150th Gettysburg Address

[Wildeybeast]

The American counter to that would be that, although we de facto restrict the ranks of our delegates to the rich and powerful, we only select those we choose (some might say the worthy, but I can't bring myself to go that far) from that pool. Being born rich and powerful is [practically] necessary, but it is not sufficient. JFK didn't become president because he was a Kennedy, even though he probably wouldn't have made it if he wasn't.

I thought Dubya became President precisely because he was a Bush?

But you are right, we did choose our monarchy/ monarch, and have done so for quite some time. We decided that having an all-powerful religious nutjob in charge was a bad idea and restored a monarchy with reduced power after the civil war. We got rid of the Stuarts and replaced them with the Oranges in the Glorious Revolution. Hell, even Harold II was chosen in 1066. Admittedly 'chosen' in these contexts means by a small wealthy elite, but I see little difference between that and the 'selection' of candidates for the US Presidency. And by tacit consent, if we didn't like our current HoS system there would be a popular republican movement. There is no desire for that. We like our system because no one in government has too much power and they are all easy to get rid of, except the monarch who has no real power to worry about.

[Wolfshade]

This is, I think, something most Americans do not understand (and to be honest I'm not sure I would claim to "understand" it myself).

I think so, or at least from what you say.
I suppose it is quite an alien concept that the countries figurehead, the source of power is not a political entity. I can see why it is strange, for me it is strange that your figure head changes each 4 years (or potentially) and so the nature and character of the country also changes so rapidly. If we had an unelected president I could see how that would be seen as a bad thing, since it would make them unaccountable with "limitless" power.

[Nabterayl]

I think there's also the fact that, since our secondary school curricula do not include studying the political systems of other countries (it barely includes studying our own political system), most of what Americans know about the British political system they pick up as a side effect of their history courses. That exposes us to the risks of not appreciating how much the British political system has changed over time, as well as to the risks of placing too much emphasis on the version of the British political system trotted out by our rebel ringleaders during the Revolution to justify their rebellion, which besides being 200 years out of date is also of ... suspect motive :P I'm better educated than most Americans, I even had university focuses on [non-British] history and [non-British] law, and I still know next to nothing about the nuts and bolts of your guys' system. One of the reason I appreciate these cross-pond dialogues.

So ... once again I have a Brit saying, "the source of power" with respect to the monarchy. Yet Wildey suggested that if the will was there your currently toothless republican movement could, at least conceivably, gain teeth. Can somebody try to unpack that for the colonial? Obviously I understand the possibility that, practically, you could overthrow the Crown if enough of the population truly wanted to do so. What is interesting to me is the undercurrent that the British people would have the right to do so, and not just the theoretical ability. If that is so, it sounds to me like the Crown is not actually "the source of power" at all. But I suspect I'm not understanding something about the way you think.

[Kyban]

I was under the impression the monarchy was more like a figurehead, almost a mascot. How much say do they still have in the government?

[Nabterayl]

I was under the impression the monarchy was more like a figurehead, almost a mascot. How much say do they still have in the government?

Not much, I gather. Though I am curious whether the monarch could effectively paralyze the government by, say, continually dissolving Parliament.

If you want to put it this way, I guess another way to ask my question is just how much like a figurehead the monarch is. You don't have to be involved in government to have the kind of power/influence Americans think of We the People having - the people are not very much involved in government at all, but it's still important that we all agree they retain sovereignty. The British monarch may not be involved in government, but if he or she was truly just a mascot then the political story of the United Kingdom would still make sense even if he or she didn't exist.

Would it? If the American People (the concept, not the population) suddenly didn't exist, then there is no coherent way to tell the story of by what right the American governments governed. There's no ... failsafe, no backup - our federal and state governments derive their right from the people and there is no other source from which they could derive that right. If the Crown evaporated, but the British people still elected representatives to Parliament, would the government of the United Kingdom still have the right to govern? It sounds like yes, but it also sounds like no.

[Denzark]

I was under the impression the monarchy was more like a figurehead, almost a mascot. How much say do they still have in the government?

Nothing... And everything.

HM signs off on all laws passed. She cannot express an opinion and is a de-facto rubber stamp. It would be a constitutional crisis if she refused to give assent to something. But say fascists got into power and the law they tried to pass was 'put all of demographic x into camps'. She has the power to say 'no ta that's a bit silly'. Then dissolve the government and we can start again. If one party disagrees (either HM or parliament) then it comes down to who the armed forces would support really. And we swear an oath to the Crown not the pox politicians.

[Nabterayl]

Denzark, am I understanding you correctly that Her Majesty actually has more political power than she (and I guess her predecessors) are in the habit of using? It sounds like she could probably influence politics quite a bit under her accepted powers, if she decided it was worth the system shock to society of dusting them off.

[Wolfshade]

So ... once again I have a Brit saying, "the source of power" with respect to the monarchy. Yet Wildey suggested that if the will was there your currently toothless republican movement could, at least conceivably, gain teeth. Can somebody try to unpack that for the colonial? Obviously I understand the possibility that, practically, you could overthrow the Crown if enough of the population truly wanted to do so. What is interesting to me is the undercurrent that the British people would have the right to do so, and not just the theoretical ability. If that is so, it sounds to me like the Crown is not actually "the source of power" at all. But I suspect I'm not understanding something about the way you think.

The Armed forces are "interestingly" swear loyalty to the monarch, not the country so conceivably the armed militia might have some issues with that...
By source of power, perhaps I mean legitimacy of power, they technically invest the heads of both church and state, both of those positions can be dismissed by the monarch, though in practical terms they do not do so. So the elected PM only becomes PM when the Queen says so and once made the PM then wields the power. The dichotomy is a subtle one, the Queen has executive powers granted to her, but these are limited and defined by the elected parliament. The PM who wields the power, but not as much as a president, does so by royal prerogative, so in effect on behalf of the Queen, where the power to make law actually resides. It then gets rather more confused with other countries where the monarch does actually wield executive power. I am not sure that makes anything clear, to be honest I have not given this topic so much consideration before.

I was under the impression the monarchy was more like a figurehead, almost a mascot. How much say do they still have in the government?

A bit, but there is a difference between the power she has and the power she chooses to use.
The PM must be invested by the Queen, this can be anyone, but is by unwritten convention the leader of the party with the majority in the House of commons.
Some of the government's executive authority is theoretically and nominally vested in the Sovereign and is known as the royal prerogative. So while the Queen does have these powers, they are only really excercised on advice of the PM.
The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. However, a treaty cannot alter the domestic laws of the United Kingdom; an Act of Parliament is necessary in such cases. The monarch is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces (the Royal Navy, the British Army, and the Royal Air Force), accredits British High Commissioners and ambassadors, and receives diplomats from foreign states.
She can recall parlimanent.
Before a bill passed by the legislative Houses can become law, the Royal Assent (the monarch's approval) is required. In theory, assent can either be granted (making the bill law) or withheld. Some sources say this hasn't been refused since 1707.

While complining this I found: [url]http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueeninParliament.aspx[/url] might help answer some questions

[Wolfshade]

Not much, I gather. Though I am curious whether the monarch could effectively paralyze the government by, say, continually dissolving Parliament.

The ability to dissolve parliament was curtailed in 2011 when fixed term governments were introduced.

If you want to put it this way, I guess another way to ask my question is just how much like a figurehead the monarch is. You don't have to be involved in government to have the kind of power/influence Americans think of We the People having - the people are not very much involved in government at all, but it's still important that we all agree they retain sovereignty. The British monarch may not be involved in government, but if he or she was truly just a mascot then the political story of the United Kingdom would still make sense even if he or she didn't exist.

Would it? If the American People (the concept, not the population) suddenly didn't exist, then there is no coherent way to tell the story of by what right the American governments governed. There's no ... failsafe, no backup - our federal and state governments derive their right from the people and there is no other source from which they could derive that right. If the Crown evaporated, but the British people still elected representatives to Parliament, would the government of the United Kingdom still have the right to govern? It sounds like yes, but it also sounds like no.

I think with any form of goverance either imposed on the people or imposed by the people it would have the right to govern since when it comes down to it, something is either freely selected by the people and so there is no opposition, or forced on the people and it is an unsailable might which makes it legitimate. But technically, if the system was as it is now but without the government, then no law could be signed in and no PM could be elected. Though that is not to say a change might make it possible.

Denzark, am I understanding you correctly that Her Majesty actually has more political power than she (and I guess her predecessors) are in the habit of using? It sounds like she could probably influence politics quite a bit under her accepted powers, if she decided it was worth the system shock to society of dusting them off.

Yes, this is it exactly.

[Nabterayl]

A lot of those powers are very similar to what our president has, Wolfshade. This discussion has reminded me of times in our history when the president declined to use many of his powers, or to use them only to rubber-stamp the "advice" of Congress, and was popularly expected to take a back seat like that. The "active" presidency the world knows now is really a creature of the 1930s (you can trace the development further back, of course, like you always can). For most of the 19th century (Civil War excepted) we expected our presidents to basically be a figurehead who did what Congress told them to. I'm reminded of President Cleveland's famous remark that "The office of the President is essentially executive in its nature," meaning its job was to execute Congress' not-technically-orders. Even our least active presidents still occasionally used their prerogative to decline to sign bills that Congress had passed from time to time (sounds very much like refusing to give Royal Assent), so maybe our presidents were never quite as figure-heady as the Crown currently is, but they weren't always expected to be the policy-directing, economy-saving, rights-defending, country-saving dynamos that we presently (more's the pity) expect them to be.