The Monarchy versus Presidency

Discuss European Politics here.
Lass
Global Moderator
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: UK
Political Stand:

RE: The Monarchy versus Presidency

Post by Lass » Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:51 pm

[quote=Romulus111VADT]
If memory serves me correct. The British monarchy is largely a figure head and has no real power. Aren't all laws made and enforced by Parliament?
[/quote]

Yes, indeed, that's the way it is. All bills have to be given 'Royal Assent' before they become law - i.e., the monarch approves them. But that's merely convention. Monarchs just don't refuse to give Assent. From that point of view, a British monarch and an American President aren't really comparable, I guess.
Above all, I would teach him to tell the truth ... Truth-telling, I have found, is the key to responsible citizenship. The thousands of criminals I have seen in 40 years of law enforcement have had one thing in common: Every single one was a liar. [JE Hoover]

Romulus111VADT
Gifted Member
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:51 pm
Political Stand:

RE: The Monarchy versus Presidency

Post by Romulus111VADT » Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:58 pm

[quote=Lass]
[quote=Romulus111VADT]
If memory serves me correct. The British monarchy is largely a figure head and has no real power. Aren't all laws made and enforced by Parliament?
[/quote]

Yes, indeed, that's the way it is. All bills have to be given 'Royal Assent' before they become law - i.e., the monarch approves them. But that's merely convention. Monarchs just don't refuse to give Assent. From that point of view, a British monarch and an American President aren't really comparable, I guess.
[/quote]

I just had an interesting thought. As I said above, the US can remove a President from office through impeachment.

How would the British remove a monarch? I know in the past, most were assassinated by their rivals or abdicated. Has a King or Queen ever been removed from office through the legal system? Or does the British government even have any laws that govern such an event?

User avatar
DodgeFB
Gifted Member
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:31 am
Political Stand:

RE: The Monarchy versus Presidency

Post by DodgeFB » Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:20 pm

This is just a what if question. What happens if the Queen decides she wants to bring home "her" soldiers? Just says "listen here boys, I am "The Queen" and you best get in step.

As President Bush says, "I am the decider". Congress can say and do whatever they want to do. If Bush gives an order it will probably be carried out.

I remember back in the Nixion days the U.S. Marshals Service had a warrant to take tapes from the oval office. They were greeted by some Marines. President Nixion did our country a favor that day. He gave up the tapes. It was reported later that night some people did not know until that day that those Marines weapons were loaded. I have thought many times how bad it would have been to have a gun battle between U.S. Marshals Service and The Marines in our own Capital.

So it seems there are some real differences in The Monarchy versus Presidency.
Last edited by DodgeFB on Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The opinions expressed are solely of the writer.


"You can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant

Romulus111VADT
Gifted Member
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:51 pm
Political Stand:

RE: The Monarchy versus Presidency

Post by Romulus111VADT » Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:57 pm

Ole Tricky Dicky.....lmao

I imagine the result would have been much the same as at Kent State. I know that the President as "Commander and Chief" has allot of power over the military. The military can refuse orders if they fall into the illegal realm.

Such as the WWII German military claims that they were just following orders. If the orders fall under the "Crimes Against Humanity" clause, they an be refused. This type of event was done in the My Lai massacre. Those soldiers irregardless of orders to to kill everyone, could have and should have refused the orders. But as a rule, we were required to follow orders w/o question.
Last edited by Romulus111VADT on Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DodgeFB
Gifted Member
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:31 am
Political Stand:

RE: The Monarchy versus Presidency

Post by DodgeFB » Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:51 pm

[quote=Romulus111VADT]
Ole Tricky Dicky.....lmao

I imagine the result would have been much the same as at Kent State. I know that the President as "Commander and Chief" has allot of power over the military. The military can refuse orders if they fall into the illegal realm.

Such as the WWII German military claims that they were just following orders. If the orders fall under the "Crimes Against Humanity" clause, they an be refused. This type of event was done in the My Lai massacre. Those soldiers irregardless of orders to to kill everyone, could have and should have refused the orders. But as a rule, we were required to follow orders w/o question.
[/quote]
Both sides seem to be calm and took their time working it out. I was glued to the TV waiting for something to go wrong. If someone had pulled their gun and tried to push their way in I believe it would have been another Kent State. I remember how shocked the nation was when that happened.
The opinions expressed are solely of the writer.


"You can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant

Lad
Global Moderator
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:47 pm
Location: UK
Political Stand:

RE: The Monarchy versus Presidency

Post by Lad » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:25 pm

How would the British remove a monarch?

A bloody revolution. Once a monarch always a monarch. It would need a lot of anti-monarchy feeling in the country for Prince Charles not to become King when the Queen dies - the only way I can see the monarchy ending (on the death of a monarch). I think the system is too complex and the monarchy so tied up into politics that it would be difficult to do.
Unless some really awful scandal broke out I can't even see the support for a monarchy failing to the extent that it would be no longer wanted by a majority.
War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left.

Romulus111VADT
Gifted Member
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:51 pm
Political Stand:

RE: The Monarchy versus Presidency

Post by Romulus111VADT » Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:14 am

[quote=Lad]
How would the British remove a monarch?

A bloody revolution. Once a monarch always a monarch. It would need a lot of anti-monarchy feeling in the country for Prince Charles not to become King when the Queen dies - the only way I can see the monarchy ending (on the death of a monarch). I think the system is too complex and the monarchy so tied up into politics that it would be difficult to do.
Unless some really awful scandal broke out I can't even see the support for a monarchy failing to the extent that it would be no longer wanted by a majority.
[/quote]

Interesting, I knew that King Edward VIII reign lasted only 325 days (reigned January-December 1936) and he abdicated his thrown to marry his love Wallis Simpson. His brother Albert became King, using his last name George.

I was never sure if a King or Queen could be remove other than by assignation or possibly a war as in the past.

Lass
Global Moderator
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: UK
Political Stand:

RE: The Monarchy versus Presidency

Post by Lass » Wed Nov 29, 2006 1:11 am

The monarchy is recognised by the law. It's part of the British constitution (right, it's not the US kind of a constitution, but it does exist :P ), and I don't see how it could be dissolved merely because the majority went off the idea. Things as old and as deeply woven into a nation's foundations as the monarchy can't just get abolished when some not so popular heir succeeds to the Throne.

Lol ... imagine a monarch giving Royal Assent to a Republic of Britain Bill ... :rolleyes:
Above all, I would teach him to tell the truth ... Truth-telling, I have found, is the key to responsible citizenship. The thousands of criminals I have seen in 40 years of law enforcement have had one thing in common: Every single one was a liar. [JE Hoover]

Lad
Global Moderator
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:47 pm
Location: UK
Political Stand:

RE: The Monarchy versus Presidency

Post by Lad » Wed Nov 29, 2006 1:14 am

If the Queen was asassinated, Charles would become king. As long as there is some person still alive connected to the Royal Family there will always be a monarch.

King Edward was never really king. How it works is that when a monarch dies the coronation of the next will not take place until a year later. So effectively there is no coronated monarch. King Edward was never crowned, he just earned the title king quiter literally the second his father died. During the 12 months to his coronation he tried to persuade the country that he should become king and be allowed to marry Wallace Simpson. Eventually as the coronation drew nigh he failed in this and decided to abdicate and his brother took the throne.
War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left.

britishgirl
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:05 pm
Location: UK
Political Stand:

RE: The Monarchy versus Presidency

Post by britishgirl » Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:13 pm

I am for the monarchy. I think it is very useful, or can be at any rate. The present Queen has certainly been very useful. She also does a great job as head of the commonwealth.
As for the monarchy being undemocratic, well, does it need to be democratic :rolleyes: ? The monarch is not, in effect, ruling the land. She is a figure, and a servant to the people of Britain and the commonwealth. The future monarch is trained for the job (or life - to be more accurate) and, at least, ought to be up to the work. Of course, it is not perfect, and monarchs and other Royals can, and do, let themselves and the country down, but then, no matter what set up or institution you have, there is bound to be problems and hiccups. At the moment, at any rate, I think we have been blessed with a fairly good queen (comparitively speaking) though she has of course made some mistakes. Since the monarchy brings in more money to the country than it costs to keep, I think it is worth while. I personally love the pomp and ceremony and all the tradition and history behind it all too. :smile:
As for the abdication of King Edward VIII, I think it was for the good of the country anyway, though it was very shameful of him. I think George VI made a much better King than his brother would have done.
Last edited by britishgirl on Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests