What if we had a king?

[el Chi]

1. However due to various occurences over the years, the British monarch has (like others) become erroded as a postition of power (magna carta, english civil war, etc.) As a result the Queen is now only a figure head and the only thing left from keeping the current government becoming a republic (which it is in all but name).

2. Some problems have arisen therefore since the balance of power is no longer what was intended:
The Queen is powerless and apolitical. The royal family are influential in public opinion but more or less on the outskirts of policy influence. The Primeminister is more powerful than a president because Becasue of the power unbalacnce, and the liberties that a Primeminister can take but a President cannot. In fact he almost governs in a Presidential style without the correct governmental structure around him. People who don't want to get rid of the royal family becasue they don't want a Republic are kidding themselves.

3. The traditional royal family would be back to the days of dictatorship, nationalism, colonialism and nationbuilding, and no-one wants that. The modern monarchy would leave you with a King and Queen that was basically powerless. The only differrence there is that you'd have a to call Bush "primeminister", and he wouldn't have to ask permission to go to war, could appoint all his own senior government positions (local and national), judges, advisors, and senior clergy and would be part of the legislature AND the Executive, as well as a few other items that generally make Primeministers scary.

1. The Magna Carta had nothing to do with it. That was in 1215 at which time the monarchy would be absolutely powerful over Britain and Her Empires for about another half millennia. Yes, the main event was the Civil War, but it has not transformed the country into a republic.

2. The Queen is not as powerless and apolitical as is often made out. She probably does not like Tony Blair (or anyone who isn't Conservative, I expect), but yes she does have to greet him with a smile so as not to rock the boat. However they have weekly meetings to discuss matters and decisions that Parliament is making - after all, he is running the government on her behalf. These are not merely symbolic and I'm sure she has some influence on his decisions.
Just out of interest, what liberties can our Prime Minister take that a President could not? I think I see what you're getting at but just to clarify... Are you referring to the US Senate, etc? The House of Lords is similar to the Senate (excpet more senile) in that it is there to keep a leash on Parliament.
I don't want to get rid of the Monarchy, not because I don't want a republic (and a Republic Britain would be very different) but because countries that get rid of their monarchs invariably plunge themselves into years of disarray, instability and violence. That's why the monarchy wasn't abolished after the Civil War and if a government tried it now they would only spark a new Civil War.

3. Personally I see empire-building and nationalism (perhaps less so) as the product of a newly-created country.
A classic monarchy is different to a dictatorship because it has to rely slightly less on violence and oppression to stay in power. It's not as instable because it hasn't been suddenly installed through violent means.
The Prime Minister could, in theory appoint all his own judges, senior clergy etc. but they usually leave it alone outside their own cabinet. I believe Bush can already appoint people he wants to senior government positions, no? In theory, Blair could appoint a Conservative MP to a position in his government if he felt they were the best person for the job, but this hardly ever happens.
The reason the Prime Minister does not meddle too much outside his cabinet is the same reason the Queen does not meddle too much in government; they don't want to rock the boat too much. In theory, the Queen could decide to appoint whoever she wants to be the PM, but she chooses to go along with the majority decision otherwise it would cause problems (then she'd be properly like a dictator).

Any imbalances of power or anomalies in our system generally derive from the fact that we do not have a written constitution, rather a set of indirect rules and traditions that the monarch and government abide by. This is why there are lots of things both can do in theory, but they don't do simply because it just isn't done, dear boy. Due to this haziness, our government can be more flexible; for better or worse.
I really don't think the position of Prime Minister is a "scary" one. It could be gravely misused, but that very rarely happens; after all, we're all too British to show up tradition

 

[Kangy]

El Chi, your sig rules too much. 0_0

 

[DreamThrall]

Well, we've got a King here. No difference really, 'cept he screws up a lot and says things he's not supposed to.

Sounds an awful lot like a certain president...

 

[Dux]

You gotta love Prince Phillip. One of the very few members with a sense of humor.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Perhaps...but he is a bit of a tit. He got an honorary colonels rank, because he failed the training. The other members of the royal family that took part in military training passed.

 

[The Monkey]

Isn't the queen of England also queen over alot if other countries too? Canada, Australia, New Zeeland and some african countries, perhaps India too?

 

[Mattigus]

Royalty is BORING! Think about it. A leader that is in power for life? That could be up to 50 years of rule. I can't imagine having a leader for 50 years.

I like the American system. We get a leader anywhere from 30 days, to 8 years, and we get a new one. Each and every president we get is delightfully flawed and we never get bored with them.

 

[The Monkey]

Royalty is BORING! Think about it. A leader that is in power for life? That could be up to 50 years of rule. I can't imagine having a leader for 50 years.

I like the American system. We get a leader anywhere from 30 days, to 8 years, and we get a new one. Each and every president we get is delightfully flawed and we never get bored with them.

You relize that the king/queen doesn't have any power whatsoever?

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Depends where you live


But we have a primeminister Mattigus.

 

[Feath]

You'll be surprised by how much power the Queen appears to have but actually doesn't.

Laws don't come into effect unless she signs them. But she's not allowed to refuse to sign them.

She gives out the New Year's Honours (like OBEs and Knighthoods) but the people who get them are chosen by the Government.

I had a friend from Northern Ireland that was shocked when I told him all this stuff, he really believed the Queen had lots of power.

 

[The Monkey]

#50: Your queen, yes. Our queen has as much power as me.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by power. The queen of England still has a great deal of influence over people, even if technically her power is little.

 

[Varg|Hund]

So do all royalty. People listen to them, and therefore they have some degree of political influence.

 

[el Chi]

El Chi, your sig rules too much. 0_0

Thank you! 24 kicks arse. Palmer would get my vote any day.

You gotta love Prince Phillip. One of the very few members with a sense of humor.

I would support having Phillip publicly hung, drawn and quartered. He's a complete arse and makes us all look bad.

 

[Andy]

Sorry to bring back a dead topic but I missed this the first time round. Feel free to ignore me

1. The Magna Carta had nothing to do with it. That was in 1215 at which time the monarchy would be absolutely powerful over Britain and Her Empires for about another half millennia. Yes, the main event was the Civil War, but it has not transformed the country into a republic.

2. The Queen is not as powerless and apolitical as is often made out. She probably does not like Tony Blair (or anyone who isn't Conservative, I expect), but yes she does have to greet him with a smile so as not to rock the boat. However they have weekly meetings to discuss matters and decisions that Parliament is making - after all, he is running the government on her behalf. These are not merely symbolic and I'm sure she has some influence on his decisions.
Just out of interest, what liberties can our Prime Minister take that a President could not? I think I see what you're getting at but just to clarify... Are you referring to the US Senate, etc? The House of Lords is similar to the Senate (excpet more senile) in that it is there to keep a leash on Parliament.
I don't want to get rid of the Monarchy, not because I don't want a republic (and a Republic Britain would be very different) but because countries that get rid of their monarchs invariably plunge themselves into years of disarray, instability and violence. That's why the monarchy wasn't abolished after the Civil War and if a government tried it now they would only spark a new Civil War.

3. Personally I see empire-building and nationalism (perhaps less so) as the product of a newly-created country.
A classic monarchy is different to a dictatorship because it has to rely slightly less on violence and oppression to stay in power. It's not as instable because it hasn't been suddenly installed through violent means.
The Prime Minister could, in theory appoint all his own judges, senior clergy etc. but they usually leave it alone outside their own cabinet. I believe Bush can already appoint people he wants to senior government positions, no? In theory, Blair could appoint a Conservative MP to a position in his government if he felt they were the best person for the job, but this hardly ever happens.
The reason the Prime Minister does not meddle too much outside his cabinet is the same reason the Queen does not meddle too much in government; they don't want to rock the boat too much. In theory, the Queen could decide to appoint whoever she wants to be the PM, but she chooses to go along with the majority decision otherwise it would cause problems (then she'd be properly like a dictator).

Any imbalances of power or anomalies in our system generally derive from the fact that we do not have a written constitution, rather a set of indirect rules and traditions that the monarch and government abide by. This is why there are lots of things both can do in theory, but they don't do simply because it just isn't done, dear boy. Due to this haziness, our government can be more flexible; for better or worse.
I really don't think the position of Prime Minister is a "scary" one. It could be gravely misused, but that very rarely happens; after all, we're all too British to show up tradition

1. I agree that, in principal, the UK has not become a republic, however it is certainly not the monarchy (with capital M) that it once was. The Prime minister now exercises most of the “effective” powers of the monarch. I concede however that the monarch does retain significant powers though it is difficult to imagine the Queen acting autonomously in modern times. To use the example you use, the Queen can select whomever she wishes to be Prime minister. However selecting someone for whom the public did not vote for would surely be political suicide. Consequently though she has status, real power is limited. You are wrong about the effect of the Magna Carta though: It is practically the UK (minor) equivalent of the Bill of Rights. King John of England agreed, in 1215, to the demands of his barons and authorized that handwritten copies of Magna Carta be prepared on parchment, affixed with his seal, and publicly read throughout the realm. Thus he bound not only himself but his "heirs, for ever" to grant "to all freemen of our kingdom" the rights and liberties the great charter described. With Magna Carta, King John placed himself and England's future sovereigns and magistrates within the rule of law, beginning the process of erosion of power that has continued to this day.

Consequently the Royal Prerogative (the powers of the monarch) are held by the monarch but – in practice – exercised by the Prime minister and include the power to:
- Declare war
- Make Treaties
- Annex and Cede Territory
- Control the Armed Forces
- Control Patronage
- Control the workings of the Civil Service
- Make use of Emergency Powers
- (Scared yet?)

2. You are right. As I said, getting rid of the monarchy would be a bad idea. However, staying on topic, incorporating a monarchy into the American system would probably be worse due to the countries comparably large size and influence. As well as the Royal Prerogative (above), Tony Blair’s position has immense power, and there are many reasons for this:

Powers of patronage. The Prime minister has massive powers of patronage over the Church of England, Senior Judges, Privy Councillors, Civil Service etc. He also has power of patronage over the cabinet, where it is most crucial. Also he or she will have control of the timing and agenda of the Cabinet meetings. Consequently he or she gets to decided who gets and does what at all levels of government, including local. From what I remember most posts in American government, particularly in the executive, (save advisors, WHO chiefs, etc.) are elected.

Non separation of Powers This relates to the Powers of Patronage. In combination this means that the Primeminister who is elected and chooses his executive body, is also, by definition leader of the Executive AND majority leader of the house. This means that (in theory) the PM can simply create legislation, enter it into parliament, encourage (party whip) it into law AND THEN decide how to enforce it. What if George Bush could do all that?

btw the House of Lords is scarcely comparable to the Senate, since after a certain number of times, Bills can be forced through anyway. Secondly, the PM is already changing the way in which the HOL is selected (making them electable, removing Life Peers etc.). Does Dubya have the power to simply say “I don’t like the way the Senate is elected, I’m gonna change it.”?

3. Imperial regime is not always limited to new countries. Many European countries held onto their colonies until the end of WWI when they where forced to give them back. Britain could have been considered an imperial power right up to when we handed Hong Kong back. The rest of what you say is true. Parliamentary sovereignty remains and the monarchy tends not to meddle too much. Consequently, if such a system where enacted in America, the difference would be negligible save the sudden and imbalanced power that the Former-President-now-Prime minister would face.

Of course this is all hypothetical. Measures could be enacted to prevent this and unforeseen circumstances could arise. This being said, to prevent this from becoming a “Monarchy vs Republic” debate, it is in fact better (and more accurate) to say that each system has evolved in each country in the world to suit the deference level of its citizens (which in the UK tends to be quite high). Thus such a swap or transfer of system to system would probably be undesirable. (Though I agree that our lack of a codified constitution is a disadvantage in some respects here).

What would it be like if the US had a monarchy? Terrible - they'd have a Primeminister too.

 

[Rupertvdb]

I dunno King Dubbya has a nice ring to it...

In all honesty amen to Andy, balanced write ups do it for me.