William and Kate, at last

[colchar]

First, the monarch serves as the official Head of State. They do not wield any day-to-day powers but they are there if needed. Second, the monarch performs all kinds of foreign relations functions that would either not get done or would have to be done by elected representatives who have better things to do with their time. Third, the provide a direct link back through British history that demonstrates that, no matter what else happens, the head of state remains intact (there is a lot more to this but I'm in a hurry and don't have time to go into it all right now). Fourth, they only cost about 65 pence per person in Britain yet bring in far fare more than that each year in tourism money.

1&3) So in case the PM is impeached, y'all know that there's someone there. Sort of like insurance, right?
2) We don't need that here in the US. We have a vice-president who handles most of those functions.
4) I always wonder how people calculate what proportion of the tourist money floating into Britain is due to the crown. As if there's no other reason to go to the UK.

1 & 3) The Prime Minister cannot be impeached. The way the system works is that people vote for representatives in their local area (known as a riding) and the party with the majority of seats (ridings that were won by their members during the election) forms the government (if a party holds a majority of seats it is impossible to remove them from power until the next election). The leader of that party automatically becomes Prime Minister – but people do not actually vote for the Prime Minister. The party with the majority of seats, and the one that therefore forms the government, could change leaders every six weeks if they felt like it (the leader of the parties are elected by the members of that party) and that new leader would automatically become Prime Minister by virtue of being the leader of the party that holds the majority of seats. If a party holds a majority of seats

If no party has an outright majority of seats, the party with the most seats forms the government (known as a minority government such as we have in Canada at the moment) and, again, their leader becomes Prime Minister. But in this situation the other parties could combine forces and their combined votes (seats) in Parliament would outnumber those of the ruling party. Votes on certain matters, like the budget, are known as confidence votes. If the other parties combine to defeat the government on one of those the government falls (ie. it has lost the ‘confidence’ of Parliament so the government is dissolved). At that point the parties can decide to work together to form a government (ie. the second and third place parties could form a coalition, or the first place party could form one with some independents, or various other scenarios). If they can work something out then they can form the government but, if not, then a new election is necessary (this is almost always what happens). But this is only possible in a minority government situation.

4) No idea but I’ve seen reports on this and hear them mentioned in the British media fairly regularly.

[Miles]

What does "official Head of State" mean? Do they decide law? Do they declare war? Do they set income tax rates? What does it mean to not yield day-to-day powers but be there if needed? That sounds a lot like my boss and he is an extreme douchebag that is seriously over-qualified for his title and has climbed well-beyond the highest rung on the Peter Principle Ladder.

Still trying to understand. I'm pretty sure I could google my ass off on this and be led astray, or ask many a friend and get their interpretation, but you're the only the subject I know that seems to defend the crown so I'm really interested in your perspective.

As official head of state the monarch gives assent to the laws passed by Parliament but plays no role in the creation, debate, or passing of those laws. The monarch serves as a figurehead and giving assent to those laws is ceremonial - the monarch wouldn't refuse to give assent to any law that was passed (technically, I'm not even sure they could). They play absolutely no role, other than the ceremonial one, in deciding laws. When the Prime Minister is elected the monarch 'invites' them to form their government but that is kind of the same as the person in the US who swears the President into office after an election - not quite the same but close enough. If the Prime Minister chooses to dissolve Parliament they go to the monarch who gives their permission to do so. Technically Parliament cannot be dissolved without that permission but it is always always always granted. Again, the monarch's role is essentially ceremonial. They could refuse but that power hasn't been exercised in centuries and will never be exercised again.

After the last election there was some wheeling and dealing going on to form the coalition government that is in power now. There wasn't as much going on as people were led to believe as the Lib Dems knew they couldn't work with the Labour Party but could with the Conservatives despite being closer ideologically to Labour than to the Conservatives. While things were shaking out there was a great deal of uncertainty as to what would happen. If things had dragged on for any longer the Queen, as the reigning monarch, could've stepped in and told the politicians to get their shit together and to come to some sort of agreement sooner rather than later. Or she could have invited Gordon Brown and the Labour Party to continue in government until the parties figured things out amongst themselves. Or she could have asked David Cameron and his Conservatives to form a government for the time being until the parties figured their shit out. As it turns out, she didn't do any of those things and just let the parties get on with it themselves. But if things had dragged for longer on there would have been demands from the public that she step in to help sort the mess out. She does wield that kind of power but it is only ever exercised in exceptional circumstances.

It might be tough for an American to understand, especially since, technically, Britain does not have a written constitution. The monarch can also exercise the Royal Prerogative but that is only ever done on the advice of the Prime Minister so, in real terms, it is the Prime Minister who advises the monarch as to what they wish to see done and then the monarch goes and does it thus making it official.

Gotcha, thanks for taking the time to explain. It is a bit difficult for me to understand the value of a monarchy, as opposed to not having one. Can the monarchy change families? What if folk don't like the current bloodline?

[colchar]

Gotcha, thanks for taking the time to explain. It is a bit difficult for me to understand the value of a monarchy, as opposed to not having one. Can the monarchy change families? What if folk don't like the current bloodline?

No problem.

The monarchy changed families frequently in past centuries and last did so after the Glorious Revolution (which also affected Maryland) but it is absolutely unthinkable that it could ever happen again because, even back in 1688 (when the Glorious Revolution took place), it took a revolution for the change to be made.

If people don't like the bloodline there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.

[windsor]

I have pencilled in April 29th....I await my invitation.

[colchar]

I was hoping they would choose something around the May Two-Four Weekend in honour of Queen Victoria's birthday (24 May) as that would coincide with my birthday (21 May). Alas, it was not to be.

[Jesus_hurley]

I was hoping they would choose something around the May Two-Four Weekend in honour of Queen Victoria's birthday (24 May) as that would coincide with my birthday (21 May). Alas, it was not to be.

Off with their heads for not conforming to your wishes!

728_guillotine.gif (8.61 KiB) Viewed 247 times

[devildeac]

I was hoping they would choose something around the May Two-Four Weekend in honour of Queen Victoria's birthday (24 May) as that would coincide with my birthday (21 May). Alas, it was not to be.

Off with their heads for not conforming to your wishes!

728_guillotine.gif

We need to add that to our smilie page ;) .

[Lavabe]

I was hoping they would choose something around the May Two-Four Weekend in honour of Queen Victoria's birthday (24 May) as that would coincide with my birthday (21 May). Alas, it was not to be.

So instead, they're getting married a couple of days before my birthday.

[CathyCA]

You know, Kate's name is "Catherine Elizabeth."

I think that is a perfectly perfect name. ;)

[Lavabe]

What country did the sapphire she receive come from? I read that it was Diana's engagement ring, but where did the sapphire come from?

[devildeac]

What country did the sapphire she receive come from? I read that it was Diana's engagement ring, but where did the sapphire come from?

Probably the one/s you didn't bring any of us from Madagascar.

[captmojo]

What country did the sapphire she receive come from? I read that it was Diana's engagement ring, but where did the sapphire come from?

Probably the one/s you didn't bring any of us from Madagascar.

Would you maybe be in search mode?

[devildeac]

What country did the sapphire she receive come from? I read that it was Diana's engagement ring, but where did the sapphire come from?

Probably the one/s you didn't bring any of us from Madagascar.

Would you maybe be in search mode?

Not this Christmas and probably not next one, either. Too many weddings .