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

I'm playing devil's advocate a little here, though in truth I'm really quite fond of the monarchy.
If it's not broken why fix it?

Come on, that's a cue for somebody to tell me it *is* broken so that I can argue my point better...

I am just going to say that a monarchy is a hoplessly outdated system with the misjudged idea that just because some one is born into the correct system, they are better suited to lead. This is obviously not true. Leaders should be elected based on the merits as a leader that they have shown, not who they were born to.

I quite agree, but think that such an idea is no longer the founding reason for keeping the monarchy.
Very few people can actually oppose to the monarchy on the grounds of being undemocratic, given the amount of real power they *don't* actually have.

Everything that matters is voted for.

I just don't see why they should get so much money from we taxpayers. What do they do for us? Well, put it this way - what have they done for me? I pay taxes, but I've never had a thankyou from any of them.

The 'taxpayer's money' argument is a fair one up to a certain point.
Let us bear in mind that they do also spend that money, putting it back into the economy and generating demand and throughput, etc etc...

So? The government could do that. In the instance you describe, the monarchy is simply a middleman.

I'd also like to put it to the citizens of republics, how democratic is your president, in real terms?
You have no say over what (s)he's saying right now, and when you vote him/her out later on you'll replace them with someone very similar. What's the difference?

I'd prefer to keep the monarchy than have a republic from the traditionalist, we've done it sort of like this for a thousand years point of view.
What would be nice is if we could reform the monarchy, so that in the end the queen could go shopping in the local supermarket and no one would bat an eyelid...

That's the way a lot of European countries treat their 'royal families'. Quite frankly, I don't see the point in a Royal Family without the pomp and splendour. The Civil List has already been cut to the bone, so it's not as though they cost tax payers that much. In light of what they do for tourism to the UK (and potentially can do, although not always, as ambassadors) I think they should stay. After all, the alternative means we have to elect a president and let's face it, do you want Pres. Blair or something similar?

I don't really have any particular love of either the Windsors or politicians in general (they're all a waste of space ) and I really don't like Princess Margaret - when I was about 7 or 8 my school went and 'waved flags' on a visit an she completely ignored us. I've never forgiven her.

But... if the monarchy went I'd really miss a few daft & silly things... phrases like 'detained at Her majesty's pleasure' just wouldn't work any more.

People in this thread (and, I think, the other one) have been asking for a replacement if the monarchy were abolished, but I don't see that we'd need a replacement at all. Just get rid of them and carry on as we are.

Anyway, the point I'm really trying to make is more of a personal one - you can argue about the money gained/lost from having a monarchy until the cows come home, but I just REALLY resent the fact that they get rich because of us and yet they do sod all. That, to me, is a major p**stake.

If I was part of the British monarchy I would be setting in place the groundwork to become King of Europe when that new country, The United States Of Europe, is finally formed.

I'd like to see our monarchy working along the same lines as the Belgian one, but I think they should stay.

The Monarchy ain't what it used to be, certainly, but is it any use. The Queen gets to be the unelected one who, if the government does something that is bad for the country, should step in and tell them off. Its all well and good doing what the people ask for every four years, but sometimes a long term (well longer than four years) view is required. Can't think of an immediate example, but theres bound to be a few. Actually, if we take the recent turmoils in Fiji as an example. The majority of people who voted, voted for a multicultural government. However, the majority of citizens were claimed to not want it and so it was overthrown. It is at this point that the monarch should step in and decide what is good for the country as a whole, in my opinion. And I don't think a President can really do that, if they have to be elected to. And they certainly won't if they are appointed by the government. Does that make sense?
And well, if we keep the Monarchy, I can plan to be an evil vizier

Well what other type of vizier is there?

The Queen has many residual powers. She can even sack a government.

In the mid-70s, in Australia, the Queen's representative, the Governor General of Australia, a Mr John Kerr, sacked Prime Minister Gough Whitlam's Labor Party. He did so because Whitlam could not get his annual budget passed by the Upper House of Parliament. (Small parties and Independents held the balance of power in the Upper House). The Leader of the Opposition (Liberal Party) was then asked, by Kerr, to form a government.

Lacking a majority in the Lower House, the leader of the Liberal Party couldn't get any legislation passed. Eventually, to end the stalemate, a General Election was called. The Liberal Party won the ensuing election.

Ironically, Whitlam had appointed Kerr as Governor General.

Kerr was using powers bestowed on him (or more accuratly bestowed on his position) by the Queen. He personally made the decision to sack Whitlam while keeping the Queen informed.

This caused an enormous amount of flak in Australia at the time. The current push for Australia to become a republic can be traced back to this undemocratic (to say the least) event.

No offence, but the idea of the queen sacking the government is rather naive. Can you really see it happening? Do you really think that the government, with all its power, would just stand by and let it happen?

In Britain the Queen has the power to do exactly what Kerr did in Australia. He was acting in her name. One of her titles is Queen of Australia.

The government of the day is only that, the government of the day.

If the Queen wanted to sack the government, and they didn't accept it, she could use the armed forces to carry out her will. The armed forces swear an oath of loyalty to her, not the government. She is the Commander In Chief.

The Queen is also the person who opens and dissolves Parliament. If the Prime Minister wants to call an early election he goes to the palace and asks the Queen to dissolve Parliament. She has the power to say no.

Obviously, all this is highly unlikely. If the Queen and Parliament (not the government) don't have a good working relationship then the next step is revolution. It's happened before. Remember Cromwell?

Last year, the Queen was quite relaxed about whether Australia became a republic or not. She made statements such as: "I will accept whatever the people decide."

I wonder if she feels the same way about Britain becoming a republic?

I still think you're being naive. I refuse to accept that the government would roll over if queenie told them to. They have become far too accustomed to the power they wield. You even say yourself that the queen denying things to the government is unlikely - which simply lends weight to my argument.

If a government lost its majority in Parliament - possibly because some members defected to another party - and refused to resign, then the Queen would be shirking in her duty if she did not sack them and ask the Opposition to try to form a Government.

Huw, thinking that something that recently happened in another Westminister-style parliamentary democracy will never happen in Britain suggests to me that you also believe in the tooth fairy and Father Christmas.

I suppose you also believe that the American Supreme Court will never become involved in appointing an American President?