We have enjoyed watching many a show about Elizabeth and have always admired her character, courage and commitment. But for the life of me, I just don't understand the point of a monarchy that is purely ceremonial. I guess that's because I find "ceremony" to be a waste of precious human consciousness and resources. Ye gads. Pomp, circums…
We have enjoyed watching many a show about Elizabeth and have always admired her character, courage and commitment. But for the life of me, I just don't understand the point of a monarchy that is purely ceremonial. I guess that's because I find "ceremony" to be a waste of precious human consciousness and resources. Ye gads. Pomp, circumstance and fancy coaches make me crazy.
That being said, she was quite a woman and it's too bad there isn't another one to succeed her. Most men have not done so well in these roles. May she rest in peace.
As my UK friend explained to me, there is value in having a "head of state" who is not there because of "pushing policies" that by their nature have supporters and opponents. It allows the state to have a personal continuity and connection to the citizens that remains regardless of the tempers of the times. I think I agree with him, looking at our history of political leaders who are simultaneously head of state and where that leads.
There are certainly features and defects in each system. I get how important someone of Elizabeth's integrity - just her reassuring presence during tough times - would be a powerful stabilizing factor.
But what if she had been as stupid, malevolent and selfish as so many monarchs of the past have been?
I feel for Charles. Talk about "tough acts to follow". But he has been in training all his life. I would hope he might actually dip his toes into a stronger leadership position on issues that will affect the planet. Good luck to him. And William.
Well, he is strong on environment, which is good. One hopes he has read thoroughly about the failures of his namesake heirs. There's a reason there hasn't been a Charles since 340 years.
I've always sort of liked Charles II for being such an unapologetic bad boy. his whole deal was something like "why be a king if I can't rock and roll?" and I've always found the question pretty hard to answer, aside from the fact that he lived before the discovery of penicillin, the lack of which probably resulted in some very uncomfortable days for him.
Any guy that will process used frying oil into fuel for his Jaguar can't be all bad. He's generally been in the background but, as you say, he's had a lot of training.
In a parliamentary system it seems necessary that someone is there to pull the plug on a government should said government refuse to step down when the “constitution” requires. After all, the executive and legislative powers are combined into one body and there must be occasional temptations to just forego those silly elections.
I also recall that the British monarch can serve as a bit of a tie breaker in close elections. Wasn’t it in 2010 that elections resulted in a hung parliament and the leaders of the major parties were not able to muster the votes to form a government? Negotiations went on for quite awhile until speculation started that the Queen just might pick one. That possibility seemed to have focused the politicians’ minds sufficiently so that a Conservstive-Liberal coalition was formed shortly after that speculation started.
Wasn’t the Fixed Parliaments Act repealed? Anyway, I think it’s true that 5 years is the norm in their unwritten constitution. What always stumped me was how the “constitution” is enforced when executive and legislative power are combined in Parliament. What would happen if they caught GQP Disease and a party just decided they wouldn’t ask the monarch to dissolve Parliament. Anyway, I’m veering off course here.
Condolences to the Royal Family and the UK people.
it's funny, Tom, but during the last few months, it occurred to me (at least half-seriously) that since we don't have anything as sensible as a parliamentary system here, the Presidency has taken over a lot of the ceremonial bullshit that people seem to enjoy (I don't, at all, but that's just me). plus there's the whole issue of our Constitution being created in the then-welcome absence of political parties; in their presence, the system that Constitution created is a recipe for gridlock. the head of the government here must therefore (as you've already stated) push a policy agenda. so what we have is a mess. and, in response to that (and because it causes most people I say it to to blanch and look at me like I'm nuts, and I sorta dig shit like that), this king or queen thing just seems like it's worth a mention...and I'll finish exactly the way you just did...look at our current history.... SOMETHING's gotta be better than THIS.
and I sure wish that media would stop pushing this ridiculous mythology about Edward VIII's abdication being about "the woman he loved." who is well-served by this continuing line of bullshit?
is it possible that I just sorta answered my own question by asking it?
We have enjoyed watching many a show about Elizabeth and have always admired her character, courage and commitment. But for the life of me, I just don't understand the point of a monarchy that is purely ceremonial. I guess that's because I find "ceremony" to be a waste of precious human consciousness and resources. Ye gads. Pomp, circumstance and fancy coaches make me crazy.
That being said, she was quite a woman and it's too bad there isn't another one to succeed her. Most men have not done so well in these roles. May she rest in peace.
As my UK friend explained to me, there is value in having a "head of state" who is not there because of "pushing policies" that by their nature have supporters and opponents. It allows the state to have a personal continuity and connection to the citizens that remains regardless of the tempers of the times. I think I agree with him, looking at our history of political leaders who are simultaneously head of state and where that leads.
There are certainly features and defects in each system. I get how important someone of Elizabeth's integrity - just her reassuring presence during tough times - would be a powerful stabilizing factor.
But what if she had been as stupid, malevolent and selfish as so many monarchs of the past have been?
I feel for Charles. Talk about "tough acts to follow". But he has been in training all his life. I would hope he might actually dip his toes into a stronger leadership position on issues that will affect the planet. Good luck to him. And William.
Well, he is strong on environment, which is good. One hopes he has read thoroughly about the failures of his namesake heirs. There's a reason there hasn't been a Charles since 340 years.
I've always sort of liked Charles II for being such an unapologetic bad boy. his whole deal was something like "why be a king if I can't rock and roll?" and I've always found the question pretty hard to answer, aside from the fact that he lived before the discovery of penicillin, the lack of which probably resulted in some very uncomfortable days for him.
and he was also great for comedy....
just saying.
Any guy that will process used frying oil into fuel for his Jaguar can't be all bad. He's generally been in the background but, as you say, he's had a lot of training.
In a parliamentary system it seems necessary that someone is there to pull the plug on a government should said government refuse to step down when the “constitution” requires. After all, the executive and legislative powers are combined into one body and there must be occasional temptations to just forego those silly elections.
I also recall that the British monarch can serve as a bit of a tie breaker in close elections. Wasn’t it in 2010 that elections resulted in a hung parliament and the leaders of the major parties were not able to muster the votes to form a government? Negotiations went on for quite awhile until speculation started that the Queen just might pick one. That possibility seemed to have focused the politicians’ minds sufficiently so that a Conservstive-Liberal coalition was formed shortly after that speculation started.
At a minimum, elections in Britain have to be held every five years, whether the government in power likes it or not, so there is a "plug" to pull.
Wasn’t the Fixed Parliaments Act repealed? Anyway, I think it’s true that 5 years is the norm in their unwritten constitution. What always stumped me was how the “constitution” is enforced when executive and legislative power are combined in Parliament. What would happen if they caught GQP Disease and a party just decided they wouldn’t ask the monarch to dissolve Parliament. Anyway, I’m veering off course here.
Condolences to the Royal Family and the UK people.
it's funny, Tom, but during the last few months, it occurred to me (at least half-seriously) that since we don't have anything as sensible as a parliamentary system here, the Presidency has taken over a lot of the ceremonial bullshit that people seem to enjoy (I don't, at all, but that's just me). plus there's the whole issue of our Constitution being created in the then-welcome absence of political parties; in their presence, the system that Constitution created is a recipe for gridlock. the head of the government here must therefore (as you've already stated) push a policy agenda. so what we have is a mess. and, in response to that (and because it causes most people I say it to to blanch and look at me like I'm nuts, and I sorta dig shit like that), this king or queen thing just seems like it's worth a mention...and I'll finish exactly the way you just did...look at our current history.... SOMETHING's gotta be better than THIS.
and I sure wish that media would stop pushing this ridiculous mythology about Edward VIII's abdication being about "the woman he loved." who is well-served by this continuing line of bullshit?
is it possible that I just sorta answered my own question by asking it?