to wonder why the whole country has gone completely bloody Royalist?

[Hullygully]

Erect the scaffold.

Up the Republicans.

We are ADULTS we don't need a feudalistic Divine Right of Kings addled parasitical bunch of halfwits to live off our taxes.

How could the Queen cause mischief should she want?
She could
a) refuse to agree to any more bills presented to her. Laws would not be enacted = constitutional crisis.
b) decide she doesn't really like David Cameron, dissolve parliament and call an election. Then refuse to recognise the results, dissolve parliament again and a call more elections etc etc.

She is legally entitled to this and more besides. So while she might only be one person and the rest of the UK 60 million plus, your political rights are limited to voting and being voted for. The Queen's are infinitely more important. The fact is that she doesn't choose to rock the boat, but if she wanted to she could provoke a severe political crisis.

I think it is silly to celebrate a system which works basically on the trust that the monarch will be a good egg and do as she is told. If we want a head of state who is mostly decorative and with no real power we should alter the laws in the corresponding fashion to make this so.

Whereas if you're an elected politician, you're harmless. Oh, apart from the one who started an illegal war on the basis of falsified documents.

Yes, I agree, the Queen is VERY dangerous.

Have you lot been here all night to-ing and fro-ing??

Ah, here you are...

FWIW, I'm with Hully on this.

I reckon the main reason the monarchy is so popular is xenophobia: the monarchy is both unusual and very, very British, therefore it must be good. People like to look down their noses at all those foreigners with elected heads of state.

I'd knock it all on the head tomorrow. I'd rather the UK was a proper democracy, rather than just a de facto democracy.

Who needs a head of state anyway? Whatever ceremonial role the queen plays (intentional lower case 'q'), just draw up some rules and be done with it. How about us all just being equal, rather than pretending there's something special about betty?

We are not born equal,we will not die equal.

True amillionyears, all the more reason people should fight against inequality. The idea of accepting ones lot in life is trés Victorian.

You can be born and die disabled,mentally ill,royal.
Some things there is not a thing you can do about it.

I have been to two very jolly jubilee parties today, really great community things (and actually no mention of Her Maj). We are all wearing r, w & b and DCs have asked to watch the Queen on television so they are watching Andrew Marrs 'Diamond Queen' and waving their flags. Looking forward to more parties and about to bunt.

Yes, elected politicians can be just as dangerous, but at least they can be unelected. That is is the crucial difference, IMHO. You can't just unelected the queen because you don't think she is doing a good job. She's there for life.

And if she starts messing around and doing more than smiling on tea towels, I shall be the first to descend on Buck Pal with a guillotine.

I'm with you kim147 and cannot see the appeal in being one of the Windsors. Imagine being Kate and at the age of 30 no longer being able to meet a friend in the pub, have a look around the shops, have grumpy days. All those interminable state dinners, having to look thrilled as a 5 year old hands you another bunch of daffodils, being trailed by bodyguards etc etc. Horrible!

Anytime you were introduced to someone new they'd be so star struck and on their best behaviour.

Not for me. Give me the plebian lifestyle any day.

Apparently that is why Chelsea Davy has not hooked up with Prince Harry.Cant say I blame her.

Hully
I just PMed you a photo. I took it just for you.

oooh, a

Nice job, Tech.

SHE HAS SENT ME PORN

Why would you do that Mme?

Why?

CatinaHatita - How can the Queen make mischief?

Well how can a PM make mischief? Say s/he has a huge majority and suddenly goes rogue, over, say, a matter of who can vote? If his MPs support him, he could introduce legislation to, let's think, remove the vote from everyone who has ever had a criminal record. The Lords may refuse to pass the Bill but they cannot stop it becoming law. Who can? Yep, her maj, by refusing Royal Assent.

You can call it far fetched (it is!) but your scenario is just as unlikely.

Sorry, Hulls. I thought you'd like it.

I think it is nice to celebrate 'Britishness' for a change. Other countries do it but it seems England doesn't do it that much. Remember a few years ago some councils banned flags as they said thy could be perceived as racist! So it is good for people can actually be proud of and feel attatchment to their country.

Finally, HM knows the game is up if the majority of the country ever decided they no longer wanted a monarch as the head of state. If a Party wanted to put Abolition of the Monarchy into its manifesto and it got a voted in with a clear majority, a Bill could be drafted voted on and HM would pretty much have to give royal assent or risk the wrath of, basically, a democratically-elected Parliament and the people. An untenable situation.

Why has this not happened? The inconvenient truth is not many people in the country care enough to want to change things.

All you republicans, try standing on the Abolitionist ticket and see if you keep your deposits at the next election.

I am not saying that my scenarios are very likely, I am just saying they exist.
In your scenario I would say that the constitution would show itself to be pretty useless. It would also be guarenteed to cause the constitutional crisis I referred to. Why? Because the queen has never used a veto, in fact no monarch has since 1709 (Or thereabouts. Queen Anne vetoed a civil militia bill). If she were to choose to do it, I think the system would in danger if imploding.
However, if the laws governing what the head of state can and cannot do were actually modernised and not based on custom and precedent, and were not in the hands of a unelected monarch, it might be the case that a the HofS would have the constitutional right to provisionally veto a bill and send it back to Parliament to be reconsidered.
.
All I am saying is the monarch has a lot of legal power that she does not use. If she does not use it, why do we still allow her to have it? If we don't want the Queen deciding on legislation or dissolving power, we ought to reform our laws accordingly, not trust that all monarch will not exercise their legal rights.

Hence why I say we should disestablish the monarchy. All that means is reforming the laws to take away all these historical powers, cutting off public funding and coming to some agreement vis a vis property. That way, royalists can still have their pageants and celebrations etc etc, but the monarch will not have any relationship to the state.

Sorry I was addressing lashings there.

On that note, everyone have a LOVELY Jubilee bank holiday weekend (except for you republicans who will all be making your dissent known by going to work).