Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

How useful do you think the queen is as head of state?

33 replies

FeistySheep · 15/03/2021 13:11

I have Googled but it's difficult to find exact answers as to the queen's constitutional powers, as there is no written constitution - more unwritten rules and precedent. For example, I know that the queen can technically refuse to sign a law, but what would happen if she actually did? Would parliament then move to take that power away from her? I believe the queen has not been able to dissolve parliament since 2011.

I guess my question is, how much of a safety net does she actually represent? How about the (random) scenario that we elected a 'bad' government that tried to pass a crazy law saying that citizens had to sign in at police stations every month so the gov could keep tabs on everyone. Say the queen refused to sign the legislation so it couldn't be passed. Then the government acts to remove the need for the queen to sign the laws. Isn't this the type of thing a neutral non-political head of state should protect us from? Can the queen effectively protect us from that any more?

If not, what's her purpose? Advisory only? If so, is she better placed to advise governments that anyone else? Is her only value that she is unelected and lifelong - ie has a long-term interest in the UK rather than being concerned with short-term political gain?

Sorry if a bit rambling! What are your thoughts, whether you're a constitutional expert or not? Grin

OP posts:
Worknoplay · 15/03/2021 13:14

It's hard to know what goes on behind closed doors. She does meet with the PM 'on a regular basis' and can advise, but has to remain impartial (what does that even mean).

I think the queen has no power at all. Her highlight is the Christmas speech. Says it all really.

thecatandthevicar · 15/03/2021 13:18

none.

I suppose the royal family can free some of the PM time by organising the official gatherings for other head of states, diner, garden parties or whatever, but in most cases the PM has to attend anyway!

otherwise, absolutely no point whatsoever. Or nothing that couldn't be quickly amended in a paragraph or 2.

idontlikealdi · 15/03/2021 13:27

Head of State - not much at all. She is a tourism attraction.

She cannot be political and has to remain impartial at all times.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

The royal family
DGRossetti · 15/03/2021 13:31

We "discovered" in 2019 that the Queen has to do what the Prime Minister tells her. Even if (as was shown by the Supreme Courts ruling) it's unlawful.

So use as head of state = as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

I say "discovered" because I have been saying this since the mid 1980s, but was always told what an idiot I was, because the Queen has these "special powers" that prevent dictatorships.

Does she fuck.

MildredPuppy · 15/03/2021 13:31

This is quite outing, but I have long thought that we should have a haggis as a head of state. I like the way a haggis is piped in at burns night and addressed with a poem. It also makes no political comments and has no real power.

DGRossetti · 15/03/2021 13:32

It's hard to know what goes on behind closed doors.

Actually it's very easy.

99% fuck all, topped up with 1% "You will make sure we Royals don't lose out, won't you ?"

If there's a job that doesn't need AI training for, it's being Monarch.

waltzingparrot · 15/03/2021 13:38

Well it's Peter Hitchins' article from Mail online but he does explain how our constitutional monarchy works and why we should keep it.

hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2021/03/peter-hitchens/comments/page/2/

OneFamilyToRuleUsAll · 15/03/2021 13:41

Agree with all the posters.

thecatandthevicar · 15/03/2021 13:46

There are enough countries with an elected head of state to prove that you don't necessarily end up in North Korea

and when the monarch is just a decorative feature anyway, it's not a good argument.

DGRossetti · 15/03/2021 13:47

[quote waltzingparrot]Well it's Peter Hitchins' article from Mail online but he does explain how our constitutional monarchy works and why we should keep it.

hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2021/03/peter-hitchens/comments/page/2/[/quote]
What are his qualifications ? He seems to be an expert on an awful lot of things.

Let's pretend I haven't read that article. What fact would best rebut my assertion that (a) the Monarch has no powers outside of doing as they are told by the Prime Minister, and (b) Peter Hitchens is a reactionary identikit Daily Mail writer who is full of shit to the highest bidder ?

joystir59 · 15/03/2021 13:48

The monarchy will gradually fade and dissolve once the Queen dies. And about time too. She has no power as head of state.

MobyDicksTinyCanoe · 15/03/2021 13:51

Love them or loathe them they bring a lot of money into the UK as a tourist attraction. Look at the weddings, all those people staying in hotels, using public transport and spending money.

It's not a life I'd want to live. And I don't think it's a life that holds much value these days.......but I do see the use in having them. I can see big changes coming in when the Queen dies tho.

peak2021 · 15/03/2021 13:55

We have a bad government. We have one whose leader by his neglect has led needlessly to the deaths of thousands of people. Who tried to shut down Parliament for weeks and involved the Queen in this by seeking her formal approval.

The Queen has no power in reality, though in theory can dismiss the government, and indeed in 1974 her representative in Australia did dismiss their Prime Minister (without Her Majesty's knowledge).

thecatandthevicar · 15/03/2021 14:01

The tourism industry would benefit greatly if the royal family could be removed and access granted to everything.

The only problem is the royals want to keep privilege, estate, and fortune and just forget whatever commitment they are supposed to give in return.

The boundaries between "private" and crown estate will be horrendously muddled..

Egghead68 · 15/03/2021 14:02

Not at all

Susie477 · 15/03/2021 14:04

I have considerable personal respect for the Queen, but it’s not about her as an individual. It’s about the monarchy as a system which is outdated & undemocratic. It also serves to perpetuate a ridiculous class system which entrenches inequality, privilege and unearned wealth.

Republicans want the British people to be able to democratically choose their head of state. This is considered perfectly normal in many similar countries, eg Ireland, Germany, France, Italy etc etc.

When the Queen dies, I expect many Commonwealth countries will abolish the monarchy. Australia will probably be first.

DGRossetti · 15/03/2021 14:13

Love them or loathe them they bring a lot of money into the UK as a tourist attraction.

Unless it's £37 billion, or close, I'm not interested.

Maybe they make the UK £350 million a week ?

DGRossetti · 15/03/2021 14:21

Republicans want the British people to be able to democratically choose their head of state.

I want my children and grandchildren to have as much a chance at being anything they want - even head of state. Otherwise "equality" is a cruel fiction we have lied to our children about.

Graphista · 15/03/2021 15:07

None

In addition she is very poorly educated and imo as far as I can tell possesses little "common sense" either largely due to an extremely privileged life from birth

She is utterly pointless

This is quite outing, but I have long thought that we should have a haggis as a head of state. I like the way a haggis is piped in at burns night and addressed with a poem. It also makes no political comments and has no real power

Seconded!

There are enough countries with an elected head of state to prove that you don't necessarily end up in North Korea

Indeed even WITH a supposed constitutional monarchy we are in danger of heading the way of North Korea and similar!

There's a bill in parliament today which is basically intended to prevent all public dissent against the govt

The tourism industry would benefit greatly if the royal family could be removed and access granted to everything. Yep!

Original poster
FeistySheep · 15/03/2021 15:12

Very interesting, thanks all.

If (as I suspected) she's pointless constitutionally then she seems rather expensive! I get the tourism argument, but I believe there's little evidence that money is felt outwith London (could be wrong though). Very happy for Londoners to make money from tourists, but it seems of little relevance to me in the Highlands... Grin

I guess if our democracy can function without a useful head of state, why do we need one at all? And if it would be wise to have a head of state with more powers to restrain overzealous governments, why don't we either grant the queen more power, or get an elected head of state with more power? And I don't mean USA-style shenanigans!

If it's so obvious she's useless*, why doesn't anybody in power do anything about it?

*no offence to her as a human being, just the office she holds.

OP posts:
Graphista · 15/03/2021 16:16

why doesn't anybody in power do anything about it?

Because it suits them just fine to not be constrained

thecatandthevicar · 15/03/2021 16:20

There has been talks about going for a referendum, but sadly that never went very far.

We did get a bit busy with Brexit, and the pandemic is not helping.

Hopefully when things go back to normal.. the younger royals would be more than delighted to keep their position and wealth and say good-bye to all their "commitments".

They would probably still be invited to various events by other royal families in the world to keep their sense of self-importance intact.

Pyewackect · 15/03/2021 16:20

This site is so incredibly negative.

thecatandthevicar · 15/03/2021 16:23

@Pyewackect

This site is so incredibly negative.
is it? I am very positive about getting rid of the Monarchy and how much it would benefit our country!
DGRossetti · 15/03/2021 16:25

I guess if our democracy can function without a useful head of state, why do we need one at all?

The likes of you and I aren't supposed to ask that

And if it would be wise to have a head of state with more powers to restrain overzealous governments, why don't we either grant the queen more power

maybe the fact we had one of the bloodiest civil wars in history to take them away from the monarch ?

or get an elected head of state with more power?

Suits me. Vote them in. Vote them out.

And I don't mean USA-style shenanigans!

To be fair, the entire US constitution was designed from the ground up to eliminate monarchy (it's quite blunt if you read it) and try to ensure tyrants cannot gain power. However (like the UK) there's a bit too much "conventionally" and not enough "this is what it says numbnuts".

If we can't have a grown up republic, then we could ameliorate the pain of a toytown queen with some changes to break the party system - maybe some sort of primary election before a parliamentary election.

I also think we could use parliamentary elections (by proportional representation) to create a mechanism to send a runner up to an upper house that is broadly similar to the House of Lords.

I'm not really in the mood to be lectured on UK democracy while we have an unelected Lord in the Government.

Swipe left for the next trending thread