To feel extremely bloody proud to be British today?

[hehitmeanditfeltlikeakiss]

I take our country for granted because I live in a town that is the polar opposite of what Windsor looks like. But wow - watching the Royal family today I got shivers down my spine and felt so overwhelmed with emotion.

In the past I've looked at ways of emigrating because I've been fed up of living here, but I've just realised that it's a free country and to feel better about life I can actually make the move and go and live somewhere nicer (ok, maybe not Windsor but still).

We're so lucky aren't we?

I can totally believe someone like Trump or Farage would want to be president.

But the question is how do we know the queen is not that? She hasn't been given the opportunity to show her true colours (i.e. in a leadership contest).

I am feeling incredibly thick here. I really don't understand why we need anything more than an elected prime minister. We have a parliamentary system with two chambers. We have a judiciary. We have international law. Why do we also need a head of state?

If Corbyn won the next election and declared himself Prime Minister for life, how would having a Head of State stop him?

If Corbyn won the next election and declared himself Prime Minister for life, how would having a Head of State stop him

Because such a declaration would need to be approved by a Head of State?

The Head of State would need to be a person who upheld the Constitution.

It would be possible to have a Lower Chamber full of MPs who supported a dodgy Prime Minister. And an upper Chamber full of Lords who support them.

I am not sure about the role of the Courts in such case - would they act themselves if they thought law was being broken or would they need someone to act?

"Because such a declaration would need to be approved by a Head of State?"
But if someone was going to do something wholly unconstitutional how would a head of state stop him? What would the process be?

I seem to say this on every thread where people make ill-thought-out objections to having an elected ceremonial president as Head of State. First, if you go on the Irish model, you will not have a President Trump/Blair/Farage, because the office has very little political power, other than some constitutional vetos, zero prospects for advancing your own financial interests, and it will simply not attract a career politician who actually wants to be PM/cash in. Also, you do not have to be a politician to stand.

And the Irish president’s salary is capped at the top civil servant rate, so it’s unconscionably cheaper than a monarchy.

But if someone was going to do something wholly unconstitutional how would a head of state stop him?

They couldn't. And once a dictator gets in it's hard to get them out. Look at Mugabe and Maduro.

If Corbyn won the next election and declared himself Prime Minister for life, how would having a Head of State stop him?

presumably, we can simply look up the actual powers of the head of state and see if the queen can do something. I imagine there are far more barriers to Corbyn becoming a dictator (the law, the judiciary, parliament, the lords etc etc), but I assume the queen actually has to sign off on this and could stop this.

But this may precisely be where the queen is compromised. Because everyone thinks she is a figurehead, I imagine she would only step in if it was really necessary.

In any case, it's clear that she is not queen to stop Corbyn, and another head of state could do the job also.

In the US, the president is both head of state and head of government (and head of the miltary). What stops him from becoming dictator is the constitution, judciary and congress.

The Queen has no real power, the last time the Monarch went against Parliament was 1708.
Just look at the laws she has signed off in the last few years.

For any UK PM to announce they ll be in for life, would require cabinet, parliament and the house of lords to agree, if that happened, the monarch of the time would give royal assent, failure to do so would lead to the end of the Monarchy.

But why would anyone want an un-elected and hereditary figure head to "step in" in any circumstances, that would be the action of a dictator.

They couldn't. And once a dictator gets in it's hard to get them out. Look at Mugabe and Maduro

Yes they could. A Head of State would refuse to sign the bill / agree to the idea of Prime Minister for life as it goes against the Constitution.

The Courts would get involved and it would be deemed to be against the Constitution.

If the PM refused to back down, I guess it comes down to the security services and who has control of them. Would there be arrests?

Ultimately, the Armed Forces pledge loyalty to the Monarch. In some countries, they pledge to uphold the Constitution.

What you say makes sense, Kalapattar, but how do dictators get into power in countries like Germany which was democratic after the Kaiser and before Hitler?

What you say makes sense, Kalapattar, but how do dictators get into power in countries like Germany which was democratic after the Kaiser and before Hitler?

germany was in turmoil, as was the rest of the world. Hitler was elected (a scary thought), and then became head of government by the consent of the president (Hindenburg. Though he didn't want Hitler to become Chancellor. But no one else could form government). At this point he wasn't dictator, but he then used various events like the Reichstag fire to effectively institute a state of emergency and consolidate power.

I think. My history is rusty. So, I think it more or less brokedown in the times, but also not enough legal safeguards in Germany's young republic. Germany wasn't really stable in that period.

Should they have just got married at the local register office and had the reception in a working men's club with an open invite to all the homeless people in the area to come and feast on an all you can eat buffet of cold sausage rolls and doritos emptied into a bowl?

If they wanted to stick to their apparent desire to help the poor, needy etc - then, yes they should have.

At this point he wasn't dictator, but he then used various events like the Reichstag fire to effectively institute a state of emergency and consolidate power

Sounds about right

www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/nazi-germany-dictatorship/

No, we're not.

We are wasting money on the rich without a thought.
The poor are in poverty.
Families are in poverty even working full time.
A pensioner is jailed for a while for defending his property. (thankfully out now)

We live in a half decent country with a really really shit government

What does being bitter and miserable achieve

What does living in the clouds oblivious to the suffering of others less fortunate to most on here achieve?
apart from giving the rich and powerful the green light to continue treating the UKs population as a cash cow to fund their life styles.

but you carry-on living in dreamland.

Well said Twounder and jasjas.

We live in a half decent country with a really really shit government

but the monarchy is worse than our government. we are literally giving money to people who have more than they know what to do with. just because they are popular.

But if someone was going to do something wholly unconstitutional how would a head of state stop him? What would the process be

How would the Monarch stop them?

A Head of State and officers in the Armed forces swear to uphold the Constitution.

This is what the Queen swore

Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen. I will.

Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Meanwhile the Armed Forces in the UK swear

I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Meanwhile, in a country with a different system:
This is what the Irish President swears

"In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me".

And the officers in the Irish military swear

do solemnly swear (or declare) that I will be faithful to Ireland and loyal to the Constitution and that while I am an officer in Oglaigh na h-Eireann I will obey all orders issued to me by my superior officers according to law and I will not join or be a member of or subscribe to any organisation without due permission.

Personally, I prefer the idea of upholding the Constitution than being loyal to a Monarch

This is a good FAQ on a new Head of State

www.republic.org.uk/what-we-want/new-head-state

It shows the good models out there.

What does being bitter and miserable achieve

Well, change potentially. Do you think women would have got the vote when they did if the suffragettes said 'Ooh, mustn't grumble -- we wouldn't want to look bitter and miserable!'

All important social movements start off from discontent.

I'm not bitter or miserable, I just think the royals is a very outdated concept in a modern society.

Marchin

Britain likes tradition and the Monarchy fulfills this.

The money they get is called the civil list and is the name given to the annual grant that covered some expenses associated with the Sovereign performing their official duties, including those for staff salaries, State Visits, public engagements, ceremonial functions and the upkeep of the Royal Households.pays for the functioning of the RF in performing it's duty.

So there, I've educated you. We don't just throw money at the RF.

I don't think blanket statments like 'Britain likes tradition' stand up to scrutiny. What Britain? According to the Republic website, in 1984 77% of people thought we be worse off without a monarch but by 2012 only 51% of people did. In another 20 years that will fall still further.

gin, I would add to that, in recent years Britain, and England in particular, has lost a lot of it’s heritage and been made to feel ashamed of what is left. Royal events are frequently (for the English at least) an isolated link to the past and a chance to celebrate our country.

I can’t think of many other occasions where the English can express national pride. The RF seems to be the last bulwark of that.

I agree with the OP. Even though I am only British by heritage. For some reason the RF seem to be an anchor to my ancestors'past.

May sound strange, but I can't help the way I feel. I live a wonderful life in OZ on on the day of the wedding my cousin commented that she didn't realise I "liked"the Royal Family.

I replied that I didn't "like"them as individuals because I don't know them but I am a history buff and love the historical significance (even the horrible history bits) of the monarchy.