Queen Elizabeth II to address the UN.

[David]

In the name of the United Kingdom, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.

Can't they just call it the British Empire and be done with it?

 

[DodgeFB]

In the name of the United Kingdom, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.

Can't they just call it the British Empire and be done with it?

That would be too simple.

 

[Dirk]

Can't they just call it the British Empire and be done with it?

No no, that's the Commonwealth.



To be honest, I just wish we could be rid of her. People seem to think that a bad argument for tourism and moneymaking is more important than abolishing an elitist feudal relic.

 

[myp]

No no, that's the Commonwealth.



To be honest, I just wish we could be rid of her. People seem to think that a bad argument for tourism and moneymaking is more important than abolishing an elitist feudal relic.

While she is a symbol of the monarchic past, she really doesn't have much power today and like you said she is promoting tourism. In the end that tourism money is helping the people of England, so it is beneficial at this point to keep her.

 

[DodgeFB]

No no, that's the Commonwealth.



To be honest, I just wish we could be rid of her. People seem to think that a bad argument for tourism and moneymaking is more important than abolishing an elitist feudal relic.

She can pack up all that loot and move in with us anytime.

 

[Dirk]

While she is a symbol of the monarchic past, she really doesn't have much power today and like you said she is promoting tourism. In the end that tourism money is helping the people of England, so it is beneficial at this point to keep her.

That she doesn't have much real power is beside the point. It's the symbolysis that gets me. The fact that she's "promoting tourism" doesn't really matter - i wouldn't call it an argument of much calibre. Besides which, even if we didn't facilitate and fund everything she does - along with her entire family, which is filthy rich anyway - Buckingham Palace isn't going to magically vanish!

 

[myp]

That she doesn't have much real power is beside the point. It's the symbolysis that gets me. The fact that she's "promoting tourism" doesn't really matter - i wouldn't call it an argument of much calibre. Besides which, even if we didn't facilitate and fund everything she does - along with her entire family, which is filthy rich anyway - Buckingham Palace isn't going to magically vanish!

Ah, that's a good point too. I am actually not sure how the whole funding system for that works and if it is taxpayer subsidized at a loss, then I see no benefit whatsoever. If it is making the taxpayers money though, you could see it as payback for the years of taxes

 

[deanhills]

I'm a little baffled however, why would she be addressing the UN! Which bright spark thought to get her to do the job, as I thought her role was purely ceremonial? Will this be in New York?

 

[Dirk]

I'm a little baffled however, why would she be addressing the UN! Which bright spark thought to get her to do the job, as I thought her role was purely ceremonial?

Technically, she has quite devastating power. It would be impossible for her to use it, though, unless she wants to see another civil war. It's conceivable that most of the army would be royalists, since they must swear allegiance to her (not the politicians).

Also, while Gordon Brown retains the position of Head of Government, Elizabeth II is the Head of State.

Britain is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a Ceremonial Monarchy.

@myp:

Taxpayers generally pay an unreasonable amount of money to one of the richest families in Britain. In return, the monarchy generates money from the civil list. Nobody knows how much the civil list actually generates, though. Monarchists say it is a net gain, republicans (small "r"), like myself, say it is a net loss. I can say this with certainty, however. Although it may be true the civil list covers the cost of maintenance (i remain unconvinced), on top of their salaries, taxpayers also pay for countless and various unnecessarily expensive, extravagant and flaboyant celebratory ceremonies.

 

[deanhills]

Technically, she has quite devastating power.

Right, only technically, and mostly in Great Britain. So I am still puzzled why she has been selected to address the UN, unless they would like to hammer a very important point in with sledgehammer? She's getting on in years as well, long past retirement?

 

[Dirk]

Right, only technically, and mostly in Great Britain. So I am still puzzled why she has been selected to address the UN, unless they would like to hammer a very important point in with sledgehammer? She's getting on in years as well, long past retirement?

Oh! Why she's been asked to address the UN? Because she's head of state, i imagine.

By the way, i challenge anyone to make a decent, consistent argument in favour of the monarchy.

 

[David]

While she is a symbol of the monarchic past, she really doesn't have much power today and like you said she is promoting tourism. In the end that tourism money is helping the people of England, so it is beneficial at this point to keep her.

She can declare war in the name of any of the nations I listed, regardless of their own opinions.

 

[deanhills]

She can declare war in the name of any of the nations I listed, regardless of their own opinions.

Technically maybe, realistically I doubt it.

 

[David]

Technically maybe, realistically I doubt it.

Many royal subjects seem to have an almost religious loyalty to the queen. She could pull it off I think.

 

[Dirk]

Many royal subjects seem to have an almost religious loyalty to the queen. She could pull it off I think.

Probably with some of them. As i said, in most cases, the army might well be on-side - they swear allegiance to her, not the Government.

 

[deanhills]

Probably with some of them. As i said, in most cases, the army might well be on-side - they swear allegiance to her, not the Government.

In the UK, I think the people would revolt. They would expect the decision to have been made in Parliament first, and her then playing a ceremonial role after the fact.

I'm curious. When she is in the House of Commons, do they behave themselves, or do they also shout out of turn as they usually do?

 

[Dirk]

In the UK, I think the people would revolt. They would expect the decision to have been made in Parliament first, and her then playing a ceremonial role after the fact.

I agree.

I'm curious. When she is in the House of Commons, do they behave themselves, or do they also shout out of turn as they usually do?

The Queen does not enter the House of Commons.

 

[David]

In the UK, I think the people would revolt. They would expect the decision to have been made in Parliament first, and her then playing a ceremonial role after the fact.

I'm curious. When she is in the House of Commons, do they behave themselves, or do they also shout out of turn as they usually do?

The House of Commons is for commoners. If she ever plays a part of Parliament, it's in the House of Lords as she's of the nobility.

 

[deanhills]

The House of Commons is for commoners. If she ever plays a part of Parliament, it's in the House of Lords as she's of the nobility.

Correct. I should have said when she opens Parliament. The opening is of course completely ceremonial and all of it is written for her by Government.