Finally managed to work this out - hope I've put it into the right place.

Anyway lots of issues here but lets set out the current structure of the state (and then we can move on from there)

Head of state: Monarch - has power in name only- all bills etc are finally passed by Royal Assent though. There is always is a monarch - the king is dead - long live the king!

House of Lords (upper house has power to amend / alter / throw out bills put forward by elected commons - conmplex membership - mainly by appointment / birth )

House of Commons - elected as a member of parliament on first past the post system - ruling party is the one who has most MPS

Prime Minister - leader of ruling party.

Any queries or amendents / additions to be made ?

If memory serves, Common Law is the third pillar of the English constitution.

And it may help Americans to remember that Parliament is more like the supreme court. It can do anything except the impossible.

Actually Matt... we *don't* actually have a written constitution - well like the american model anyway....

Just a combination of institutions whose actions are moderated (supposedly) by the law of the land (or Europe ...) - even the Crown is subject to a number of anachronistic laws (especially where Roman catholicism is concerned).

Stuart made an interesting point which led to the creation of this thread (well done fingers lol). How do people feel about the state of the Monarchy?

We all know about the controversy that has surrounded various members of the family over the last 10 years, Charles, Diana, Andrew, Fergie, even Edward and Sophie in recent months. The Queen was heavily criticised for her reactions to Diana's death, but seems to be warming to Camilla (who has been invited to the funeral on Tuesday). Even the so called "favourite", William, has his critics and occasionally does do something termed as '$tupid' or 'not-royal'. I'm thinking mostly about his reactions to his studies at Saint Andrews. He obviously doesn't like several things about his current situation and, according to reports has had to be persuaded to stay on there. We now hear that he is finding a house with friends and seems happy, which I doubt is the truth somehow. I remember when I went to University, I hated it, for various reasons, and eventually did leave, but I worry for William. He has a lot ahead of him.

I personally feel that the Queen wishes to stay on as Queen until she dies, and that Charles, who by then will most likely be married to Camilla, will pass on the throne to William for 2 reasons. 1) Charles is no spring chicken himself (not sure of his real age) and 2) Charles knows who the public would favour given the choice of Him and Camilla, or William.

I don't feel that the death of the Queen Mother has any bearing on this (I know we are on a different thread now, but this is just a point I am making), I think this has been the intention of the Queen for a while, she certainly is not going to give up the throne for a while. When she does, for whatever reason, the choice of what to do will fall to Charles. I hope he makes the right choice.

And I also hope that William has married that girl he went to see in the fashion show last week, she would be a babe of a queen - but I digress.........

StevieW

Why do you guys need a monarch anyway? I mean it would be like us having a first Lady and no president. (I can hear the jokes about Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton already.)

William,

That is a question I can't answer snappily - too tired, too late at night....

I'll return to it tomorrow .....

Stevie,

Again I'll be able to give you an answer tomorrow - been wrestling with AOl this evening but there was a very interesting piece in the Sunday Times....

"Why do you guys need a monarch anyway" - William Berry

The word 'need' is so subjective there. We don't "need" to have a monarch especially, if they all decided to pack it all in and become ordinary people (an impossible situation but just imagine for a minute), the country would be no better or worse off than before, just a few hundred traditions of society, of government and of the last 1000 years say, would be flushed down the pan. I'm not saying we keep the monarchy because it has always been there and that's the way it is, but is a "presidential" situation any better in the long run?

The queen doesn't really have any actual 'power' that she exercises anyway, unless she feels that the government are about to have us all shot or something then she can overrule. On a general week by week year by year basis she serves merely to approve the legislation of the houses of Commons and Lords, most of which by the time it gets to the Queen has had to have several readings in both houses, and would never even get near the Queen if is was even vaguely controversial like that. I don't remember any instances of her overturning legislation anyway.

That's my 2p worth for today

Stevie_W

I am fully aware of the "unwritten constitution". It is a series of acts, traditions, documents and decrees set forth over the 1,200 years since King Egbert of Weessex united the English into a Kingdom. Of course, you really can't write a constitution for the UK. How do you really fit "The powers of the Queen's government shall be unlimited." into a written constitution?

One, I'm a monarchist, because I think Monarchs are some of the most beautiful butterflies around.

Two, how did the English royals first begin to rise to such great power way back when, and then slowly lose it over time, so that they're no longer the say-all and be-all of English law? If it'll take too long to answer then could someone please post a link or two where I could study it for myself?

Ah Matt ... but they are not anymore - unlimited that is ...

We now have in several instances, weights and measures for instance, a superior body is ruling over us -- the dreaded 'E' word ... It has recently been found that European directives are over and above British Law - even if there is no Act of Parliament supporting them. (That's a whole 'nother debate)

It has a relevance for this debate though - the law under which we live is now different - indeed the House of Lords is often not the final Court of Appeal - individuals often take up their right to appeal to the pan European Courts. These judgements are binding on British law and often compel parliament to change the relevant Acts of Parliament...

Basically, the British Monarchy arose back in the Dark ages, from a Anglo Saxon King named Egbert. They remained Saxon until a Norman with distant blood relations named William the bastard invaded from France. During all this time two other institutions arose in Britian, the Council of the King, and the Common Law. After the Tutor Dynasty, a series of Catholic Stuart Kings tried to impose Roman Catholicism on the English, as well as absolute monarchy. Neither worked, and after several "Experiments in republicanism", the Kings returned, but in order to, had to surrender most of their power. The Prime Minister came about when the King started to appoint a cabinet to assist him with governance of the realm. The Monarchs slowly lost power for good during the early 20th century when they realized their lifestyle and job were no longer connected.

Just to report the news that three BNP councillors (UK local government)were elected today. To a certain extent this was largely expected and it could have been worse ...

Anyway just to let you know ...

I heard it too. The far-right British National Party won three seats in Burnley. Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, declared it a "triumph".

I don't know how it will affect the UK as a whole. It probably won't do much damage just yet, so I wouldn't get too worked up about it, Fingers (oh, by the way, hi there). On the other hand, parts of the UK, especially in Central and North England, have been hotspots for ethnic tension and even riots. Was this a protest vote due to disillusionment with "New" Labour? Was voter apathy to blame? Will it continue? I don't know.

...

On a lighter note, a monkey (or is it a MUNNNNG-KEH?) was elected as Mayor of Hartlepool. OK, it was in fact the monkey mascot for Hartlepool United Football Club, a.k.a one Stuart Drummond, whose slogan was "Free Bananas for Schoolchildren." Of interest is that Hartlepool is Peter Mandelson's constituency. Quote of the day, about this piece of news, from Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Simon Hughes: "We were against the idea of directly-elected mayors because we thought they allowed for gimmicks and superficial characters to succeed and we were clearly proved right."

Forgot about the monkey - I suppose it is Hartlepool's nod to their history - they hung a monkey during WW1 because they suspected it was a German spy ....(darn he's ditched the costume!)

Oh Ray Mallon (Mr Zero Tolerance)got elected as mayor of Middlesborough

Peter Mandelson looked really happy during the count last night ...

I'll post later about the BNP....

(hi there Sven!)

As opposed to the Prime Minister being in a socialist youth organization in the 60's? Whenever certian issues are ignored by the major parties that mostly don't affect the elite or conflict with their ideology, the alienated masses may support extremeist canidates who give voice to their concerns. It happened with Wallace. The goal of the major parties should be to try to move this bloc to their camp by addressing their key concerns, in their manner. This has been happening across Europe for the past decade, mostly because no one is willing to deal with immigration, a issue that does not affect the Elites, but effects the masses.

Matt,

I'm glad you mentioned Wallace. On the BBC (NPR carries it) they interviewed some "expert" and asked why this sort of thing does not happen in the US. He mentioned Wallace. I wanted to kick the interviewer and make her ask if he knew any examples less than 40 years old or is he admitting France is 40 years behind the US?

I guess the interviewer saves her teeth for Isreali Cabinet Members and Ethiopian officials.

I just pulled wax out of my ear.

Well, he was a popular canidate from a section of the country that didn't have a party. For a modern example, look to the Northeast, a section of the country that is now alienated by both parties. It would also be due to the fact that the US is a two party system, while France is a multiparty system. Canidates who don't appeal to a board coalition of voters don't make it past the primaries.

OK, William... Buchanan.

ScottN,

Buchanan was never the Republican nominee. He got the Reform party nomination. (BTW, watch how fast the Reform Party folds when they won't get matching funds.) As Matt Pesti will remind you only the Republicans and Democrats really count.

Oh, wait a minute; you do mean Pat from this century not the dead Pres. from the 19th century, right?

Oh, BTW, immigration is not a vast concern in a country of immigrants (except among those that want to pull up the ladder after they climb it.) If the US ignores an issue and allows an extreme rightist to get in I bet the issue will have something to do with race.

And Wallace was never the Democratic nominee. He ran as an independent. Your point being?

Wallace, if I remember correctly, actually won states. Buchanan did not. Even if I am mistaken and Wallace never won a single state 40 years ago Buchanan never won one in the general election (I'm not sure of the primaries) last year. Do you see a temporal differnce between the two?

My point, which you so skillfully voided (remember my first post?) is the "expert" could well have used Buchanan and avoided the barb (which never came). Instead he'd get this argument (that Buchanan is no George Wallace).

BB:... that Buchanan is no George Wallace

Must resist... must not give in... too late, can't resist... MiSTing TIME!!!!

Ah knew George Wallace. George Wallace was ma' friend. And you, suh, are no George Wallace!

George Wallace also never confused Floridians into voting against Al Gore.

Callling the US a nation of immirgrants is not a Trump card in the issue you speak of it as. Anti-immigration is perhaps the most enduring ideology in US politics. There are important questions concerning assimilation and the admittance rate.

Matt,

If I was in a debate and my opponent had a well reasoned, well thought out argument on why we should stop all immigration and I disagreed with him I'd ask, "When did your ancestors cross the land bridge?"

It ain't right, but anyone can respond to that argument in the US, and ignore any facts and figures the other guy has. It ain't right, but the ladder argument is tough to get through, and then we argue about the figures. In Europe they don't have the ladder argument.

IMO an extreme rightist in the U.S. will probably be using race as an issue.

"Latter", not "ladder".

Sven of Nine was right when he or she said that apathy may be to blame. I Read in the Mirror (left wing tabloid in U.K) an article asking why people of Burnley had voted the BNP. One guy said he had because Labour seemed unintersted in helping the working class. His final comments were extremely worrying. He said that he had heard that one of the candidates standing for the BNP had been a neo nazi skinhead, and that he did not care, that he would have voted for Hitler if he felt he could have helped his community.

William Edgars in Babylon 5 seems to be right when he said that very few of the supporters of extremism are actual true believers of the cause they support. The vast majority believe that perhaps the extremists will support them and possibly improve their life.

Both mainstream parties must take this into account as indifference allows these extremist parties to continue and to actually gain some power.

Spelling nitpicker,

Yes, Ladder:n a framework of two long structural members connected at regular intervals by parallel rungs for climbing or descending. Not Latter:adj. indicating the second of two things mentioned.

I'm using the expression "pull up the ladder after them" to say they are the last to go up the ladder. Pesti, was I confusing you? I don't think it was confusing, but I usually know what I mean.

Matt, I believe you mean the English Monarchy arose back in the Dark Ages.

Matt,

As Josh said, what you are talking about is in the main English history. Britain is a geographical unit, the United Kingdom is the political unit. The UK didn't exist until the act of union happened sometime in the 18th century.


He's usually called William the Conqueror rather than the *bastard* - although if you speak to any Saxons from around that time they might casll him that.

I don't understand what you mean by *several experiments* in republicanism, there is only one in English history that I can recall - and that's the Civil War and the Protectorship afterwards and some may say that Cromwell acted as King in all but name so the title republicanism as we understand it in our modern world doesn't apply.

I would also argue that the Monarchs still do hold a lot of power - its just that it is seldom flexed these days. I would also argue with you the timing of its apparent loss - ever since the Restoration (17th century), Parliament has been the place where political and finanical (i.e. in the forms of fund raising by means of taxation) power has rested so it can hardly have been lost in the 20th century.

Fingers,

I would also argue that the Monarchs still do hold a lot of power. -- Fingers

What power? If Tony Blair comes over it means George Bush and Congress will deal with another world leader in the world of international affairs. If the queen visits Laura Bush will deal with place settings in the world of banquets. What am I missing?

I'm not English. I assume there is a reason beyond the tourism industry that you pay the royals a stipend. Besides keep Buckingham palace, where tourists taunt taciturn guards, do the royals do anything? Or if they don't by choice, can the royals do anything? Elucidate me.

The Monarch is the Head of State. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government. A visit by Tony Blair to the States should never be regarded as a visit by a Head of State like a visit by your president would be to us. Of course Tony Blair won't mind if you do think he is Head of State ....

If she so wishes she can sack the Prime Minister (which has happened in her name on at least one occasion), recall Parliament, she has to sign all bills going through Parliament, she can call a General Election (effectively sacking the Government), in the event of a hung parliament she has the power to form a government of her own choosing. In practice, in general, these powers aren't exercised but they are there and real.

So I guess she does have a bit more power than being able to rearrange the seating arrangements at a banquet.

Would there be an uproar if she used any of her powers or it widely accepted? Has a Monarch since Victoria (non-inclusive) done that?

Well there was a case in Australia in the seventies when her Governor General there sacked the Prime Minister in her name .. and yes there was a bit of an uproar at the time ...

I don't think there has been a time when the monarch has had to *take* action but the prime Minister of the day (i.e. politicians are temporary, Monarch has the experience of usually being in the job for a long time)is well advised to take the advice of the Monarch ....

If I'm not mistaken there was a point in the mid-seventies (I was too young at that point to fully take notice) when there were a couple of elections called and the Queen had to do the balancing act in either a hung / nearly hung parliament ...

Hi, I'm William Berry above. I now go as Blue Berry. I know I must have this wrong still. I'll give you my admitedly wrong view of the Monarchy and you can correct it.

The Monarch can do something but choses not to. (She/He choses not to for a variety of reasons that are irrelevant.) If a master chooses to not oppress his/her slave but the slave is still obediant and pay the master "royal" sums to keep the master in palaces, etc. aren't they still a slave?

This is wicked insulting. Some one from the British commonwealth please tell me you are not a slave of Elizabeth II.

Josh, Fingers: I think British Monarchy is acceptable, since I'm discussing the current state of the United Kingdom. It would be like speaking of the Untied States as the New England Confederation.

Due to his illegitimate status, Duke William of Normandy was surnamed "The Bastard", before the Battle of Hastings.

I'll agree that the Commonwealth was not a democracy. However, a government should not be judged by it's form, but by how it defends our rights.

I would agree that the power of the Monarchy has been declining since the Stuart Restoration, I would say the true point of no return was the glorious revolution, when William and Mary surrender's the bulk of the most powerful of the royal rights.

Get a piece of Derry Irvine's wallpaper - while the position of Lord Chancellor still lasts!

Not sure if anyone will reply to this, but I'll just say that I support the monarchy as well as an appointed House of Lords.
Someone mentioned above the "anachronistic" anti-catholic laws. They do in fact still serve an important purpose. If the sovereign was a catholic, then at their coronation he would have to be crowned by an Archbishop whose authority he does not recognise (I say he because there are also laws which give precedence to men in the sucession. I don't know of any practical reason for this)

The problem is that said anti-catholic laws are a relic from a time when the Church was a significant political actor in Europe - now it's just a pressure group of sorts.

So, why do you support an appointed House of Lords?

If the sovereign was a catholic, then at their coronation he would have to be crowned by an Archbishop whose authority he does not recognise

But the law only forbids a Catholic from ascending to the throne. Any protestant denomination other than Anglican would not "recognize" the archbishop, either. Besides, a Catholic monarch could ask that the Catholic archbishop be the one who presides (or maybe that the Catholic and Anglican archbishops co-preside, since the coronation site is the Anglican cathedral).

Remember, though, that one of the official titles of the King (or Queen) is "Defender of the Faith" (IIRC). It would be rather difficult for a Catholic (or any non-Anglican, for that matter) to be such a person.

The Church may not be a significant political factor, but it does still play an important role in national life (even if it's not so in-your-face as the government's role). It provides a pillar of support at times of national crisis or mourning, and celebration like at the coronation.

A catholic (or any non-anglican) priest would not be able to conduct the coronation because the point is that the sovereign is being invested as defender of the established faith. I agree that it's anachronistic to ban Catholics only from being sovereign, the law should really be that the sovereign has to be Anglican.

Why do I believe in an appointed House of Lords? Well, the Upper Chamber's purpose at the moment is to revise legislation from the Commons. I don't believe electing people would provide the expertise and wisdom necessary to do so. Also, I feel that the house should be a little more apolitical, and appointment for life would give peers enough security in their position to be able to abandon party politics.

I certainly do not approve of the sort of appointments Blair has in mind though. I don't think the Prime Minister should have nearly enough power over the peers. It shouldn't be easy to get there; it should be for the truly great. Nor do I think that criminals like Lord Archer should stay. His particular crime is at odds with a role in legislature.

A final reason for appointment would be it's symbolism. A Parliament consisting of three parts - one hereditary, one appointed and one elected, has a nice balance to it. Another little point to bear in mind is that the forefathers to the house of lords consisted mainly of appointed, rather than hereditary members.

Ironically, the title "Defender of the Faith" was first conferred on the English Royal House in 1521 when Pope Leo X was favorably impressed by Henry VIII Tudor's defense of Catholicism against Protestantism (especially Luteranism). And the cathedral was a Catholic cathedral before the Emperor (who was Catherine of Aragon's nephew)pressured Pope Clement VII to refuse the divorce and anullment -- which led to Henry's break with Rome.

James, ... A catholic (or any non-anglican) priest would not be able to conduct the coronation because the point is that the sovereign is being invested as defender of the established faith. I agree that it's anachronistic to ban Catholics only from being sovereign, the law should really be that the sovereign has to be Anglican. ...

That is, of course, no real explanation, it only transfers the question to the next level. There are other parliamental monarchies out there (the scandinavian ones come to mind) where a specific faith isn't required of the monarch (as far as I know - there is certainly no big deal made about it).

The question still remains: since times have changed, and people have a different attitude towards the church (catholic, anglican, protestant), and since politic and society has changed over the last 400 years, shouldn't these laws be changed, too? The title "Defender of the faith" isn't a good reason against it - the title could be dropped, or the meaning adapted - it doesn't say "defender of the special anglican faith we english invented for purely political reasons anyway", so "faith" could mean religion in general, or even "faith" in humanity, the constititon, Human Rights...

likewise, if the monarch would be catholic, why couldn't he be crowned by a catholic archpriest instead of an anglican one?

Just saying "its has always been this way" (with "always" being a narrow period of time, after the ceremony and laws were invented/ introduced) isn't a good reason for me.

But then, I'm not english.

Why do I believe in an appointed House of Lords? Well, the Upper Chamber's purpose at the moment is to revise legislation from the Commons. I don't believe electing people would provide the expertise and wisdom necessary to do so. Also, I feel that the house should be a little more apolitical, and appointment for life would give peers enough security in their position to be able to abandon party politics.

It's a nice idea, but it's terribly undemocratic and outdated. The expertise in crafting legislation comes from the army of bureaucrats supporting the cabinet. Here in Canada we have an appointed Senate - it's neither apolitical nor does it generally fulfill its stated purpose as providing a chamber of "sobre second thought."

I certainly do not approve of the sort of appointments Blair has in mind though. I don't think the Prime Minister should have nearly enough power over the peers. It shouldn't be easy to get there; it should be for the truly great. Nor do I think that criminals like Lord Archer should stay. His particular crime is at odds with a role in legislature.

Who else but the PM will be doing the appointing?

A final reason for appointment would be it's symbolism. A Parliament consisting of three parts - one hereditary, one appointed and one elected, has a nice balance to it. Another little point to bear in mind is that the forefathers to the house of lords consisted mainly of appointed, rather than hereditary members.

Such symbolism seems kind of pointless - what purpose does it serve in the interest of good government or popular representation?

"It's a nice idea, but it's terribly undemocratic and outdated. The expertise in crafting legislation comes from the army of bureaucrats supporting the cabinet."

That army of bureaucrats is even more undemocratic. I don't see why an appointed House is outdated though - we've only had appointed members for about 50 years, we've had elected Commons for longer.

"Here in Canada we have an appointed Senate - it's neither apolitical nor does it generally fulfill its stated purpose as providing a chamber of "sobre second thought.""

Could you explain your appointments system a bit more? That should shed some light on why your Senate appears (and this is based on what you said) useless.

>Who else but the PM will be doing the appointing?

The PM would still have a role, of course. There's the Speaker of the Commons, the Leader of the Opposition (with the exception of the Speaker, that would mean political figures,so it would have to be considered a bit more). There's also the Lords themselves, the Sovereign, and the Appointments Commission. A council could be made consisting of representatives of all these groups.

"Such symbolism seems kind of pointless - what purpose does it serve in the interest of good government or popular representation?"

Not necessarily. Each part of parliament serves a different role. Therefore, selecting the members in different ways may be good. The commons, holding most power and a monopoly of power over taxes, ought to represent popular opinion. The Lords, whose purpose is to revise legislation, act as a break against a dangerously big commons majority and provide a more relaxed platform for debate, should be appointd as I have said above. The Sovereign, whose purpose is to represent everybody, perform ceremonial roles and act as guardian to powers to stop tyrannical governments, should be hereditary so that no government can get rid of them simply because they will stop them slaughtering their enemies or such terrors.

That army of bureaucrats is even more undemocratic. I don't see why an appointed House is outdated though - we've only had appointed members for about 50 years, we've had elected Commons for longer.

Except that army of bureaucrats does not get to vote on legislation and is appointed based on ability and the merit principle.

Could you explain your appointments system a bit more? That should shed some light on why your Senate appears (and this is based on what you said) useless.

The Crown nominally appoints senators on the "advice" of the PM (i.e., he appoints them). Senators must hold a certain amount of property, the exact amount of which escapes me at the moment. They are appointed to provide regional representation - 24 from the West, 24 from Ontario, 24 from Quebec, 24 from the Maritimes, 6 from Newfoundland and 2 from the North. Senators serve until the age of 75 (previously for life).

The PM would still have a role, of course. There's the Speaker of the Commons, the Leader of the Opposition (with the exception of the Speaker, that would mean political figures,so it would have to be considered a bit more). There's also the Lords themselves, the Sovereign, and the Appointments Commission. A council could be made consisting of representatives of all these groups.

Alright, but what sort of criteria would be established for appointments?

Not necessarily. Each part of parliament serves a different role. Therefore, selecting the members in different ways may be good. The commons, holding most power and a monopoly of power over taxes, ought to represent popular opinion. The Lords, whose purpose is to revise legislation, act as a break against a dangerously big commons majority and provide a more relaxed platform for debate, should be appointd as I have said above.

If parties can attain "dangerously" big majorities in the Commons (with less than 50% of the vote, I might add), would not electoral reform be a more effective - and democratic - reform? Similarly, partisan appointees would probably predominate in the Lords - how will they provide a check on the government (or party) of the PM that appointed them?

The Sovereign, whose purpose is to represent everybody, perform ceremonial roles and act as guardian to powers to stop tyrannical governments, should be hereditary so that no government can get rid of them simply because they will stop them slaughtering their enemies or such terrors.

That's all fine and good, but since the Glorious Revolution, the supremecy of Parliament is a given.

Obviously, if your PM appoints all the senators, then no wonder the senate is so useless.

"Alright, but what sort of criteria would be established for appointments?"

1) Personal excellence in their field of life
2) Able to contribute to the work of the house.

"Similarly, partisan appointees would probably predominate in the Lords - how will they provide a check on the government (or party) of the PM that appointed them?"

You ignore the other groups I just mentioned, who would also appoint.

"That's all fine and good, but since the Glorious Revolution, the supremecy of Parliament is a given."

The supremacy of Parliament, not the government.

Well, it seems our Prime Minister is a little insecure in his job at the moment - which invites speculation - who will be the next PM? Brown, Duncan-Smith or even Kennedy?

I'd argue "None of the above" myself, for various reasons...

So would I really, but they are probably the most likely suspects.

While I am appalled that the BNP could ever rise to power after what happened with the Imperial Fascists League before WWII (and WWII itself), I find it somewhat odd that the media only condemns extremist far-right groups. We also have a lot of extremist far-left groups who are probably about as dangerous as the BNP, but the worst they're ever treated as is overly idealistic and naive.

Personally, I think that if we ever decided to get rid of the current Royal Family, we'd replace them not with a republic but with another Royal Family (we've done it lots of times before!). Until recently in the 20th/21st Century this would've been quite difficult, but now a lot of former republics have gone back to being monarchies (e.g. Spain) and a lot of the Eastern European bloc countries want their monarchs back (which is interesting. 50 years under Communism and they want their monarchs back, even though some of those monarchs were despotic tyrants). Pretty much what happened in Britain after Cromwell.

So at the moment we could probably fob royalty off Belgium, the Netherlands, any Scandinavian country, Spain or a few more which I can't remember. I doubt we'd want a French-speaking monarch. I wonder if they'd tolerate a black monarch from somewhere like Tonga? In the past we've had kings who couldn't speak English (as late as the 1700s).

Most of the Americans on this board seem to say that the appointed House of Lords is wrong because it's undemocratic. I would say democracy is not necessarily the best way to do EVERYTHING. For instance, in ancient Rome it was common practice to suspend the Senate in a state of emergency (e.g. war) and appoint a Dictator for the duration of the crisis, to get fast decisions rather than endless debate. Afterwards there would be accountability.

And I know this sounds a bit Confederate, but I personally think the Americans invest far too much power in their President (it may just be the impression I get from watching CNN, but it seems the Vice-President has little more responsibility than speaking at industrial fairs).

>...but I personally think the Americans invest far too much power in their President (it may just be the impression I get from watching CNN, but it seems the Vice-President has little more responsibility than speaking at industrial fairs). >

Well, Yes, but the Congress has as much or more power than the President. (The Congress can remove the President from office, if necessary.)

ccabe: Exaclty, like back when the Republican Congress brought Clinton up on blow job charges.

But those charges were found to be true...and Clinton was never impeached. Was it just the public mood counting against it, or was Congress unwilling to risk trying to remove him from office (Has this ever actually happened in the recent past?)

No, but Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869) and Clintion were brought up on impeachment charges, but not enough senators voted them out of office. Johnson avoided impeachment by 1 vote.

Another example of Congress being more powerful than the President is the fact that Congress, in rare instances can override a Presidential veto.

No, Thande, Clinton was impeached. He was not convicted.

CCabe, Johnson was impeached, he avoided conviction by one vote.

For those unfamiliar with the US system, a bill of impeachment from the House against the President is similar to a criminal indictment. The Senate then hold a trial, and if the President is convicted, he's out of office.

Hey, this is meant to be UK Politics! But the discussion of impeachment brings me (tenuously) to another important constitutional matter over here - The Lord High Chancellor.

For those who don't know, this office is filled by a politician with legal experience, appointed by the Prime Minister. He is :
1) A Cabinet Minister
2) Speaker of the House of Lords
3) Head of the judiciary

The Blair Government has decided that an office that is Executive, Legislative and Judicial is not constitutional and have responded as they usually do - let's abolish it.

Whilst I am no lawyer, I do understand the idea of seperating the Chancellor's powers. But I also disapprove of the over-the-top solution proposed, which would completely wipe out the office. I think that his cabinet responsibilities should go to a Secretary of State (which is really the same as Blair proposes, with one key difference, mentioned below) The judicial responsibilities, instead of being scattered all over the place and totally transforming our legal system, should be vested in the Lord High Steward, an ancient and long-abandoned office whose main responsibility was to try impeached peers. What would remain with the Chancellor would be the speakership of the Lords and the Keeping of the Great Seal (Blair wants this to go to a cabinet minister). The Chancellor's new role could be simply described as Head of Parliament.

Thats my tuppence's worth on this issue - long, complicated and boring but quite important really.

Sorry about getting so far off topic.

No need to apologise to me!

You may as well discuss US politics, as nobody appears to want to discuss the UK.

Oh, I'd enjoy talking about it... just really busy lately!

You have a good point Thande, and its one I've given a lot of thought to, and the only conclusion I can draw is that Far Right equates to Nazism in the eyes of most people. Hitler and his henchmen are in British eyes always more vilified, than Stalin and his Bolsheviks. Whereas Nazism, and by extension any far right groups are condemned quite rightly for their insane policy of perfect monoracial ideologies, and the contempt of other "races", whilst I see that Left wing sociolists and Communists are seen as loonys or modern day Robin Hoods depending on your political stance, in their persuit of a classless society, and I believe that this sort of romantacism the Left engenders in some, results from the communist victory in the war over Nazism. Stalin and other Left wing figures are less well known for their crimes, and there is an underlying noble but naive belief in a classless egalitarian society, but the awful methods used to create this goal I feel are still not as well known as Nazi crimes due to the fairly recent documents from the Soviet era being uncovered (Soviet Communism only ended 13 years ago). Did you know that Che Guevera beleived that "We need several Vietnams" in order to ignite Communist revolutions in Latin America. I think British society is more aware of Hitlers Concentration camps, and Eugenic programs, rather than the Gulags, show trials and collectivised starvation in the Urals which resulted from the Bolshevic experiment, and the fact that our country actually fought the Nazis which almost down plays crimes commited by left wing ideologies

Also don't forget that Hitler reduced several british cities to rubble, with his V2 rockets, Stalin did not.

Stalin and other Left wing figures are less well known for their crimes, and there is an underlying noble but naive belief in a classless egalitarian society, but the awful methods used to create this goal I feel are still not as well known as Nazi crimes due to the fairly recent documents from the Soviet era being uncovered (Soviet Communism only ended 13 years ago).

Lenin was left wing in his ideas, He wanted to help people. Before his death we wanted to institute some capitalist policys when he realized that communism was not working like they thought it would. Had he remained alive for several more years he probably would have turned Russia into something more socialist than communist. When he died and Stalin took over he went in the other direction. He implimented facist policys and called them communist. Classless, Stalin's Russia was hardly classless. They turned Russia into 2 classes, the ruling elite and the working class, just like the Czar, or the Nazis or feudal Europe.

Fitzie: Be careful. Eveyrtime I've tried to point that out I got called a facist liberal who wants to steal people's money. And that's the NICER of the things I here from Conservatives. To date MikeC is the only one who hasn't been a complete jerk to me when I disagree with them.

To date MikeC is the only one who hasn't been a complete jerk to me when I disagree with them.

Hey, Webber, I resent that! I don't call people complete jerks when I disagree with them!

\humor{What are you, a complete jerk? }

There has been recent research into the royal family tree, casting doubt on the legitimacy of Edward IV and so on the current royal family. The recent programme on Channel 4 presented by Tony robinson claimed to have found the "rightful" monarch. However, this programme was flawed in several ways:

Firstly it claimed that "The British monarchy rests entirely on blood and inheritance". This is simply not true; the sovereign had, and still has, to have the approval of Parliament and the people. The programme-makers seem to have taken a very simplistic view of constitutional custom.

Secondly,the root of their argument was that, as Henry VII and his wife both had no legitimate royal descent, nor can any of their descendants. However, this ignores the Right of Conquest that Henry Tudor had. In any case, any descendants of the marriage were royal, as Henry VII was a king de facto.

Thirdly, The Act of Settlement set the succession on the Protestant Descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover. This programme's "real" King is not descended from her, so has no constitutional right to the throne.

The final and worst act of this programme was to claim that "King Michael" was the "rightful" King. He simply is not. He has a strong claim to be King, but as none of his anscestors were ever actually sovereign, and constitutional practice is much against his claim, he could not actually be called "King". Perhaps a minor quibble. However, this programme's insistance on using the phrases "King Michael" "The real Royal Family" and "Dispossessed" has made those ignorant of even basic constitutional principles believe that our current Royal Family has no right to their position. An that is seriously incorrect

Firstly it claimed that "The British monarchy rests entirely on blood and inheritance". This is simply not true; the sovereign had, and still has, to have the approval of Parliament and the people. The programme-makers seem to have taken a very simplistic view of constitutional custom.

Since the Glorious Revolution anyway. In any case, more nonsense comes in that in the time of Henry VII, there was no "British" monarchy... he was King of England. Going back further, I don't see William the Conqueror had any "legitimate royal descent."

Actually, William's claim to the throne was as valid as either of the two Haralds. Harald Godwin's claim was as the brother-in-law of the last of Alfred Magnus' line. Harald Hadrata's claim was as the nephew, heir, and co-regent of Canute's Scandinavian heir. (Canute had given England to the English son he had with Emma of Normandy [Ethelred the Unready's widow] not to his Scandinavian heir.) William was Emma's nephew.

So all three claimed the vacant throne through a blood kinship not to either the old Wessex dynasty, or the newer Scandian one, but through women
who had married into the Royal families.

Although you are right in that it was not until after the monarchs started thinking of themselves as English and not Norman that their belief in their divine right to rule was fully tempered by recognition of their duty to the people that they served as well as ruled. Nor was it entirely coincidental that the sea change began in the reigns of the first three Edwards, in the generations immediately following the signing of the Magna Carta.

And Josh leads me very nicely onto another point. At the end of the programme, they showed "The Queen" as a German woman, as she would have been if the throne had passed down "the right way". Alright, they were joking, but it's more likely that The Queen would have been Queen of Scots, as she would still have had a legitimate claim to that throne.

Moreover, the Magna Carta came into being at the time when the Angevins (thanks in part to King John's mistakes) had lost their continental territories, which put an end to the French orientation of English kings.

It's amusing how Richard I is always portrayed in the Robin Hood legends as some sort of saviour of the English people, given that he spent most of his life and reign in France, in the Crusade, and as a prisoner of... I can't remember. Was it Philip Augustus of France or something?

King Richard spent six months of his reign in England.

You have to remember two things, Crusaders are holy warriors, and thus they would be folkheros, the other that "the government that governs least, governs best" particularly when government in England at those times meant raping newly-wed brides and better organizing your taxation methods and expanding such activities.

He was well loved by the people, as they did raise the ransom for him.

...when government in England at those times meant raping newly-wed brides...

Well, with Richard, at least the brides were safe.

Oooh! I can't believe I said that

Jgould,

...and as a prisoner of... I can't remember...

I think it was some Leopold of Austria who held him for ransom.

Matt,

...when government in England at those times meant raping newly-wed brides ...

If you mean the ius primae noctae (the right of the first night), many scholars seem now to think that it was invention or satire on the backwards, dark mediaveal time. (Just like chastity belts, which weren't worn during the crusades or middle ages, but made in the last 2 centuries).

TomM,

what do you mean? Was Richard gay?

James G.,

...Firstly it claimed that "The British monarchy rests entirely on blood and inheritance". This is simply not true; the sovereign had, and still has, to have the approval of Parliament and the people. The programme-makers seem to have taken a very simplistic view of constitutional custom. ...

Doesn't every constitutional monarchy rest on blood and inheritance? Its true that the Parliament has to approve, but Parliament can't suggest or approve somebody else, outside the royal blood (correct me if I'm wrong). Whereas in non-monarchies, the representative of the state who is approved can be selected (Theoretically) from all people, not only those with royal blood.

Many historians believe that he was. It is known that his marriage was forced on him (by his mother!) and was very unhappy, and produced no heirs. Nor did he have any known mistresses.

I think what James might mean is that since the government does not really need the sovereign, the approval or forebearance of the people is necessary for there to be a royal family at all. The House of Windsor could be turned out just as readily as the House of Romanoff was, or whichever House produced Louis XVI of France (Bourbon?, Burgundy?)

TomM,

sounds like a little bit of flimsy evidence, esp. at a time when most people believed in christian religion were homosexuality would be a very grave sin.

A marriage being forced unto someone for political reasons - if only to produce a heir - was common in those days and/or noble families. Not producing any heirs could be caused by physical problems on his or her part - many noble/royal marriages stayed without heirs, but not for lack of trying.

Not having any mistresses can just mean he didn't know what to do with woman - at those times, man's and woman's world were more seperated than today - and there are enough guys out there, today, that prefer watching sports with the guys, drinking beer over spending time with a woman. That doesn't make them necessarily gay - they just have different interests.

TomM,

the Louis-line of France was the Bourbon, not Burgundy (although both can be drunk, too )

Romanoffs was the Czar of Russia.

King Richard spent six months of his reign in England.

Yes, though, as I said, as an Angevin king, he was thoroughly French, who never even bothered to learn the English language.

You have to remember two things, Crusaders are holy warriors, and thus they would be folkheros, the other that "the government that governs least, governs best" particularly when government in England at those times meant raping newly-wed brides and better organizing your taxation methods and expanding such activities.

Um, Thomas Jefferson quotes have little to do with 13th Century, *feudal* England. Otherwise, the only people paying taxes in the feudal systems are the barons and clergy, not peasants. King John was raising taxes primarily to finance his wars on the continent with Philip Augustus; had they been successful, it is unlikely the barons would have been able to force him to agree to the Magna Carta.

He was well loved by the people, as they did raise the ransom for him.

They may have liked him, but there's no real evidence as to the peasantry's approval of their king. More to the point, they did *not* raise the ransom for him - again, it had to be extracted from the barons and others.

Wikipedia has a great entry on Richard Coeur de Lion.

I knew that the Romanoffs were the Russians (though re-reading my post, I can see how you weren't clear whether I did or not. Sorry asbout the clumsy phrasing.

Re: Richard, That's why I said "many historians" believe he was gay--there are many others who disagree. As to his marriage, he'd already left for the Crusades before Mom (Eleanor of Aquitaine) could arrive with Berengaria of Nevarre, the poor little thing that was to be the bride, so Mom diverted to Cyprus to intercept him and force the issue. After the wedding, Richard left her there to go fight in the Holy Land, and did not bother about her again.

Constanze, a monarchy does not depend ENTIRELY on hereditary right - at least, the British one doesn't. Some monarchies (the papacy, for example) are elective. Heredity is usually stuck to because it makes things a lot easier, avoids arguments and so on and in many absolute monarchies it is necessary because of the religious beliefs behind that regime.

However in the UK we have constitutional monarchy, in which Parliament is supreme. I am not sure, but I believe TomM is correct in saying that Parliament could get rid of the monarchy if it wanted to. I suppose it could be argued that there HAS to be a sovereign, and certainly that is the case at the moment, but if Parliament, which includes the sovereign, decided to abolish, it is likely that their will would be respected.

Parliament certainly COULD suggest someone else, but it would be a dangerous position, as who would follow their choice when he/she dies? Much safer to stick with "royal blood", really

And of course the sovereign, as an integral part of parliament, would probably not approve a rival to their heirs.

People recently have decried measures to do with tightening the (British) asylum system as either (a) giving ammunition to the UKIP, BNP and other far-right groups, or (b) seemingly implying that the Government is caving into their demands. Although there is some truth in this, I think it is outweighed by the fact that these far-right groups feed on the premise that "the Government does nothing to stop all those Johnny Foreigners coming over here and taking our jobs", etc. Showing that the Government is taking a step that is both more in line with the majority of the public's beliefs and - crucially - is measured and controlled will, I think, achieve more than the previous hand-wringing approach.

Essentially opinion on the subject seems to be divided three ways:

(1) a relatively small group of people, stereotypically from the upper and upper middle class, who think even mentioning the phrase 'asylum seeker' is grounds for being locked up in the International Human Rights Court;

(2) the majority of the population, who are generally suspicious (usually without much justification) of increased immigration and refugees;

(3) Right-wing fanatics, ranging from the Nazi-like parties such as the BNP through to some of the tabloids at the more relatively moderate end, who want to capitalise on public opinion in order to seize power/sell more papers.


Sometimes I think the Government gets a distorted view of public opinion because it's based in London. London has a far higher proportion of ethnic minorities than anywhere else in Britain, so naturally both madly-over-the-top right-wing and left-wing groups are more pronounced. In reality, I think the majority of people do not care so much about the issue as it is made out.

On the other hand, the Nazis originally got into power partly because of voter apathy...

On a different note, I see that Britain, France, Belgium, Austria and German all now have far-right parties...what about the rest of the European countries? Or the USA? (Though they have the advantage that newly established parties rarely come to anything regardless of ideology, as a great deal of the American population seems to have nailed its colours to the mast a long time ago and would vote in anyone providing they belonged to the right party. This is also partly true in Britain, but not to the same extent.

Okay, I'm revising my previous ideas on the Lord Chancellor (i do this a lot). I'd now keep the minister and speaker roles under the Chancellor's office. He'd still be a PM - Appointed cabinet minister, but his speaker's role, and legislation that would be introduced making him difficult to remove on PM's whim, would enable him to be more apolitical than at the moment, which i feel would be important for executive responsibilities to do with justice etc.

Moderator's Note:

All post regarding the death of Queen Elizabeth II have been moved to the Royalty section:


Nitcentral's Bulletin Brash Reflections: Political Musings: Political Figures: Royalty


Please direct all further comments on the subject there. Thank you.

British Prime Minister Liz Truss has resigned, after just 45 days in office. One of the items that probably sank her was her British version of Reaganomics. Namely, proposed tax cuts for the rich. Well, Reaganomics didn't work here in the states (except for the rich slobs, of course) and I'm sure it would not work there. More here.

Here is a discussion about why her short tenure as Prime Minister was so devastating to the British economy.

Another one bites the dust.