h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Can the queen do anything? Are there any real powers or responsibilities associated with the job. It seems like this puts all of the power in the hands of parliment.

What's an Orangeman?

Originally a protestant supporter of William of Orange. Various clubs ('chapters or 'orders') were formed and they ended up being called 'Orangemen'.
Although not part of the official guide, there are 2 Post articles about them and the ongoing trouble in Ireland. Try looking here A389568 and here A395804

shazz

Also check out A695441, Act of Settlement, 1701. This Act further refined the Sovereigns powers.

As to whether the Sovereign has any real power, well yes - the point, well it means nobody else has it - can you imagine President Blair or what life would of been like under President Thatcher

Isn't that essentially what you have? The actual power of your government seems to rest with parliment. Does the title really matter?

Our power is all divided up between the branches and levels of government. The Speaker of the House, the President, the Senate majority leader, and the Cheif Justice of the United States all have different jobs with real power.

I sort of like the idea of having a sovereign with at least some power. I fail to see the point of yours. It seems like she's mostly a herditary tourist attraction.

The Sovereign has the Royal Perogative. this means that he/she can overule parliament. In practice this power devolves to the prime minister. For instance, John Major threatened to use the royal perogative to force through the Maastricht Treaty if Parliament refused to vote for it. Tony Blair has been the most enthusiastic user of the RP in living memory, using it to declare war on Serbia and Afghanistan without consulting Parliament (or even the Cabinet.)
This is in fact a great deal worse than a Presidential democracy, because a President's powers have checks and balances that are controlled by the legislature. The Royal Perogative has none of these checks and balances, and allows the PM to do pretty much whatever he likes.

I'm glad to see that there is something for her to do. I'm dispapointed to see that she let's the PM use it. I like the idea of having an ultimate check that would be very rarely used.

Doesn't she also have the power to disolve Parliment and force elections?

The Queen & Privy Council have great deal of real power that is as I said rarely used. The Queen is our Head of State and Supreme Military Commander and Head of the Church of England, as well as carrying out significant constitutional functions, the Queen also acts as a focus for national unity.

Many of executive powers that ministers have & use are derived from their appointment to the Privy Council and are derived from the Queens prerogative and exercised on behalf of Queen.

In the UK we have a constitutional monarch which means the Sovereign is bound by rules and conventions and should remain politically impartial, this dose not mean they are powerless.

and yes she has the power to disolve Parliament and call into session Parliament (during which time the Queen & Privy Council rule the nation).

You need to be more vague and give partial answers. If you answer everything, the conversation will end and you'll nver make it on the Busiest Conversations list.

That's better. That's a post with mystery and suspense. The reader is forced to reply to divine the intent of the poster.

*giggles*

I understand your confusion to the Unitedkingdomese response to this question.

It is a wonder to me why Unitedkingdomese continue to insist their Queen has power upon first statements, describe official acts and beat around the bush a bit, give lots of interesting but somewhat irrelevant detail (like about the channel islands not being subject to Parliament), describe offical acts that gut the first set, and then fully admit she has none. This acknowledged yet shared fiction must serve some social purpose. I think they might be literally telling us just what it is and we aren't understanding it because it is outside our worldwiew. It could be they know and aren't telling.

I have decided that I am a guest here at BBCi, and whatever kind of government they decide pleases them is OK.

No real power eh..?

Command of the Military (remember we got Nukes),
The power to dismiss Governments & call elections...

Yup I guess you are right, the Queen has no real power

I am told that if she tried to actually DO those things, she would be removed post-haste.

If she decided to reclaim (her) parts of France or Germany, would your Military blithely march right on in, tactical nukes and all?

the crown throughout history has always had to work hard to keep public opinion (or at least the armed bit of it) on their side. The crown reaches decisions by a process of consultation (and the few that have tried to avoid this have not fared well (see Charles I)), but if such a move was in keeping wih the want's of the crowns subjects then yes.

I find your idea of autonomy peculiar.

If I can't do ever something without someone else's insistence, then I don't consider myself as 'having the power' to do that thing.

but thats the point of democracy isn't it...

yes the queen or the US president has power but it's only the support of the people that gives them that power. If the queen decided she was fed up with the french and tried to nuke the country she'd soon be removed, likewise if the president decided that Iraq was causing him to many head aches and he nuked the place he'd probably get impeached fairly quickly.

The leaders power all stems from the people in a democracy.

It is not a matter of degree it is a matter of kind.

Bush isn't too bright, but would be just smart enough to listen to folks who can figure out that it's impossible to withdraw from Iraq in time to effectively nuke it. But it just so happens there's another country starting I-R-A that's a possible target.

If Bush decided to nuke Iran, he would NOT be impeached, he is in control of the devices in question, his party is in full control of all branches of government, and enough people here (even if a large minority, it's enough to prevent an impeachment in a place like our Senate) wouldn't mind this action the least bit. For the Queen to try something similar she'd have to have access to the controls -which she does not-, she'd have to actually have control of the 'government' (UK use of the word here) which she does not -it's policies have nothing to do with her own opinions while the FDA refusal to allow Plan B shows that ours has everything to do with Bush's-, and if she tried it by droit-de-seigneur it wouldn't matter how popular the idea of nuking the Frogs would be; she'd *still get deposed*, and the succession of Charles (or George or whatever he would want to call himself, or his kiddies) *would not happen*. There will be a revolution and the UK will turn itself into a Republic.

If Bush gets impeached for such an action, unlikely as it seems, Cheney would happen.

He is CinC and has the right to use the armed forces. Congress 'declares war' but has allowed the executive much lattitude in many adventures or 'police actions' since the turn of the twentieth century. A strong case can be made that when a seeming looney-tunes like Iran's current leader has nukes, a pre-emptive strike is necessary.

Yeah but Bush still gets his power from the people ultimately from elected members of congress and the senate supporting him. My point was if he did something clearly insane he'd be sacked very quickly. Ultimately all power comes from the people even in a dictatorship without public support a leader cannot do anything.