Turn on thread page Beta

[newbie]What role does the Queen actually has? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not only the uk, but many commonwealth countries e.g. Canada/Australia/New Zealand have the Queen as their monarch. What does it mean to them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, officially she's the Head of State. In terms of actual political power, she's virtually redundant; while Royal Assent is necessary to open Parliament and pass legislation, any refusal on her part would most likely lead to a rethink of the constitutional monarchy (obviously not something she'd be wildly keen on).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Technically:

    Owns the state and ultimately everything in it
    Found of all honour and justice
    Crown-in-Parliament is sovereign (with the Crown as the major political figure)

    In Practice:

    The crown has been slowly stripped of all political power through the threat of mob violence. The Queen is the only person in the country without free speech, without the right to refuse to sign her own name.

    Still a focus of national unity and a Head of State in similar terms to many ceremonial republican presidencies. Also head (with the royal family) of a huge charity network. The tie that - admittedly very tenuously - binds the Commonwealth together.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    She is the Head of State but some people believe that she is not as powerful as she once was. However, I do not believe that. She is very influential, perhaps she is very powerful behind the scenes. She attended the last G-Summit, and she is honoured by wealthy and powerful individuals.

    I think she is still powerful. She is certainly symbolic of the Common Wealth, and she is able to sign laws into action. She opens and closes parliament and she calls for elections.

    She owns massive amounts of land, and she is probably the only female Mason. Royalty is Masonic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    She is the only person that the Prime Minister can speak to with complete confidence. She is also arguably if not the most experienced politician in the world certainly in Britain having met all the most powerful people in the world for the past 50 years pretty much (Soviet Premiers aside).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    She is the Head of State but some people believe that she is not as powerful as she once was. However, I do not believe that. She is very influential, perhaps she is very powerful behind the scenes.
    It's a shame that almost every constitutional commentator doesn't believe your conspiracies.

    She attended the last G-Summit, and she is honoured by wealthy and powerful individuals.
    She wasn't there. The last one was held in Italy in 2009. If you look at the list of the people who attended, you'll notice she isn't there. And if you look at the picture of all the attendees, she isn't there.

    She opens and closes parliament and she calls for elections.
    Yes, when the PM asks her to.

    She owns massive amounts of land, and she is probably the only female Mason. Royalty is Masonic.
    And she eats babies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Her role now in Britain is arguably a dignified one.
    However, the public do not have a real perception of what happens behind the scenes(the house of Windsor is an insider pressure group on the government after all), I think her role is far more important than what the public is led to believe. If it wasn't, there would be no justification for having the monarchy.
    As has been said, she is an immensely experienced diplomat and far more capable than the numerous prime ministers than have served under the queen.
    Historically she has surrendered her perogative powers to institutions like the house of commons, ministers and of course the prime minister but her formal approval is still required to pass legislation. People argue that if she refused to give royal assent to bills there would be a constitutional crisis of the first order, but if the government were enacting a really unwanted law (extreme terror laws?), then she, with the general consensus of the country could technically stop the government (as the lords could, for a while at least).
    I wouldn't diminish her role altogether, though it is true that her and the royal family now play a more dignitary role in foreign countries, hosting heads of state etc.
    She serves to attract massive amounts of tourists each year and I'd rather have the queen than a president of Britain who would be suceptible to fraud/bribery et al.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The G-20 Summit had a meeting with the Queen. That is what I meant to write.

    The Queen must give assent to Parliament, but she can decline if she so wishes; although that would not go down well.

    She doesn't eat babies. That's a condescending tone.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Google constitutional monarchy.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Most of the royals are linked with the Masonic Orders: the Dukes of Kent (both Michael and Edward) are High Grand Masters.

    The Duke of Edinburgh is a Mason of the Navy lodge.

    The Queen herself is head of the House of Windsor (Saxe-Coburg) as well as the Order of St John to the papacy of the Orders of Malta. All these are Masonic instituitions and the Pope is the head (divinely appointed) of these institutions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Basically, very little. Society would run fine without her. I guess she's good for the economy as she brings the tourists in :P
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    smile and wave.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KrazyKro)
    smile and wave.
    That's just her public image. The Queen (like the rest of her Masonic family) plays a clever game.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    She has a very important job in theory. She's supposed to hold parliament open and dissolve it if necessary, in the case of a General Election. She can call the re-opening of parliament in the case of an emergency such as the invasion of the UK or if there is a terrible economic crisis, just a few examples.

    But really all the things above are called for by the PM, but ceremoniously, She does them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Without her, lets say... Government could pas a lot more laws, some might even be unethical.

    She 'codifies'/keeps the constitution under control.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    The G-20 Summit had a meeting with the Queen. That is what I meant to write.
    The last G20 summit was held in Pitsburgh in September 2009. If you look at the list of attendees, she isn't there. If you look at the picture of the summit, she isn't there.

    The Queen must give assent to Parliament, but she can decline if she so wishes; although that would not go down well.
    Yes, it would lead to a constitutional overhaul. The Queen can decline giving assent in the same way that Parliament can outlaw elections. In theory, it's possible. In practice, not at all. But that's not what we're talking about. You said "She opens and closes parliament and she calls for elections" as though she had an real power (hence in your introductory paragraph you said "she is very powerful behind the scenes" ). That is false.

    She doesn't eat babies. That's a condescending tone.
    But I have people on blogs and youtube videos proving she does. :rolleyes:

    And in future: quote me, I stumbled upon your respond by chance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    The last G20 summit was held in Pitsburgh in September 2009. If you look at the list of attendees, she isn't there. If you look at the picture of the summit, she isn't there.



    Yes, it would lead to a constitutional overhaul. The Queen can decline giving assent in the same way that Parliament can outlaw elections. In theory, it's possible. In practice, not at all. But that's not what we're talking about. You said "She opens and closes parliament and she calls for elections" as though she had an real power (hence in your introductory paragraph you said "she is very powerful behind the scenes" ). That is false.



    But I have people on blogs and youtube videos proving she does. :rolleyes:

    And in future: quote me, I stumbled upon your respond by chance.
    she sacked the Australian prime minister. That is powerful.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jakko247)
    she sacked the Australian prime minister. That is powerful.
    Talking about 1975?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    Talking about 1975?
    Yeah duh.
    he Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia represents the monarch of Australia - currently Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia.

    The Governor-General has a wide range of powers, exercised under the authority of the Australian Constitution. The functions and roles of the Governor-General include appointing ambassadors, ministers and judges, giving Royal Assent to legislation, issuing writs for elections and bestowing honours. The Governor-General is also Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force.

    In practice, the Governor-General follows the conventions of the Westminster system of parliament and acts only on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia. There have been only four exceptions when the Governor-General has exercised the reserve powers of the office, including the sacking of the Prime Minister in 1975.
    Don't come back with 'She didn't sack him, she simply decided not to act', because she could have stopped the sacking, the very fact she didn't basically means she sacked him.

    I really don't know how you can say she isn't influential or powerful.
    -Supreme Governor of the Church of England. <-- power.
    -Elizabeth II is the Queen regnant of sixteen independent sovereign states <-- power.
    Even if as you put it, 'she is not influential in politics', she is still rich and that means power in another capacity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jakko247)
    In practice, the Governor-General follows the conventions of the Westminster system of parliament and acts only on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia. There have been only four exceptions when the Governor-General has exercised the reserve powers of the office, including the sacking of the Prime Minister in 1975.
    Yawn, yawn, yawn. I would have chosen to embolden the other part of the paragraph. The action was not taken by the Queen and your measly defence of 'she could have stopped it' is an action as well. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The Governor is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the PM of Australia.


    Elizabeth II is the Queen regnant of sixteen independent sovereign states <-- power.
    I.e, almost the same capacity as she is here.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.