So all that Saxon gold has been declared the property of the crown.......don't you think she has quite enough free stuff already?

[GivePeasAChance]

Greedy cow

Ohhhh that's OK then I spose. Being an archaeologist by trainig (if not sadly by profession) I have come to have little respect for men with machines that go beep.

But Riven, aren't you a Saracen now?

(Sorry, just wanted to say that )

But AbetaDad, who watches over the Queen - she is accountable to no one. To suggest an unelected monarch could protect our democracy is a nonsense.

No not yet. I am thinking about lcing but reluctant atm as I am also starting running again as my foot is getting better, and last time lc knocked my stamina to bits.

Oh - I thought I saw you posting back there when I popped in yesterday.

Did you see the news that Geoff C has died?

I've decided I'm going back to LC on 5/10.

spongebrain - we have an unelected monarch. However, if she ever overstepped her authority by going against the will of the people, her Parliament would dismiss her - by the will of the people.

Its a fine balance but it works. It is power she wields through informal channels but used in the right way it can be very effective in stopping a Government in its tracks. It only gets used occasisonally but times of crisis require it. Democracy sometims fails or does not work quick enough. The Queen is a back stop to democracy not a threat to it.

How would parliament dismiss queen?

I'm sure it is wrong to say that she is a protector of our democracy. For one thing, swearing allegiance to her is a matter of form. What it means in effect is allegiance to the govt. If the queen and not the govt were to tell the chief of the military to divert troops from Afghanistan to the Changing of the Guard, it would be unconstitutional for the chief of military to obey her (the constitution being found in a range of informally stated principles as well as in law and as well as in judicial review etc etc.) His legal obligation is to the crown, i.e. the executive power, not to her personally, despite a form of words.

For another thing, if it really is true that she is our protector from authoritarianism, then how is that remotely a safeguard for democracy? It is just a nice way of saying that she could hand us over to authoritarianism when she chose to, which if it were true would be disasterously undemocratic.

Oh, please, those Hanovers are nothing but a bunch of fug-faced greedy dinosaurs.

I cannot believe people still go for all that Lord/Lady load of bullshit!

Should have been abolished centuries ago.

I can understand why this treasure was protected, though.

Guess that's the only way it could be to avoid it's being sold out of the country in however many parcels and for however much the person could get.

I mean, Princess Margaret's own kids shamelessly went and flogged off their mother's jewellry for however much they could lay their greedy hands on.

"However, if she ever overstepped her authority by going against the will of the people, her Parliament would dismiss her - by the will of the people."

Really?!

Under what jurisdiction?

I cannot ever see this happening - and I don't think they have any power to do it either.

She is entirely a rule unto herself as we have no codified constitution, and until we do, and with it an elected head of state, our claim to be a true democracy is a hollow one.

Anyway, I digress . . . . .

Parliament would vote in favour of a law sacking her, um, which she would then, erm, convert into an Act of Parliament by signing it.

At best she is an irrelevance, at worst a figleaf for an excessively powerful executive. It is really hard to see how the monarchy will survive in its current form once she is gone.

Thredworm, I so wish I had your confidence that her death will spell the end of the monarchy, but I really don't think it will.

Most people really don't understand or don't care about why it's so important to our democracy that this outdated crap is abolished, and then you have the frankly laughable "good for the tourists" argument or the equally ludicrous "do you want president thatcher?" argument (er, no, but if that's what the people vote for who am I to argue?!).

With the unbelievably sychophantic coverage they get from the mainstream press, the republican cause is a constant uphill battle.