Would the Queen...

[Hondo]

In this day and age, would Queen Elizabeth II commission an autobiography to only be published after her death or would that simply not be done?

I recently saw some footage of her addressing Parliment and she spoke about things she wanted "her" government to pursue. My understanding is that the royals have little or no power within the government so was this more of a traditional, ceremonial address? I wonder what her disappointments have been and what she would have done differently?

If Queen Elizabeth II had enjoyed the same power and influence as Queen Elizabeth I do you think Britain and the UK would be better off today, worse off, or about the same? Would she have let the empire dissolve or would she have tried to keep it together?

[Francis44]

The problem is, the world today acts Globaly.

So if you have a problem there, you might aswell get it somewhere else, sooner or later. So, I think they would be just as they are today.

[Mark]

In this day and age, would Queen Elizabeth II commission an autobiography to only be published after her death or would that simply not be done?

I would imagine it wouldn't be done. Certainly not with this generation, with Charles or William, who knowsn..



I recently saw some footage of her addressing Parliment and she spoke about things she wanted "her" government to pursue. My understanding is that the royals have little or no power within the government so was this more of a traditional, ceremonial address?

It's her government in the fact that in a general election you only elect MPs to parliament, then the queen decides chooses an MP for Prime Minister who is most likely to be able to form a government. (Which is usually the leader of the party who has the most MPs) As such a government is only in power at the express request of the queen. However this is all really procedural and she has no real power.

[Hondo]

The problem is, the world today acts Globaly.

So if you have a problem there, you might aswell get it somewhere else, sooner or later. So, I think they would be just as they are today.

This Global crap is a sales job and nothing else. There is no "need" to go global, act global, or be global. By and large I think it exposes more risk than reward. But, that depends on who picks up the tab. Look at F1. Bernie is making piles of money going super global. Governments are spending huge amounts of money on showplace racetracks and the fees Bernie demands to stage a race there, only to have them almost empty on race day. Those people care about their next meal, not the global car race.

[Hazell B]

In this day and age, would Queen Elizabeth II commission an autobiography to only be published after her death or would that simply not be done?

Hundreds of biographies already exist, but an autobiography wouldn't be something she'd produce herself. She's the last of the old fashioned Royals who dislike being seen as 'normal' humans with feelings of her own I think. Her children either have already written about themselves or will do sooner or later.



I wonder what her disappointments have been and what she would have done differently?



Can of worms open :p :
My guess would be her main disappointments all revolve around family issues and bad marriages, etc. Maybe The Lords being so poor/weak/corrupt would bring sadness, too.

[Hondo]

I've been doing some reading since Mark's reply and the Queen really has all kinds and oodles of power.

Why does the King get let out of all of this? In the event of her death, why wouldn't the throne go to the King instead of Prince Charles?

[Drew]

I've been doing some reading since Mark's reply and the Queen really has all kinds and oodles of power.

Why does the King get let out of all of this? In the event of her death, why wouldn't the throne go to the King instead of Prince Charles?

There is no king, there is Prince Philip and I guess as he married into the family he wouldn't become king?

[GridGirl]

Power is always passed down rather than across if there is an heir. Prince Philip would not become king. The late Queen Mother survived George VI for somewhere near or around 40 years but the crown was passed down to Elizabeth II rather than across.

[Hondo]

If Prince Charles inherited the throne, do you think he would be far more active in making Britain a stronger, more viable entity than it is now? Do you think he would try to generate larger export markets while increasing production at home? I guess I'm asking would he actively market Britain and would that be a good thing?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fiero, the Queen has power that just isn't excercised in a sense. It isn't done. The whole thing about the Royals is they are so bound by tradition and what is seen as royal behaviour that in essence, they are very unlikely to ever really reign over and apply the power they do have. If they did, you would have a Republic in about 10 seconds. The idea is they are the higher authority the real politicians have to be wary of. If they step out of THEIR boundries, then the Queen would have the moral authority to put a stop to it.

What many always fail to understand that the Queen and her power is only at the pleasure of the general public's willingness for the system to continue, but at the same time, the Queen ensures that the balance of power in this system has a check against it. To an American, this is just insane I know, but It works on some strange level for me. I have grown up with the Queen, having her on my money and all the trappings that we in Canada still have relvence to the country. She matters little on how things are run but she is there to be the neutral or imparital authority to put an end to a PM who is overstepping his/her authority. The US Supreme court has that sort of power in theory to kill laws or actions by the gov't to protect the constitution, here the crown does it.

[GridGirl]

Fiero, Prince Andrew is currently the UK's or royal family's official respresentative for international trade and investment. Although this may be his official job of sorts it appears to me that he spends most of his time either playing golf or using helicopters to fly a 15 minute jouney by road. I do belive his golf handicap is low enough for him to become a professional. In quite like the royal family but Andrew does seem to be an exception to my general rule along with Princess Michael of Kent.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fiero, Prince Andrew is currently the UK's or royal family's official respresentative for international trade and investment. Although this may be his official job of sorts it appears to me that he spends most of his time either playing golf or using helicopters to fly a 15 minute jouney by road. I do belive his golf handicap is low enough for him to become a professional. In quite like the royal family but Andrew does seem to be an exception to my general rule along with Princess Michael of Kent.

Grid Girl, you and I may never know what Andrew does, but I can tell you that his life isn't likely to be as simple as you think. Living in a fishbowl does have its downside, and the royals manage to put up with that in ways most people couldn't handle.

[Drew]

If Prince Charles inherited the throne, do you think he would be far more active in making Britain a stronger, more viable entity than it is now? Do you think he would try to generate larger export markets while increasing production at home? I guess I'm asking would he actively market Britain and would that be a good thing?

What exactly would he do? What exactly would he be able to do? He'd have no power to change anything, all he'd have is an opinion.

IMHO if Prince Charles inherits the throne, he'll be the last king we have. He'll be a major embarrassment to the country and people will turn against the monarchy.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Prince Charles will be an embarrassment as King. William will be better.

[BTCC Fan#1]

Although supposed to remain politically neutral, there have been several 'leaks' regarding the Queen's own views. It's fairly well-known she was against the Iraq War and got fed up with Tony Blair, and never got on well with Maggie Thatcher, who apparently remarked she was 'the type of woman who votes for the SDP' (now the Liberal Democrats).

Charles on the other hand has never been afraid of airing his views on various subjects, the environment and the threat of global warming in paticular, and now I see several of the papers claim he was also vehemently opposed to the Iraq invasion. (As I understand it, as a member of the privy council he would have had access to the same 'intelligence' as the government.)

I think there will be a real debate about the future of the monarchy and their constitutional position when the Queen finally dies. I suspect skipping Charles for William might soothe some of the critics, but I'm not sure some of the other countries in the Commonwealth will be keen to carry on having the British Monarch as head of state.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Although supposed to remain politically neutral, there have been several 'leaks' regarding the Queen's own views. It's fairly well-known she was against the Iraq War and got fed up with Tony Blair, and never got on well with Maggie Thatcher, who apparently remarked she was 'the type of woman who votes for the SDP' (now the Liberal Democrats).

Charles on the other hand has never been afraid of airing his views on various subjects, the environment and the threat of global warming in paticular, and now I see several of the papers claim he was also vehemently opposed to the Iraq invasion. (As I understand it, as a member of the privy council he would have had access to the same 'intelligence' as the government.)

I think there will be a real debate about the future of the monarchy and their constitutional position when the Queen finally dies. I suspect skipping Charles for William might soothe some of the critics, but I'm not sure some of the other countries in the Commonwealth will be keen to carry on having the British Monarch as head of state.

I figure that once the Queen is gone, Canada will be looking to dump the monarchy unless Charles passes the crown down to one of the sons. Apparently William isn't really crazy on the job, and Harry understands it and would like it. Maybe Wills would be the best choice.....just on that alone...

[BTCC Fan#1]

Apparently William isn't really crazy on the job, and Harry understands it and would like it. Maybe Wills would be the best choice.....just on that alone...
If Harry becomes King I doubt even the UK will be keeping them!

[Hondo]

My opinion is that this is probably the best thread I've ever started. It's educational and the insights that have been offered aren't the kind found in books and magazines. Mark, it's nice having you unemployed and online.

Regardless of what the Commonwealth feels, I think much of the rest of the world holds the English Royal Family with a higher level of esteem than any other Royal Family in the world. I think the Monarchy is one of the things that continues to make Britain special. Once you do away with the royals, you might as well be Poland.

Ok, you've said Prince Charles would be a mistake as king. Why? Do his sons still have to marry a royal or has that been dropped?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Prince Charles is just too old fashioned and outspoken. His comments on modern architecture alone justify this.

[Rollo]

As such a government is only in power at the express request of the queen. However this is all really procedural and she has no real power.

But only by convention.

Because there aren't any written rules and no constitution which binds the parliament, then the Queen's influence is only determined by the expected methods of behaviour (in the UK).
Victoria had a very big influence on who was and wasn't Prime Minister. Gladstone, Melbourne and Disraeli all found this out.


I think there will be a real debate about the future of the monarchy and their constitutional position when the Queen finally dies. I suspect skipping Charles for William might soothe some of the critics, but I'm not sure some of the other countries in the Commonwealth will be keen to carry on having the British Monarch as head of state.

Personally I doubt it. Charles will move into the monarchy as an old man much the same way as Edward VII did. Similar threads of republicanism ran through society then as well and here we are 108 years later...

[Mark in Oshawa]

My opinion is that this is probably the best thread I've ever started. It's educational and the insights that have been offered aren't the kind found in books and magazines. Mark, it's nice having you unemployed and online.

It sucks being unemployed. My pocketbook is empty but I am glad I can debate here anyhow.


Regardless of what the Commonwealth feels, I think much of the rest of the world holds the English Royal Family with a higher level of esteem than any other Royal Family in the world. I think the Monarchy is one of the things that continues to make Britain special. Once you do away with the royals, you might as well be Poland.

This is my point. The Royals are far more criticized in the UK an in the Commonwealth, yet the British Empire and how it morphed into the Commonwealth is a good story. The Royal family and the crown are part of this history, and the influence has been more positive than negative. Australia, New Zealand and Canada all toy with getting rid of having the Queen as a head of state, yet it hasn't happened. Without the Queen, Canada is just part of North America that has one less part of its culture to distinguish as not Americans. I love the USA as a neighbour, but don't want to be an American. Take away the Crown and we are one step closer.


Ok, you've said Prince Charles would be a mistake as king. Why? Do his sons still have to marry a royal or has that been dropped?

Charles is seen as a buffoon. His behaviour towards Diana was cowardly. The whole monarchy rests on the fiction/fantasy that the Royals in the end stand for values of security, ethics and rule of law. While we all get they are human, they have to impartial and fill the role of being above the stupidity of society. We want them to have the appearance of being better than average. Cheating as he did on Diana and using her to just provide a heir to the throne was seen as killing his crediblity.

The Monarchy only governs when the majority believe in it...(just like Santa Claus I guess). People don't believe in Charles and his sincerity.

[GridGirl]

Royalty have been marrying commoners for years. Prince Edward for example married a commoner in the now Countess of Wessex. They have even elected to not give their children princess and prince titles.

Hell, Peter Phillips even married a Canadian commoner in Autumn Kelly. ;) Although this was only after she denounced the Catholic faith and swapped to become an Anglican so he could retain his ever reducing line to the throne. I didn't quite understand why she had to do that because alot of royals would have to die before he was even in with a shout of being King anyway.

[Hondo]

Technicaly, couldn't the Queen, in light of the MP expenses fooforawe, dissolve the current Parliament and cause new elections to be held?

I am pleased that y'all know so much about your Monarchy. Over here, you'd be surprised how many people that voted for Obama don't even know where he lives now.

[Drew]

Ok, you've said Prince Charles would be a mistake as king. Why? Do his sons still have to marry a royal or has that been dropped?

People always think that the monarchy is out of touch with real life, Prince Charles would only just prove that and highlight the difference (running an Aston Martin on wine anybody?!) Whereas the 2 princes aren't really seen as massively out of touch with society.

[BTCC Fan#1]

Technicaly, couldn't the Queen, in light of the MP expenses fooforawe, dissolve the current Parliament and cause new elections to be held?
Technically theres nothing stopping her from doing this, she retains the right mainly because we don't have a formal written constitution. However, I suspect if she ever did there would be a fair bit of legal wrangling, and chances of the monarchy being abolished for meddling in the democratic process might increase..

[Hondo]

Technically theres nothing stopping her from doing this, she retains the right mainly because we don't have a formal written constitution. However, I suspect if she ever did there would be a fair bit of legal wrangling, and chances of the monarchy being abolished for meddling in the democratic process might increase..

Or, in this particular adventure, ridding her subjects of the whole corrupt bunch of them and allowing them to choose new ones immediately might endear the Monarchy to the people for 100 years.

[Rollo]

Originally the Septennial Act 1715 limited the standing of parliament to seven years, and the Parliament Act 1911 further limited it to five years - however both of them assume that the parliament itself (through the Prime Minister) would ask for a Writ of Election and thus force a dissolution.

Both Canada and Australia's parliaments have had similar issues dealt with. Once when the Governnor General of Canada refused to dissolve parliament (ie the King–Byng Affair in 1926) and the when the Governnor General of Australia actually did so without consent of the parliament (1975 "Constitutional Crisis")

Perhaps the Queen's secretary's letter to the Australian Governor-General is instructive:
As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act.

The inference being that in the UK the Queen would be the "only person competent to commission a British Prime Minister"; thus the precedents would come not from within the UK but her children.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The whole thing for Americans to grasp is their Constitution spells out more or less exactly where the power in Washington is found, and controlled. In the Westminister Parliamentry model and its offshoots, the Crown does have some sway that in many ways makes the Queen the living constitution I suppose. At least on which elected officials have how much rope to play with before she pulls it. The reality is tho, the Parliaments work because of their loyalty to the Crown. I agree with many, Charles wouldn't endear that sort of loyalty.

[Hondo]

So should the Queen force the current parliament to dissolve and cause the election of a new one out of love and devotion for her subjects? Would the public see it and understand it that way?

The reason I ask is because reading various English newspapers online everyday leads me to believe that the Brits aren't any happier with their government's excesses than are other people with their's. For most of us we have to wait for the government to reform it's self (yeah, right.), or change it ever so slowly through the ballot box, or take it down by force of arms.

Britain, through it's Monarchy, is in a unique position where the Queen could step in and cause immediate changes. The economy sucks, government is raising taxes on everything, Britain seems to be growing ever less fond of the EU, and jobs that Brits are willing to work are in short supply. Maybe a constitutional crisis is exactly whats needed to shake things up and move in a new direction. The old way of doing things has been made obsolete by population growth and a lack of insistance on personal responsibility. Not only in Britain, but here and other places too.

Could a constitutional crisis be just what is needed to jar people back to reality right now? Would the Queen do it or is her loyalty to the Parliament?

[Rollo]

So should the Queen force the current parliament to dissolve and cause the election of a new one out of love and devotion for her subjects? Would the public see it and understand it that way?

The reason I ask is because reading various English newspapers online everyday leads me to believe that the Brits aren't any happier with their government's excesses than are other people with their's. For most of us we have to wait for the government to reform it's self (yeah, right.), or change it ever so slowly through the ballot box, or take it down by force of arms.

The Queen in order to dissolve parliament would issue a Writ for an Election. Ultimately, the reason given would be for one of no confidence, and then it would be none other than the people who would decide who would make up the next parliament.

Having another election surely must be seen as democratic no? It would probably strengthen the monarchy more than anything else.

[Easy Drifter]

It is highly unlikely the Queen would take such an action. An election would not automatically make a change. The same party could win a majority again.
Most of the time an election is called every 4 years and one has to be held within 5. If the current Govt. loses on a major bill it is considered a loss of confidence in the Govt. and the Prime Minister then normally would go to the Queen to ask her to dissolve Parliament and hold an election.
If he didn't then the Queen could in theory dissolve Parl. or ask somone else to form a Govt.
An example of a major bill would be a vote on a budget.
Any proposed major change to the law could be considered a vote of confidence. Major changes to the Criminal Code or a Health Bill would normally be votes of confidence. Minor changes or 'housekeeping' bills are normally not.
The Party in power can declare the vote on any piece of legislation a vote of confidence. Then all members of that party are compelled to vote with the Govt. or risk expulsion from the party. Sometimes a PM will declare a free vote and then the party members can vote as they wish. The leader of the Opposition Party(ies) may tell his or her members they have to follow the Party line or also allow a free vote.
If you are expelled from a Party you can continue sitting as an independent or join another party.
In Canada the vote period is 4 years and here the Governor General acts in place of the Queen.

[Hondo]

Judging by the polls around here, if we had a queen she would be deluged with letters begging her to dissolve the congress, senate, and the presidency and call for new elections immediately.

Sure it would be the same parties and in some cases the same old party hacks but it would also be a bat upside the head for these people realize just how displeased we are with things and their "good old boy" clubs. Personally, I think the people would love it. We have nothing to lose. It's time for the Queen to step up and do something regal, royal and meaningful.

Over here, they would ignore such a populist move by the queen at their own peril. The next time around it might be ropes and Winchesters.

[Mark]

As I understand it a King outranks a Queen. Which is why when there is a King on the throne his wife is the Queen. However when we have a female monarch she is Queen but her husband cannot be King, therefore he's the next best thing which is a Duke. It's not an issue at the moment due to the next three in line to the throne all being male, however I'd expect when the next monarch comes to the throne they will end the 'rule' which says males are always preferred over females in the sucession.

Personally I think Charles would be an excellent King. The whole Diana thing adside he would be quite a stablising influence even if he was only on the throne for a few years before William was mature enough to become King himself.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Judging by the polls around here, if we had a queen she would be deluged with letters begging her to dissolve the congress, senate, and the presidency and call for new elections immediately.

Sure it would be the same parties and in some cases the same old party hacks but it would also be a bat upside the head for these people realize just how displeased we are with things and their "good old boy" clubs. Personally, I think the people would love it. We have nothing to lose. It's time for the Queen to step up and do something regal, royal and meaningful.

Over here, they would ignore such a populist move by the queen at their own peril. The next time around it might be ropes and Winchesters.

Fiero, much of the "opposition" in the UK, Canada, or in the US of A is often poltical theatre. In otherwards, the opposition is basically campaigning for election early, knowing full well if the situation was reversed they would be doing the same stupid stuff.

The Queen wont dissolve Parliament because the people are unsatisfied. Any elected government that has the "confidence" of Parliament has to run its course and no modern Royal will mess with that. It isn't her job to decide when to pull the plug. The people in the end will make that decision wont they?

It is no different than all the apparent dissatisfaction people had with Clinton in 96, yet he got re-elected in the US. Part of that I know was the Ross Perot movement splitting the opposition vote, but the point remains democracy calls the shots. The Queen is to only step in when it is clear the government is crossing the line from democracy to tyranny. This is unhappiness and opposition, NOT a tyranical rule. Gordon Brown isn't Adolf Hitler....

[Hondo]

The absolute danger of democracies is that you are always going to have a certain amount of population that is parasitic and worthless and still able to cast a ballot. Unfortunately, you also have groups that refuse to believe anybody could enjoy life living that way so they create social programs and reforms. Social programs designed to "cure" that segment of the population in fact end up enlarging it. Over a period of time and constant enlargement it becomes an entity that will vote for whomever promises to give them the most for nothing. It doesn't matter that it can't be done because they go back to sleep after the election anyway. Like any pyramid scheme, it will work well for those who get in early while those that come later will suffer because the scheme has become too big to support any longer. In theory a representative republic like what the US has safeguards against that but those representatives are human and want to keep their jobs too, so the ones that continue to promise something for nothing continue to get elected.

Right now the west is staggering under the load of social programs that were designed when populations were a third of what they are now and you had a completely different working demographic. None of those programs has undergone serious reform to keep pace with the need. It's been band-aid after band-aid.

Human beings need to make the first changes in themselves, on their own. People have to accept that not everyone is going to have a desk job that pays $200,000 a year or more. There will always be lower paid people further down that will have to accept there will be some t

[Hazell B]

Prince Andrew ..... spends most of his time either playing golf or using helicopters to fly a 15 minute jouney by road.

Exactly - he's a far bigger waste of space than almost any politician I can think of. Saying he's playing golf with leaders of industry and gaining UK orders as a result is bunk. He sells arms for BAE (not Brit owned, yet financed by our tax payers) and that's about it.

[Hazell B]

Living in a fishbowl does have its downside.....

They don't any longer. What gets printed about the Royals now is either unfairly spun press releases they made themselves or nothing. Prince Andrew isn't in the media they way he used to be, yet somehow I figure he hasn't given up wine, women or song ;)

As for Prince Charles .... I like him. The poor beggar can't possibly win, whatever he does or says. If he tries to encourage recycling, it turns into stories about madcap wine-to-run-cars stories that are maybe 1% of what he actually said. He can't exactly experience life as we do, so we should forgive him the mistakes he makes in that department - 'let them eat cake' is still perfectly relevant.

Charles knows more about the British countryside than most people who have real power over it. On the whole he manages to say what should be said and represent us rural types better than government and townies ever can. He's kept a good deal of the near lost countryside skills in the public eye - thus meaning the country looks as it does (fairly original) instead of a barren hedge-free, stonewall-free and treeless wasteland like the government wanted a few years ago. If it wasn't for him taking on the Nation Championships in various countryside things like hedge laying many miles of hedge would have been ripped out rather than kept to practice on. Miles more stone walls would be left fallen or robbed out rather than be rebuilt as practice for his competitions. I know - I've competed in them. Anyway, he puts on a good meal afterwards :facelick:

[GridGirl]

We're getting an extra bank holiday in 2012 to celebrate the queens diamond jubilee. Can't wait already. :D

[Mark in Oshawa]

They don't any longer. What gets printed about the Royals now is either unfairly spun press releases they made themselves or nothing. Prince Andrew isn't in the media they way he used to be, yet somehow I figure he hasn't given up wine, women or song ;)

As for Prince Charles .... I like him. The poor beggar can't possibly win, whatever he does or says. If he tries to encourage recycling, it turns into stories about madcap wine-to-run-cars stories that are maybe 1% of what he actually said. He can't exactly experience life as we do, so we should forgive him the mistakes he makes in that department - 'let them eat cake' is still perfectly relevant.

Charles knows more about the British countryside than most people who have real power over it. On the whole he manages to say what should be said and represent us rural types better than government and townies ever can. He's kept a good deal of the near lost countryside skills in the public eye - thus meaning the country looks as it does (fairly original) instead of a barren hedge-free, stonewall-free and treeless wasteland like the government wanted a few years ago. If it wasn't for him taking on the Nation Championships in various countryside things like hedge laying many miles of hedge would have been ripped out rather than kept to practice on. Miles more stone walls would be left fallen or robbed out rather than be rebuilt as practice for his competitions. I know - I've competed in them. Anyway, he puts on a good meal afterwards :facelick:

You are just biased because you ride horses and had a meal on Charles. lol

Actually, on that score Charles is very releveant. That said, the majority I think don't hold him in high esteem, and I think he was a jerk on how he handled his marriage. It was a sham and he should have had the stones to stand up to the convention and wait for Camilla to get a divorce and then get married; and let the chips fall where they may. I think the British public and the rest of the commoners in the Commonwealth would have understood that. I am not sure they liked how much of a sham his marraige was to Diana and what he put her through. That said, she was a little naive and manipulative in the later years, so she isn't as blameless as the media would have you believe either.

[Hazell B]

Mark, you're right in that many Brits dislike Charles and most think he's a moron. But then again, many read The Sun, etc. They get a media version of all the Royal family, not an actual truth by any stretch of the imagination.

If they looked at the genuine issues and read the real quotes, maybe they'd see different (but I doubt anyone would bother) and know what some members of that family do for this country.

I'm not saying they're brilliant and worth every penny, but I do like our Royals in general. The country wouldn't have much tourism without them, or a very loud voice in some other countries.

[Hazell B]

By the way, I think the extra Bank Holiday was a "we hope to have" sort of idea, not a promise.

I happened to be watching News 24 when Mandleson (horrid man) did the speech mentioning it. It's over two years away for goodness sake, so why? :rolleyes:

[GridGirl]

I presumed it's pretty much a given if she is still with us. I suppose at her age you can't always assume that she will live that long.

Bank holidays are something to get excitied about when you work 9 till 5.30, have 20 days holiday a year and which you have to use on average 3 or 4 when the office is shut over Christmas. I for one will be looking forward to a free day off even if it is a couple of years away. :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Long live the Queen, long may she reign, and get Grid Girl that extra day off in two years......boy that is a lot of hoping. I know her Majesty is sticking around just for you guys to get one more day off....

[GridGirl]

I don't know how many bank holidays you get in Canada Mark but the UK has fewer bank holidays than most European countries. I appreciate your sarcastic comment but an extra bank holiday for whatever reason would be welcomed by everyone.

[Hazell B]

Sure as hell would!
Even as somebody who works for myself, I love them on the whole.

[Malbec]

I recently saw some footage of her addressing Parliment and she spoke about things she wanted "her" government to pursue. My understanding is that the royals have little or no power within the government so was this more of a traditional, ceremonial address?

Couldn't see any responses to this bit so I thought I'd answer.

The Queen's speech is written by the PM and his advisers, it is indeed entirely ceremonial. Its used these days to give clues and hints as to what the PM wants to achieve in the following year. Given we're expecting an election at some point this year there were some titbits to generate attention and raise expectations a bit.

As others have said, whilst the Queen has powers on paper if she tried to exercise them she'd be ejected pretty sharpish. The English don't do messy things like revolutions or coups, thats for Johnny Foreigner. However the English have twice seen fit to show their monarchs their place with extreme violence when required. The royal family know their place.

[Drew]

Long live the Queen, long may she reign, and get Grid Girl that extra day off in two years......boy that is a lot of hoping. I know her Majesty is sticking around just for you guys to get one more day off....

I'm sure we'll get one when she dies, too.

[Malbec]

Charles is seen as a buffoon. His behaviour towards Diana was cowardly.

Depends on which view you take. There are quite a few (myself included) who see Diana as a highly manipulative princess (in the lower case) that managed to look good because she knew how to use the media to her own ends. To that purpose she ran rings around prince Charles and the rest of the royal family who didn't really understand or want to engage with the media.

Whilst Charles did have an affair with Camilla after she got divorced, Diana had a string of affairs too before their separation. I can't remember which one did it first though.

Charles has interesting ideas, some of which are just plain silly but others are genuinely clever and may help the royals stay relevant. I'm thinking of his idea to relinquish his role as head of the Church of England and be an unofficial head of all religions based in the UK instead.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Depends on which view you take. There are quite a few (myself included) who see Diana as a highly manipulative princess (in the lower case) that managed to look good because she knew how to use the media to her own ends. To that purpose she ran rings around prince Charles and the rest of the royal family who didn't really understand or want to engage with the media.

Whilst Charles did have an affair with Camilla after she got divorced, Diana had a string of affairs too before their separation. I can't remember which one did it first though.

Charles has interesting ideas, some of which are just plain silly but others are genuinely clever and may help the royals stay relevant. I'm thinking of his idea to relinquish his role as head of the Church of England and be an unofficial head of all religions based in the UK instead.

First off, Diana was a nobody until Charles picked her out of the crowd. She didn't ask to be the beauty on the pedestal, marrying Charles put her there. Second, Charles pretty much was with Camilla all along. So if we are going to start pointing fingers on who tossed the first stone in the manipulation and lie game, Charles is the winner. Third, while Diana turned into a media manipulater par excellence, Charles was the one looking for the virgin bride to have the heirs because he didn't want to give up the line of sucession while still having his affair with the married woman. AT least his great uncle had the stones to abdicate for the woman he loved.

AS for Charles and his ideas, I agree there is a lot things he espouses I agree with. I agree with his stance on British architecture and keeping the countryside as it has been. I agree on his wanting to back away as head of the church, although he is full of it saying he wants to be the unofficial head of relgions. How about Charles leave thelogy to the theologians?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't know how many bank holidays you get in Canada Mark but the UK has fewer bank holidays than most European countries. I appreciate your sarcastic comment but an extra bank holiday for whatever reason would be welcomed by everyone.

We don't call them Bank holidays, just long weekends, and I am teasing you a little actually. I would love another day off paid believe me. We don't get enough holidays either......

[schmenke]

An additional bank holiday would be paid for by an increase in taxes :mark: .
An extra bank holiday was proposed not too long ago in Canada (I can't remember for what specifically, probably something important like schmenke's brithday...) but it was estimated that it would cost the taxpayer in the order of a billion dollars, so the notion was quickly squashed :mark:

[Easy Drifter]

Right now we have a Provincial Govt. that doesn't have a clue about anything but the big cities. Almost all cabinet positions are from the cities. The Minister of Natural Resourses, which includes hunting and fishing is from the City of Toronto and she has never hunted or fished. She also knows zip about forestry or mining both in her Ministry.
I am not sure of the current numbers but in the last Provincinal Parl. every member but one had been a lawyer, teacher, accountant or Dr. The one exception was our local member who had been a plumber. Many were professional politicians in that they had never actually worked as say a lawyer.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Schmenke...it all depends when your birthday is. The lame-o premier here gave us a day in Feburary. Only a skiier would appreciate THAT....

[Mark]

So should the Queen force the current parliament to dissolve and cause the election of a new one out of love and devotion for her subjects? Would the public see it and understand it that way?


Not really no. The only way that can happen is if there is a vote of no confidence in the commons. Even then if that vote is lost the Prime Minister would go to the Queen ask *ask* for a dissolution of parliament.