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

Entry: Queen Elizabeth the Last - A699744
Author: Caron - U189811

It has bothered me for some time that the future role of the Queen of England is something that is conspicuously absent from European Community commentary. This is an attempt to redress that lack.

Hi Caron

I read your entry with interest, I agree with your comments, but you don't mention the tourist trade which the Monarchy generates.
I have American em@il-pals who adore the British Monarchy, and who would visit just to watch the 'Changing of the Guard'.

The Royals go on visits abroad to promote the UK.
Relationships and new business contacts are forged from such visits.

I recently wrote an entry on how to receive a congratulations card from the Sovereign. A680113
I was with my parents when they received their card from the Queen - they were both thrilled, and that sort of thing money can't buy.

I doubt very much that the alternate, "President Blair" would have the same effect.

Thanks for your interest!

I am not anti-Monarchy, and I agree with your comments. I'm just wondering whether Elizabeth will be the last queen of England in the sense of a monarch who was able to exert some sort of power on a truly international scale. In other words, just what is the role of the monarch of a member state of Europe?

This is really a PS. I just went to your link and saw the tower in Grimsby. I live in Pennsylvania, but my brother-in-law lives in Grimsby and I have seen the tower.

I think that this is a good article, but I also think that it's probably better suited to the 'h2g2 Post' than to the Edited Guide. The main reason is that the Entry contains quite a lot of fairly sweeping commentary about the state of the British nation ('foreign' produce filling supermarket shelves, no British industry any more, etc.) without really backing it up with facts.

The Edited Guide is meant to be fairly impartial; and although this Entry isn't outrageously biased, I got a strong feeling from it that you were unhappy about all the changes you were describing. What you haven't fully explained is why we should be concerned about the Queen losing the last of her residual political power - if, indeed, that was the point you were trying to make. Why should an unelected individual have that sort of power purely because of who her parents were? Do you think that her appeal to tourists is based on the idea that she's still a 'real' monarch with real powers? Don't people just like all the pomp and pageantry that goes with having a monarchy?

Anyway, the 'h2g2 Post' Office is on U54963. If you do decide to submit this Entry there, just leave a message on that page. And if you'd like to look a little more into what life really is like for a European Royal Family, here's a link to the English version of the Dutch Royal Family's website: http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/UK/welcome.html

I loved it. I highly recomend it for the Post. I think it's a great insight into the status of the monarchy.

So, now that it was featured in the Post, are you still pursuing Peer Review on this entry?

Why should an unelected person have power just because of who their parents are? Well, in some ways, they can be said to be impartial. Blair(or any other PM) has to answer to his party, to those who make donations to the party (as seen quite a lot recently) the Queen doesn't. Blair has to worry about being re-elected- he's inclined not to make 'good' decisions which may harm his chances of that (and vice versa). The Queen deosn't have to worry about that. Which incidently is also my argument for retaining un-elected peers.

A monarchy, somewhat strangely, is also a good guard against dictatorship. If Blair tries to do too many really outragous things, then the Queen, in theory, has the power to remove him (unlikely, but just because a safeguard isn't used that isn't reason to remove it). The US safeguard is that a President can only stand three times (or is it twice, but you get the idea). That means that even if a president does a really good job, he has to go. I personally prefer a system where someone can stay for as long as they like if they do a good job.

Straying somewhat from the point I know, just thought I'd answer the question

The reason we Americans have that eight year term limit if elected, ten if you assume office (president died half-way) is due entirely to President Franklin Roosevelt. I mean, before him, only Teddy Roosevelt ever tried to run for office three times - it was tradition that help everyone back. And yes, everyone thought FDR was perfectly fit to rule 16 years (had he of lived his full term). However, coming out of WWII and seeing despots like Hitler and Stalin who had enormous power (just like FDR)and who helped destroy fair elections, the US citizens thought that it would actually keep the country safe from anyone who would try to wield too much power. I actually think term limits are an excellent safeguard of democracy as it helps people to not become too complacent in their choices for elected officials. I mean, do we *really* need Strom Thurmond to be in the Senate for sixty years? Really? I mean, his constituency has changed dramatically, but his incumbent status allowed him a guaranteed victory for ages on end. If people are faced with a new choice ever so many years, it makes them re-examine their views and their opinions, even if it is only bieifly and those views remain the same.

I hope that's a little bit informative as to an average American viewpoint...

Shanana

I understand the idea of being forced to re-examine your viewpoints- but what if after looking at them, you find that the current ruler is still doing a damn fine job and should be allowed to continue? What if he (or she) is half-way through a very good reform policy that you agree with, and which you know their rival or potential successor doesn't agree with and would not continue?

As to despots trying to destroy democracy like Hilter/Stalin- well, that's exactly my reason for keeping the monarchy! (meant to put that in the previous post)

Well, if they're half-way through some wonderful reform, then the president usually hand-picks his/her (maybe someday! I can hope, can't I?) successor. Generally, these presidents folow the original's plan pretty well. Unfortunately, sometimes the sucessors don't quite follow a previous president's plan fully, as in the case of William Howard Taft and Teddy Roosevelt - in fact, TR ran against Taft to try to reinstate his policies (which split the party and brought in President Wilson, so perhaps it was a good thing...). Anyhow, that's the point of a vice-presidential runningmate with similar ideals that the candidate now gets to choose (not the party).

Shanana

What's happening with with this one?

If it's been featured in the Post ...

This thread also seems to be turning into a discussion forum.

opps! Maybe some kind staff-type-person ought to shift it to ask the H2G2 comunity under 'what's happening to the British Monarchy? Or something like that?

Should have been mentioned on the front page today too, shouldn't it?

I don't really think that a senate or a congress with a 90% (ish) reelection rate is really an instrument of democracy. Particularly when you have to stand again every four years, and thus have to be carefull not to rub your contributors and party up the wrong way for the last two years of your four year term.

When you add to this the fact that the president hasn't had a majority in both houses to force through legislation since FDR, it then really looks silly. and that is before you get the recent debarcle with bush.

A constitutional monarchy on the other hand is set up to prevent extremism. This strikes me as a much better system generally at this point in history.

also, there has not been any sovereign nation in the true sense of the word since world war two, or possibly before. That form of sovereignty (which a lot of politicians hark back to every time europe does something that they don't like) implies being strong enough to basically ignore the rest of the world if they disagree with you.

even america isn't this strong anymore (as september 11th proved, although you wouldn't believe that from their behaviour once the shock had worn off).

Given that the world is now in a state of mutual dependancy, I see no problem with having a monarch in place with the right to veto any implimentation of legislation which is patently wrong, even while you have the EU telling the UK what type of legislation is required to fullfill their commitments under treaty.

There is an excellent place for exactly this kind of article: Speaker's Corner: A756605. It's been set up for this very purpose. I'd suggest that all interested in this (very topical) issue make use of it, and this this essentially polemical article be taken out of PR. And I shall be there too eventually, wearing my maroon tie....

How about it, Caron?

If you go to Peer Review, by clicking the green button under the grey BBC toolbar, you can press the 'remove' button and then resubmit it under 'Speaker's Corner' at A756605.

It's quite a short and not very well-argued entry.

The stuff about Britain then-and-now is a bit confused. Britain is still a soverign state (very little soverignty has been handed to the EU), Britain is arguably richer than it was in 1945 (war had bankrupt up and we were forced to rely on US loans).

I don't see how the Queen's role in Canada etc has really altered that much.

The Charles III of Texas stuff was just confusing, what do you mean?!

The Queen will probably be the last of a certain type of Monarch (as you pretty much claimed) but calling her Elizabeth the Last suggests she would be the last Monarch. Probably not true.

There's a good, thoughtful, entry in there somewhere. You need to flesh the discussion out a bit and check the facts a bit more.

As you will notice, I have been otherwise occupied for the past three months.

Arriving here again I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of comment this topic generated, in several threads. Having (finaly?) "published" it in the Post, I have no plans to move it to Speaker's Corner.

However,

If you or anyone else wishes to pursue that course, please do so with my encouragement and approval.

(Please let me know if you do?)