Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

UK Monarchy LOL Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jozef161)
    I wonder why you think that Queen's advice is useful in any way? And why do you think she would not act in her self interest?
    Are you deliberately not reading the majority of my posts here?
    She speaks with the prime minister every week, she reads a summary of the ongoings at parliament every day. She knows how the country works, what policies will work and what will fail. For the third time - to ignore this advice is foolish.

    You could ask the same question to any human being. As it happens, some humans are not totally absorbed in protecting their interests with absolutely no consideration to anyone else. This seems to be a common mantra among a lot (NB: not all) republicans that I've spoken to that the monarchy can only act in its own interest.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    You're just jealous because your country has only existed in its current state for just over 20 years and your recent history is filled with commies and dictators starving their own population, whereas our country is many hundreds of years old with one of the oldest democracies in the world.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExWunderkind)
    I'm not sure I can find an example; but I am pretty sure there have been anti-royalist demonstrations in the recent past.

    I am not pro-royalist by any means; but for me they bring about a very nice tourism trade that the UK economy benefits from and let's face it, they do no have any real power.

    The queen would technically have to sign her own death warrant if the government commanded it.
    Well, technically, government cannot vote her out as a monarch and neither can they command her in any way. The oath forbids them to do so.

    And even if they had the power to do so, they would hardly have public approval to do so. Either way, it is not my business and I do not have anything against British monarchy. My argument was only that the editors working for Rupert Murdoch should look at Britain before criticising Russia.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexh42)
    You're just jealous because your country has only existed in its current state for just over 20 years and your recent history is filled with commies and dictators starving their own population, whereas our country is many hundreds of years old with one of the oldest democracies in the world.
    Russia does not exist for 20 years. It has a great history and everybody knows that, you are getting too emotional and provocative.

    Jealous? I am proud to be Russian, and I am not jealous. It is true that your democracy has existed far longer than any other, so I cannot claim to be proud of Russian democracy.

    However, since you opened this sort of discussion, I must say that I feel proud of other features which contemporary Russia has. This is strength, international status, capable leaders, notably Lavrov which I consider the greatest diplomat Russia ever had. There are more things but whatever, this is not what this topic is about.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jozef161)
    Firstly, UK has a monarchy and all MPs, senior Civil Servants and even Army officials have to swear an oath to the Queen in order to be eligible to operate in their profession. It is 21st century and they have to kneel before a monarch. I personally find it completely at odds with democratic values.
    I don't see why. It's the same as having an oath to a constitution or a flag; both are symbols. The monarchy is a nonpolitical national symbol which isn't associated with a particular political creed or party, meaning an oathmaker is promising to the nation as a whole, not placing that oath conditional to a particular political viewpoint.

    Showing fealty and respect to the Queen is completely separate from 'democratic values'. I think you're confusing that with egalitarianism - democracy is not a socially egalitarian philosophy.

    Like it or not, British MPs are partly accountable to the monarch, and this accountability probably even overrides the accountability to the electorate.
    No it doesn't. An MP's loyalty to their voters is paramount.

    I will give you an example, if I went on the street with a republican banner saying 'Remove the Monarchy because it is undemocratic', do you believe the police would tolerate it? Certainly not!
    Are you nuts? It's easily demonstrable that a republican demonstration would be tolerated, and nobody would bat an eyelid at it. There were plenty during all the major monarchy-related ceremonies last year.

    Here's one.

    In contrast, in Russia you do not have to worry about critising Putin or anyone else as long as you do not involve in violence.
    With respect, I don't think that's true. Russian protesters are routinely denied permits to demonstrate.l

    Secondly, do you think all this monarchy thing and swearing oath is just symbolic, for the sake of tradition? No, it is not just a tradition, it has its purpose. People may think that Queen has no say in political matters and people tolerate it, but the 'god bless the queen' propaganda is so prevalent in Britain that if she once said 'I don't agree with legislation' most people would think 'Oh well if the Queen thinks so it must be right'. I am not saying that MPs are just puppets whose strings are pulled by monarchy, but im pointing to the idea that UK is in no position to criticize Russia on any grounds.
    Do you have any evidence to support this? Can you name any occasion which the Queen has shot down a piece of legislation or that people have blindly said 'the Queen doesn't want it, she must be right'?

    I can wait.

    I dont wanna start debate about the UK constitution and electoral systems etc.
    Well...your thread is precisely about the UK constitution, so you have one on your hands whether you like it or not!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I don't see why. It's the same as having an oath to a constitution or a flag; both are symbols. The monarchy is a nonpolitical national symbol which isn't associated with a particular political creed or party, meaning an oathmaker is promising to the nation as a whole, not placing that oath conditional to a particular political viewpoint.

    Showing fealty and respect to the Queen is completely separate from 'democratic values'. I think you're confusing that with egalitarianism - democracy is not a socially egalitarian philosophy.



    No it doesn't. An MP's loyalty to their voters is paramount.



    Are you nuts? It's easily demonstrable that a republican demonstration would be tolerated, and nobody would bat an eyelid at it. There were plenty during all the major monarchy-related ceremonies last year.

    Here's one.



    With respect, I don't think that's true. Russian protesters are routinely denied permits to demonstrate.l



    Do you have any evidence to support this? Can you name any occasion which the Queen has shot down a piece of legislation or that people have blindly said 'the Queen doesn't want it, she must be right'?

    I can wait.



    Well...your thread is precisely about the UK constitution, so you have one on your hands whether you like it or not!
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ts-reveal.html -> Queen and her Veto, seems like nobody cared, Queen knows best.

    About the protests in Russia, i must say it is exxagerated, what else would you expect from Murdoch dominated media? Either way, Russia's democracy is not perfect, this was not my claim, and to be honest I do not even believe that a 'perfect' democracy is a positive thing, and that is why i respect the relatively nationalist politics in Russia.


    My point is that British democracy is not as good as people think, maybe more effective and flexible than many others, but in no position to be a 'symbolic one'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jozef161)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ts-reveal.html -> Queen and her Veto, seems like nobody cared, Queen knows best.
    Unfortunately this isn't actually news. The Queen's veto exists, but in reality the Queen would not - and cannot - exercise it without the advice (i.e. instructions) of the government. That's why nobody cared; those who did completely misunderstood.

    About the protests in Russia, i must say it is exxagerated, what else would you expect from Murdoch dominated media? Either way, Russia's democracy is not perfect, this was not my claim, and to be honest I do not even believe that a 'perfect' democracy is a positive thing, and that is why i respect the relatively nationalist politics in Russia.
    Meh, I'm not going to push the point, but it's not just the Murdoch press that criticise Russia's regime - I've not seen a single article indicating particularly gleaming democratic credentials of Russia anywhere.

    My point is that British democracy is not as good as people think, maybe more effective and flexible than many others, but in no position to be a 'symbolic one'.
    I think British democracy is pretty good, on the whole. There are certainly flaws but the monarchy isn't one of them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jozef161)
    It is 21st century and they have to kneel before a monarch.
    Pointing out the date is not an argument.

    I personally find it completely at odds with democratic values. Like it or not, British MPs are partly accountable to the monarch, and this accountability probably even overrides the accountability to the electorate. I will give you an example, if I went on the street with a republican banner saying 'Remove the Monarchy because it is undemocratic', do you believe the police would tolerate it? Certainly not! In contrast, in Russia you do not have to worry about critising Putin or anyone else as long as you do not involve in violence.
    Er, that would be perfectly reasonable. Surprisingly enough, Britain allows free protest. Far more than Russia, anyway.

    And British MPs are not accountable to the monarch any more than any other citizen is. We have allegiance to the Monarch as a personification of the state: that allegiance means obeying the law. It does not mean we somehow have to do what the Queen tells us.

    Secondly, do you think all this monarchy thing and swearing oath is just symbolic, for the sake of tradition? No, it is not just a tradition, it has its purpose. People may think that Queen has no say in political matters and people tolerate it, but the 'god bless the queen' propaganda is so prevalent in Britain that if she once said 'I don't agree with legislation' most people would think 'Oh well if the Queen thinks so it must be right'.
    Which hasn't happened since 1708, if memory serves. The monarch and the government are now essentially fused, one does not take a position contrary to the other.

    The monarch could in theory veto a law - for example if it was expressly tyrannical or something of that nature. That situation will probably never arise.

    The public won't back the monarch becoming some sort of politicised dictator. Indeed, British people have died in many, many battles to uphold the principle of a constitutional monarchy, bound by law.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jozef161)
    It meant that it is pointless to discuss the UK constitution as UK doesn't even have one.
    Groan...

    The UK has an uncodified constitution insofar as it isn't contained in any one document. It does, of course, have a constitution - a rather complex one in fact, based on statutes, precedent and convention.

    (Original post by jozef161)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ts-reveal.html -> Queen and her Veto, seems like nobody cared, Queen knows best.
    The Queen would act on the advice of the elected government in these matters. Perhaps if you understood a bit about the British constitution rather than denying it exists you may well be better disposed to it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jozef161)
    In the recent days I have been hearing so many criticisms from British media and people about Russian government that I can no longer resist the temptation to make some counter-criticisms.

    Firstly, UK has a monarchy and all MPs, senior Civil Servants and even Army officials have to swear an oath to the Queen in order to be eligible to operate in their profession. It is 21st century and they have to kneel before a monarch. I personally find it completely at odds with democratic values. Like it or not, British MPs are partly accountable to the monarch, and this accountability probably even overrides the accountability to the electorate. I will give you an example, if I went on the street with a republican banner saying 'Remove the Monarchy because it is undemocratic', do you believe the police would tolerate it? Certainly not! In contrast, in Russia you do not have to worry about critising Putin or anyone else as long as you do not involve in violence.

    Secondly, do you think all this monarchy thing and swearing oath is just symbolic, for the sake of tradition? No, it is not just a tradition, it has its purpose. People may think that Queen has no say in political matters and people tolerate it, but the 'god bless the queen' propaganda is so prevalent in Britain that if she once said 'I don't agree with legislation' most people would think 'Oh well if the Queen thinks so it must be right'. I am not saying that MPs are just puppets whose strings are pulled by monarchy, but im pointing to the idea that UK is in no position to criticize Russia on any grounds.

    I dont wanna start debate about the UK constitution and electoral systems etc.

    Am I Russian? Yes, I am! God bless the Queen !
    We have never codified our constitution. If we did, modern democratic considerations like the ones you raise would mean we would have to remove the monarchy. And conversely, if we removed the monarchy (that is, the monarchy removed itself, as it must, failing a violent coup), we would have to go about the tedious and contentious business of writing a constitution because Royal prerogative would be gone.

    I do think the monarchy is less autocratic than a presidential republic because in republics the president can and does exert significant political power. The Queen can, but most certainly does not.* While the Prime Minister fills that power vacuum to a great extent here, Royal prerogative still prevents any (bloodless) coup by him.

    *I am certain that exchanges go on behind the scenes. However, by presenting the appearance of acquiescence, the Queen seals her own fate. As she does not assert her power publicly, it loses much of its value. I suspect that, insofar as government ministers and business magnates consult with the Queen, there is no particular deference to Royal prerogative, as it has been devalued.

    I am in no way saying a monarchy is the "best" system, though I do admit to a bit of nationalistic/Queen-loving bias. But it is certainly a more complex issue than just looking at the rulebook and saying, "But she can!"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jozef161)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ts-reveal.html -> Queen and her Veto, seems like nobody cared, Queen knows best.

    About the protests in Russia, i must say it is exxagerated, what else would you expect from Murdoch dominated media? Either way, Russia's democracy is not perfect, this was not my claim, and to be honest I do not even believe that a 'perfect' democracy is a positive thing, and that is why i respect the relatively nationalist politics in Russia.


    My point is that British democracy is not as good as people think, maybe more effective and flexible than many others, but in no position to be a 'symbolic one'.
    You don't have a point. No one thinks that British democracy is the best or brilliant. However, the reality is that it is still a hundred times better than Russia at the momment.

    If you were not a Putin hack, then you would spend your time fighting against the Russian criminal state instead of making uninformed threads about British Governance.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexh42)
    You're just jealous because your country has only existed in its current state for just over 20 years and your recent history is filled with commies and dictators starving their own population, whereas our country is many hundreds of years old with one of the oldest democracies in the world.
    What piffle. History lessons feed this stuff to us. The history of our country is the history of rights being won and lost by the people, more or less in tandem with how the economy is doing. Like the Romans, we spent 500 years going forth conquering to support the advancement of our civil rights. Today, the European empire arrests decline.

    In recent history, we had a marked Fascist tendency. We remain one of the least socially progressive countries in Western Europe. Our landed aristocracy was not effectively removed after the revolutions of the seventeenth century as it was in France and Germany one and two centuries later.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jozef161)
    Oh really? Who do you think is the main campaigner for the preservation of FPTP electoral system? The Queen and her loyal Conservative MPs! The system guarantees her that those Green MPs will never present any threat to her as there will never be enough of them in Commons. Besides, did that republican MP swear on oath to the Queen?
    That's NOT what I am getting at. The party hasn't been disallowed from the house of commons because of he republican beliefs... She is allowed to speak out about the Queen... (you said we can't) yeah, well the conservatives will be out of parliament for a while after this term.. Labour may want to implement electoral reform (the party was more for than against AV) and do it properly unlike the Tories did.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    In recent history, we had a marked Fascist tendency. We remain one of the least socially progressive countries in Western Europe. Our landed aristocracy was not effectively removed after the revolutions of the seventeenth century as it was in France and Germany one and two centuries later.
    Hmm, yes, and they've never had dictatorial regimes or unpleasant social cleavages...right?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Hmm, yes, and they've never had dictatorial regimes or unpleasant social cleavages...right?
    Doesn't matter what they did, I was responding to the assertion that we have one of the oldest (he wants to say "best") democracies going.

    This from a man who thinks cleavages are unpleasant. I rest my case.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jozef161)
    Oh really? Who do you think is the main campaigner for the preservation of FPTP electoral system? The Queen and her loyal Conservative MPs!
    Has the Queen spoken against FPTP? State your evidence.

    You're mistaken to assume monarchism means blind devotion to the Queen's will. I am a proud monarchist, but I would not simply follow the Queen's orders. She has no right to do so.

    Likewise, the Conservatives tend to be monarchist but only as far as the monarchy is a national symbol. They have no interest in acting as the Queen's cyphers. Why should they, when they possess all the real power through Parliament?

    The system guarantees her that those Green MPs will never present any threat to her as there will never be enough of them in Commons.
    That's untrue. FPTP is not a voting system deliberately devised to prevent republicanism. There are republics which have FPTP (such as India or the USA, or a modified version in France) and there are monarchies with more proportional systems (the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and, arguably, the Scottish Parliament).

    Republicanism is tiny in Parliament because it is the people's will that it be so.

    Besides, did that republican MP swear on oath to the Queen?
    Swearing an oath to the Queen does not, and has never, barred any MP from campaigning to create a republic. The reason it has never been achieved is because the monarchy is popular.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manitude)
    Are you deliberately not reading the majority of my posts here?
    She speaks with the prime minister every week, she reads a summary of the ongoings at parliament every day. She knows how the country works, what policies will work and what will fail. For the third time - to ignore this advice is foolish.

    You could ask the same question to any human being. As it happens, some humans are not totally absorbed in protecting their interests with absolutely no consideration to anyone else. This seems to be a common mantra among a lot (NB: not all) republicans that I've spoken to that the monarchy can only act in its own interest.
    In political theory, everyone acts in their own self-interest. The Queen is no different. It just so happens that her self-interest is in doing what the government want.

    She's a very rich woman with power over a huge global land area, certainly the most powerful monarch in the world. She is part of a European dynastic network whose power stretches back to the eleventh century. Her own progeny is assured for three generations.

    With such unimaginable security, she has no reason whatsoever to oppose governmental legislation that won't impact on her at all.

    That said, if we slipped into dictatorship by a Prime Minister, the Queen would probably step in to shut the bugger down out of concern for the country she must feel some sort of affection for. The idea that the royal family itself would form a dictatorship is laughable. They care more about cun'ry persyoo's, buying paintings, playing at being soldiers and generally enjoying their status. Dictatorship by military, well, there's a long way to decline till it gets to that point.

    However if there was a referendum on becoming a republic, I imagine the Queen would step down, or else institute an electoral monarchy where we get to choose between William and Harry and Andrew and Chaz and all the rest of them.

    The Queen is good because she has no reason to be swayed by vested interests. In the most primal sense, she is richer than any self-made businessman, because her wealth is patrimonial.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

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