Purpose of the Queen

[Toxicman007]

I did some thinking today, and came upon the subject of the British monarch. She doesn't seem to do anything except wave and knight people... Pretty useless really. The monarchs of old would control the entire country in a dictatorship, but ever since Parliament was formed, the Kings and Queens of Britain have had little power. As far as I know, if a new law is to be passed, the monarch has to approve or disapprove of it. But Parliament doesn't care about that anyway, if the monarch disapproves of the new law, Parliament will find a new way of putting that law into action.

So my question was: "Does Britain really NEED a monarch?"

The answer (in my opinion) is yes. The monarch may do f#ck all (excuse my language), but currently, the first thing most people in the world think of when someone says Britain is the Queen. She is the symbol of Britain. Not Gordon Brown, because he's an arse. Not the houses of Parliament, most people IN Britain don't even know where they are. Not some TV personality or some historical landmark like Stonehenge. The QUEEN.

She is not needed. She does nothing. But she represents Britain. That's something I feel patriotic about (and why Prince Phillip is the best man to represent Britain. You have to be British to understand that joke. Hurrr.) Other countries, such as Norway and Sweden, also have monarchs. They play much the same role.

Do you, the community of the starcraft.org forums, feel the same way as I do? Or differently?

[Moridin]

Britain needs a monarch (and that goes for every country that has a monarchy) because the monarchs are usually regarded as symbolic figures. People who in some way represent the more cultural part of the country, as opposed to the more political part that politicians hold.

[Ghost_Assasain]

As an Australian we have been having this debate about whether we (Australia) still need the Queen. She is also our Queen and our iconic Head of State if not our actual practical head of state.

I have always taken the view that a constitutional monarchy such as Australia or England is one of the better and most stable forms of democracy. It vests the greatest power in the country, creating legislation and policy, with the Parliament. The Parliament is essentially the governing body in both Australia and Britain with the Royal Assent to Legislation considered only to be a formality. The governing party in the parliament is ultimately answerable to other MP's in Question Time or in debates on bills.

Coupled with this is that the Executive is within the Parliament and again answerable for it's actions regularly to the Opposition.

Plus the Queen as you said acts as a figured head for the country. Something that people can feel they belong to and can rally behind if it is needed to. But because she isn't elected she can't exercise he powers (which are substantial) legitimately and any move to do so would probably be overruled by parliament and the Monarch thrown out.

The Queen is central to the function of the Westminster system and by extension rather important to BOTH Australia and Britain.

[mranderson]

Britain does not need a monarch in the context of theoretical thought. Royalty are inflexible. A ruling nobility merely makes a bollix of political issues, and a bollix of societal issues. Nobility provides a weak point in government functions. This weak point, and inflexibility is throughout the Empire's history, and the continued Commonwealth history. Throughout this diatribe, I will mention wealth, and bias. I am not advocating that bias occurs with wealth, but that the probable occurrence of bias is high when a sense of entitlement to rule is coupled with money from a young age. There are more negative drawbacks to having royalty than positive occurrences.

The ruling nobility is a strict heritage of money, and familiar appearances. The heredity of this money, and secluded nature could cause an unconscious bias that could result in negative outcomes. Raised from a view of wealth, the British royalty see problems with solutions that are biased, even if their intentions may be unbiased (ie throwing money at problems, or believing problems are solved when underlying causes are not addressed).

I believe it was Prince Harry who addressed Arabic people as "rag-heads" in his tour of duty there. This was a social fumble, and shows a royalty bias. Not only that, this shows royalty openly insulting foreign races. When princess Diana died, their was mourning, which turns a nation downbeat when it should have no emotional baggage on a national scale. More recently, a British prince spent a night on the streets, to "get a feel for what it is like" to be homeless. This seems more tongue in cheek aimed at the poor, as well as an appeal to the media that the royalty is in touch than an honest shot at realizing what the poor deal with.

Britain has already had multiple civil wars, because a religious ruler decided to change the rules. British subjects average to what seems a bloody civil war every hundred years.

In the context of realistic thought, Britain needs a monarch, because the British people are too bull-headed to change without outside interference. Not only that, but the British people get a whole new caste to follow who are monied (<- ), and well maintained aside from their celebrities. Nice to see the British people still have efficacy to let officious officials do their personal business. I am also sure Catholics in Ireland are thrilled to be under the rule of England royalty.