I'll open the debate for monarchy:

While I would not be in favour of a hereditary wielder of power: a monarch like the old English kings and queens who made the laws up as they went along, I see a huge benefit in the separation of the head of state from the people who actually run the country.  Being head of state means pomp and ceremony wherever you go, a huge amount of time spent in formal functions and appearances.  The upshot of this is that if you've got a country to run, too, you have a lot less time to do it in (if you see what I mean). 

It is also very apparent that a lot of presidential types become increasingly "royal" in their behaviour through their terms in office (in Africa, this has often meant that they refuse to relinquish power when the time finally comes) - separation of pomp and power does not necessarily prevent this, but it does reduce the temptations.

And finally, the "hereditary privilege" argument:

In today's media age, where coverage is intrusive and incessant, being a member of the royal family has downsides as well as benefits (as witnessed in yesterday's fracas between Prince Harry and a photographer) - their whole lifestyle is affected.  If Harry was merely the son of rich parents, nobody would care if he was out at a nightclub.. but as third in line to the throne, he gets nicknamed "the party prince" when I wouldn't mind betting he's done considerably less partying than 90% of boys his age.  This isn't really an argument pro-Monarchy, however: more like a pre-empt for one of the arguments against.  I'd say it's no great life being a "privileged" royal - personally, I'd absolutely hate it.  Which, I guess, is why I'm kind of happy there's someone else to do it for me.

I'm sot sure how to vote on this one.  I think that there should definitely be a separation of the
Monarch and the legislature of the country.  The Monarchy should be purely ceremonial, not
funded by the taxpayers.  If they would like to carry on the pomp and circumstance, well let
them, for old times sake, and for historical perspective.  They can be allowed to keep their titles,
but not expect that it means that they must be kowtowed to, those days are over.  Since it would
be(is)purely ceremonial I cannot see the harm, as long as they do not have a hereditary right
to wield power.

Pretty much like we have here, then, Danoota - that's a "yes" in the simple yes/no ballot above: I kind of assumed that we'd not be talking about the monarch as ruler, so it's not part of the debate.

Yes - it's better than the alternatives

As one of the colonial subjects  ;) I have never seen it has done me any harm, so I don't really give a fizz one way or 'tother !

(11 November 1975 notwithstanding, grrrr)  ;D

I suppose what I essentially am saying is I see no 'need' to change it, but then I am politically naive (I am saying this first people, in case any future poster felt like saying it on my behalf)  :P

I voted yes.  Seperating the head of state from the head of the government is a great idea.  It eliminates the nonsense about patrioitism that always comes up over here when citizens object to the policies of the government.

The remaining western monarchies are largely symbolic.  The UK still allows the monarch a political role, but I can't exactly remember how it works.

Philbo, what's the Queen's relationship to the PM and parliament?

Anyway,  I believe in democratic representation, so of course I don't advocate monarchy in which the royals have absolute power, let alone the "divine right of kings."

Sorry I'm not Philbo Maxwell, I thought I would answer this to the best of my abilities.  :)

The main role The Queen has is finalising any legislation that takes place and formally appoints Prime Ministers. She also attends visits to other countries (as an ambassador of England I guess) and gives MBEs, OBEs and Knighthoods to people. Don't forget the obligatory Christmas speech towards the end of the year as well . . .

I am not in favour of The Queen or Royal Family regardless of the 'hardships' her privelledges provide. She seems to serve less of a purpose in these modern times and her family, despite privelledged, are about as wayward as any other 'mortal' families. Not even the tourism issue is a consolation to the people of Britain as she merely takes a huge amount from us anyway in taxes - and what for? For merely being born into a bloodline of importance . . . Apparently.  ::)

Sorry I'm not Philbo Maxwell, I thought I would answer this to the best of my abilities.  :)

The main role The Queen has is finalising any legislation that takes place and formally appoints Prime Ministers. She also attends visits to other countries (as an ambassador of England I guess) and gives MBEs, OBEs and Knighthoods to people. Don't forget the obligatory Christmas speech towards the end of the year as well . . .

I am not in favour of The Queen or Royal Family regardless of the 'hardships' her privelledges provide. She seems to serve less of a purpose in these modern times and her family, despite privelledged, are about as wayward as any other 'mortal' families. Not even the tourism issue is a consolation to the people of Britain as she merely takes a huge amount from us anyway in taxes - and what for? For merely being born into a bloodline of importance . . . Apparently.  ::)


Does the Queen have any say in the legislation, or is the role strictly ceremonial?  Also, I hear the royals may skip Charles and go straight to William in succession...at least that's been rumored.  Would Charles have to consent to the decision?

The British royal family is a heck of a lot wealthier and more powerful than the royal familes of countries such as Denmark, Holland, or Norway, so I understand why many Britons are bloody fed up with them!

Does the Queen have any say in the legislation, or is the role strictly ceremonial?  Also, I hear the royals may skip Charles and go straight to William in succession...at least that's been rumored.  Would Charles have to consent to the decision?

I guess she does have the say in the legislation if she really dissagreed with it. She rarely acts on it though.

The British royal family is a heck of a lot wealthier and more powerful than the royal familes of countries such as Denmark, Holland, or Norway, so I understand why many Britons are bloody fed up with them!

I think a major problem with The Royal Family is that we, as British people, have to pay for their up-keep.  :-\\

The role of the Queen in law-making is to basically rubber-stamp legislation after they've been discussed and argued in Parliament. I'm unsure of what, if any, sort of veto power she has. The Queen's representative in Australia, the Governor-General, and in other Commonwealth countries that aren't yet republics, like New Zealand, really only has a ceremonial role, acting on the Queen's behalf to finalise legislation. They don't have a Parliamentary role at all, but they do have Executive powers that they must apply to the Queen to use. Sir John Kerr used his in 1975 to dismiss the Whitlam government, which is as fine an argument as I can find as to why Australia should beome a republic. :) As for the monarchy's role in anything beyond ceremonial duties, I can't even see the need for that anymore.

The last stage of any parliamentary bill is "Royal assent", which as has been said is traditionally a rubber-stamp after parliament has made up its mind.

There was a TV programme a few years ago (which I bring up because it's starting to look topical again) where the Commons (the elected bit) passed an anti-hunting bill, much as has just happened here... the programme was about all the protests, brouhaha in the Lords (the unelected bit - very conservative as well as Conservative), finally forced through using the Parliament Act (the bit of legislation that says that in the event of a serious disagreement, the Commons will always get its way).  The punchline to this programme was the Queen NOT giving the bill royal assent... but I bet she won't in real life :)

I think 'Brenda' (as Private Eye lovingly call her...!) still has the power to dissolve Parliament in the (very rare) event of a constitutional crisis (someone will have to look up when this last occurred, it may well be in the times when yer King used to ride into battle...!!)

Personally, I can't see their appeal - and I think the next few generations behind me will increasingly be of this view...

But this country does like its traditions...probably keeps a few nobs in employment...

The last stage of any parliamentary bill is "Royal assent", which as has been said is traditionally a rubber-stamp after parliament has made up its mind.




   Echoing Max's question...

  There is a ritual that occurs, apparently, when your legislative bodies come together. The Crown appears from time to time before at least one of the houses, and in a traditional ceremony, the Beadle is locked out while the Crown reads to the legislators a list of necessities, requests, or fancies hoped for on behalf of the British people. Admittedly, I've only seen part of this ritual once, but it seems akin to what would be a proper State of the Union Address, in which our President is supposed to brief Congress on the state of the nation, and in which the President often spells out what is desired in terms of legislation.

Are the Crown's requests binding?

The reason I ask is that, while we're prone to criticizing budgets according to presidents (e.g. even I, in Kerry's defense, point to Poppy Bush's appropriations bill that, once passed, was called "Bush's budget" as well as "bad for the military") the budget is argued, altered, and finalized by Congress before being submitted to the president.

The Crown appears from time to time before at least one of the houses, and in a traditional ceremony, the Beadle is locked out while the Crown reads to the legislators a list of necessities, requests, or fancies hoped for on behalf of the British people.

What you're thinking of is the state opening of parliament (which probably should have capitals) - it's Black Rod who's locked out (signifying.. oh, something from Cromwell's time).  The queen makes a speech in which she says "my government is going to do etc.", outlining the legislative agenda for the next year.  But it is the Government that writes this speech, not the Queen.


Are the Crown's requests binding?

Knowing our constitutional history as I do (like, kind of incomplete), I wouldn't mind betting that it's something like "Parliament accedes to do the crown's bidding, provided the Crown never asks anything that hasn't already been passed by parliament"... if you see what I mean.