is your point about the her “willingly passing the fox hunting bill and the Human Rites stuff”? From everything she has said and done over the last 60 odd years it is clear her touchstone is doing her duty and an absolute acceptance of the right of Parliament to make the laws of the land. Whatever her private views, to suggest she was not willing to assent to certain Acts is just wrong - having received Parliamentary approval she will willingly sign them into law. Incidently: what makes you thing she does not approve of the Human **Rights ** Act?