Royal Wedding

[Fife]

Power to dissolve Parliament.

And what would happen if the Queen decided to actually do so? Issued a royal proclamation tomorrow, said 'no more Parliament'?

So we've moved on from your assertion that this office has no power?

Another classic ZERO-POINT-TWO interchange. :goteam: :drunk:

[Fife]

Speaking of things Elizabeth actually does have some influence and power over:

Royal Wedding Emblematic of the Decline of the Church of England

While Queen Elizabeth II is not singularly to blame for the decline of Christianity in Britain, there is no doubt that she's aided and abetted—and even approved of—the liberalization of the Church of England during her reign, leading to widespread secularization in England and the growing threat of Islamization in the island nation.

[Fife]

[SuburbanFarmer]

Power to dissolve Parliament.

And what would happen if the Queen decided to actually do so? Issued a royal proclamation tomorrow, said 'no more Parliament'?

So we've moved on from your assertion that this office has no power?

...no.

My point is that she doesn’t actually have even that modicum of power.

If she ended the Parliament tomorrow, they’d probably just ignore it, or call her senile. There is no such power, in reality.

[Montegriffo]

Speaking of things Elizabeth actually does have some influence and power over:

Royal Wedding Emblematic of the Decline of the Church of England

While Queen Elizabeth II is not singularly to blame for the decline of Christianity in Britain, there is no doubt that she's aided and abetted—and even approved of—the liberalization of the Church of England during her reign, leading to widespread secularization in England and the growing threat of Islamization in the island nation.

The Queen is a very religious person and takes her responsibilities as head of the Church of England seriously. She has been slow to modernise both the monarchy and the church but I think it's a sign of her slowly relinquishing power to Charles that she no longer resists change quite so much.
I would like to see her abdicate and spend her last few years doing exactly as she pleases but her sense of duty won't allow her to do it.
I think Charles is going to be a far more controversial head of state.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Name one actual power held by the office.

I'll wait.

It's a different sort of separation of power. Everyone blathers on about Obama being a good head of state. Perhaps if he had been a head of state while someone more qualified did the business of running this country, that may have been true. (I still think he tripped his tongue too much to be considered an excellent statesman.)

She doesn't have a ton of real power, true, but, in the case of a constitutional crisis, she has the power to tell parliament to go away and call for a special election. A final check and balance.

I'm making no commentary on the goodness or badness of having a birth-right monarchy in place, just telling you there's more to the job than waving. If her country thinks she adds value, than she adds value. The monarchy does a lot for charity, too.

A family that collects the biggest welfare check in the country gives some of it away. That’s actually worse

[Montegriffo]

And what would happen if the Queen decided to actually do so? Issued a royal proclamation tomorrow, said 'no more Parliament'?

So we've moved on from your assertion that this office has no power?

...no.

My point is that she doesn’t actually have even that modicum of power.

If she ended the Parliament tomorrow, they’d probably just ignore it, or call her senile. There is no such power, in reality.

She does have that power but she would only get to use it once. The first action of the new government would be to remove all her powers to interfere in parliament.

[Montegriffo]

Name one actual power held by the office.

I'll wait.

It's a different sort of separation of power. Everyone blathers on about Obama being a good head of state. Perhaps if he had been a head of state while someone more qualified did the business of running this country, that may have been true. (I still think he tripped his tongue too much to be considered an excellent statesman.)

She doesn't have a ton of real power, true, but, in the case of a constitutional crisis, she has the power to tell parliament to go away and call for a special election. A final check and balance.

I'm making no commentary on the goodness or badness of having a birth-right monarchy in place, just telling you there's more to the job than waving. If her country thinks she adds value, than she adds value. The monarchy does a lot for charity, too.

A family that collects the biggest welfare check in the country gives some of it away. That’s actually worse

She costs me about 67p a year in tax.
Most of that gets spent on the upkeep of her palaces etc.
That 67p covers all the hangers on as well, that's the whole royal family and all the gold carriages used to bring in the tourists. Meanwhile we get billions in return from all the visitors.
Welfare is money for nothing, HM is 92 and has worked every day of her adult life.

[C-Mag]

Speaking of things Elizabeth actually does have some influence and power over:

Royal Wedding Emblematic of the Decline of the Church of England

While Queen Elizabeth II is not singularly to blame for the decline of Christianity in Britain, there is no doubt that she's aided and abetted—and even approved of—the liberalization of the Church of England during her reign, leading to widespread secularization in England and the growing threat of Islamization in the island nation.

The Queen is a very religious person and takes her responsibilities as head of the Church of England seriously. She has been slow to modernise both the monarchy and the church but I think it's a sign of her slowly relinquishing power to Charles that she no longer resists change quite so much.
I would like to see her abdicate and spend her last few years doing exactly as she pleases but her sense of duty won't allow her to do it.
I think Charles is going to be a far more controversial head of state.

That's why the boys should off him, we need some old school palace intrigue if we are going to have monarchs in the 21st C.

[BjornP]

...no.

My point is that she doesn’t actually have even that modicum of power.

If she ended the Parliament tomorrow, they’d probably just ignore it, or call her senile. There is no such power, in reality.

And the only way a monarch can be a valid head of state, is if that head of state has "some modicum of power"? Why assume that? Denmark's monarchy has even less political power than Britain's and it has a 76,6% approval rating as an institution in the latest poll.