Not just ornamental, though being able to perform assorted ceremonials with a straight face is a major part of it.
A lot of it is being able (in both big state occasions and informal interactions for charitable and good cause organisations - the whole range of openings, commemorations, receptions and all sorts of local traditional events) to engage in polite small talk with just about anybody in such a way as to make the other party feel valued and recognised. That’s where the principle of never being too controversial comes in, and a major part of that is always being ever so slightly behind, rather than ahead, of the “centre of gravity” of public opinion or tastes.
But how that works out in practice is a constant process of change at tectonic speed, preferably without earthquakes.
The Queen’s jubilee speech in 1977 seems like a bigger intrusion into politics than anything I can think of Prince Charles saying:
Devolution was a government policy, and Parliament was, I believe, divided along party lines on the issue. And the monarchy didn’t end, even though James Callaghan’s private secretary later reported that “the prime minister came back from that not best pleased, and actually asked me had we seen this speech in advance, so I looked it up and the answer was yes, you had. Perhaps if we had been rather sharper-witted in Number 10 we would have spotted it.”
I think it his old age, he’s the perfect man for the job. He wasn’t twenty years ago. But he and Camilla have been wonderful at rope droppings and tree plantings and charity events. He’s softened, he has become much more likable. He’s seen as less of a villain in the Diana story, and more of a co-victim of a system that didn’t let him marry where he wanted and stuck him with someone ill matched (and stuck her with him). And, he is old enough that he can put a lot of the royal duties on his popular sons.
I’d be very surprised indeed, because he cannot do that. It’s been said before but must again; the monarch doesn’t set the rules for being the monarch. Parliament does. William can end HIS reign if, and when it happens, by abdicating, but that simply makes his son George VII. I don’t think he can take THAT away, but if he can, his brother is Henry IX. (If Prince Harry doesn’t want the job he can pull a King of Spain switch with my brother in law, who honest to God could pass for him any day of the week.)
[QUOTE=Quartz]
You pretty much have it there. During his life he’s demonstrated that he’s not the right person for the job.
[/QUOTE]
Why, because he was mean to Diana? Charles couldn’t possibly be as good a monarch as his mother, but that’s like complaining your team’s new centre isn’t as good as Wayne Gretzky. It’s an impossible standard to meet. Charles will be fine. He’s not his mother, but he’ll pull the job off fairly well.
We are unlikely to see a young monarch after Elizabeth anytime soon. If Charles lives anywhere near as long as his father, Prince William won’t become King until he’s at least close to sixty, at which point Prince George will be in his thirties and decades away himself. Someone has to die unexpectedly or you can expect a long line of old people.
And replace it with what? For it to make sense it would need to be something cheaper, or much better at the job, and those aren’t exactly easy conditions to meet. The historic buildings would still need the same amount of upkeep, which is where the majority of the money going to the royals is spent, and we would still need a head of state travelling around the world, and several new diplomats to replace the other royals. Plus there’s the cost of electing a President every few years.
I am firmly of the opinion that, if starting a country from scratch, then a monarchy would be a silly idea. But we’re not, we have one ingrained in our political system, and I’ve not heard realistic suggestions on how to practically change that.
I think that’s accurate except for the first sentence (and the first part of the second). Charles is not that old and it’s extremely unlikely that the Queen will outlive her own son, nor is Charles going to flout the rules of succession because William happens to be popular. Meanwhile the thought that someone expressed about Charles taking over more of the Queen’s duties is in fact already happening.
The notion that some have mentioned of abolishing the monarchy has, as noted, been discussed in a previous thread and it’s pretty far-fetched, or at least, a major constitutional matter. The British system of government being a constitutional monarchy means that the monarch, as head of state, has real enumerated functions in government as well as unwritten powers. It may be possible to create a new system of government with substantial similarities to the existing one, but it would be a lengthy and complex process. It would be so in any of the Commonwealth countries that have constitutional monarchies, but all the more so in Britain where the monarchy is not just intrinsic to the system of government but is also a national institution. In the final analysis, there are always much more important things to worry about.
That’s not really how science has affected the human lifespan, though. Average lifespan keeps increasing mostly because medical science has been effective at treating and preventing diseases that kill people prematurely. That’s why average life expectancy is meaningfully stated in terms of “a person born today …”. A person of an advanced age today does not have a significantly different life expectancy than someone who survived to that same age 100 years ago.
But that’s now an ever-decreasing footnote in the history of British nationality laws. It doesn’t have much substantive or significant effect on anyone’s life.
That was the point I was trying to make, perhaps too obliquely: the status of “British subject” is so archaic that the majority of the people who still have that status are from Ireland, not the UK itself.
Wanted to point out the sovereign can choose another name than their birth name as regnant; both immediate predecessors to HM Elizabeth did so; it wasn’t a given Elizabeth would reign as Elizabeth, she had to state it specifically.
George was Albert and Edward was David.
Yes. “British subject” used to be an overarching category that included everybody from any British territory or possession, more or less, but over time it has been converted into a resdidual category for people who have some historic connection with Britain but who don’t have citizenship in any Commonwealth country.
The largest group of “British subjects” is indeed Irish; it’s people born before 1948 in what is now the Republic of Ireland. Obviously, everyone in this class is aged 69 or older. The status is not heritable, so the size of the class is steadily shrinking and in a few decades it will be completely extinct.
Other “British subjects” are people who held British subject status by virtue of connection with a British colony which is now independent but who don’t, under the laws of the now independent ex-colony, qualify for citizenship of that country. This class, too, is closed and declining. In theory it could be added to if any of the UK’s remaining colonies become independent and don’t grant citizenship to some of the residents, but that seems fairly unlikely.