stokebailey

Kerouac, what was that topic again? Something about visiting London?

Speaking of irrationality, I hope you're getting the guest quarters straightened up.

Cholmondley_Warner

I'm always flabbergasted at Pals idiotic dronings from a country that can't change a 200 year old piece of paper and thinks it's stil the basis for a system of Government. And he thinks we're "mired in the past"?

Get rid of your guns and state rights, then tell us we're the old fashioned ones. Oh I forgot; that's "too hard".

They can put a man on the moon but they can't stop morose teenagers shooting up their schools..Sheesh...

PatrickLondon

PQ, I suggest you re-read what you actually typed about pomp, etc.

Just take a moment.

And then, your point >>why not just strictly a ceremonial royalty sans real power<< takes the biscuit. That is precisely what we have. Their job is to be like Hitchcock's actors - know the lines and don't bump into the furniture.

Palenque

PL - then why give the Q any power at all - you mistook what i meant by 'real power' - by real i mean technically i believe she has vast powers - to appoint the government for example - HM's Government, etc.

I know she has no 'real' powers in effect but then my Q was why give her any constitutional role a'tall which is hypocrisy since she cannot really act on those powers if she wanted not to follow the script.

Or am i wrong that Q does not even have any 'real' powers from the technical point?

and the old canard from CW - what about yous and your country - well i would be even harder on our antiquated system as well - esp our un-democratic U.S. Senate and Electoral College system, where in 2000 Gore won hundreds of thousands of more votes than Bush and even more electoral votes if the Supreme Court had allowed them to be cast as the state of Florida was entitled to.

Several wrongs don't make something right - the subject is a constitutional monarchy existing in today's world - monarchy OK but constitutional monarchy not OK. (And again i know she has no 'real power' and that's why it's so ludicrous to even give her theoretical powers.) And for that there is NO intellectual justification and you know it

PatrickLondon

You're starting from the wrong end, Pal. We have what we have because of what we had, not because we all sat down to design a rationally consistent, perfect state (not that there's ever been or ever could be such a thing). The Queen has not been "given" powers. They were there centuries ago, but they have drifted or been taken away, and that process made it, historically, a lot smoother than having violent revolutions and constitutional navel-gazing. We have now reached a position where it really <i>doesn't matter</i> that much. If there is a constitutional issue, it's the residual lack of limitation on the powers that went away to the House of Commons (and whoever commands a temporary majority of it). But on the whole, it's not worth the time and effort of unstitching it all, given all the other business government and parliament have to deal with: and that is a perfectly reasonable intellectual justification.

PatrickLondon

P.S.

Since you didn't rise to the bait, let me be plonkingly pedantic and point out that, in relation to your own remark, we may be excessively addicted to pomp, but circumcision, as far as I know, is a rather more transatlantic obsession.

stokebailey

The funny thing is using it like that and spelling it correctly.

annhig

we seem to have drifted rather a long way off topic - the palace is relevant merely a a starting and finishing point.

i don't think that it's required to take a corgi with you to do the walk.

a case of circumlocution, perhaps?

regards, ann

Palenque

doltocracy for sure and i appreciate Patrick's perhaps too cogent arguments and agree the Q is irrelevant it seems

but one 'intellectual issue' that no royalist can possibly defend is the hereditary aspect of the monarchy and especially the preference of males over females and esp not allowing Catholics to be the monarch.

These are patently undefendable IMO and should be abolished in the name of fairness and to set a good example for the nation in these patently discriminatory laws or traditions.

And thanks all for not using the Pal hates Brits argument that some only do - i just like discussing things like this (and again i have been much more caustic in my negative remarks re things my own country does - if i had to chose which society to live in i would take the U.K. in a flash - lousy weather and all.

annhig

oops, that should have been "the palace is irrelevant - merely a starting and finishing point".

bdjtbenson

I can't believe I missed the Cathedral of Sewage on my last visit. So much to see, so little time.

lauralamb

I don't think the Queen et al jut harps back to the days of Britain's 'imperial glory'. I think she is very relevant to the here and now. Most British people have a lot of respect for her and the Duke of Edinburgh. Hey, they're the UK's number one tourist attraction.

kerouac

It is always interesting to see how Americans feel uncomfortable with the British way of running its government and are always eager to suggest improvements, but I have always noticed how quickly they become hysterical if you tell them that their constitution needs to be rewritten and updated. It has plenty of amendments that could be included in the main text as well as some amendments that cancel other amendments, so all of that should be plucked out once and for all. The world has moved on since the 18th century, but if you tell an American that a lot of European countries have rewritten their constitution since WW2 or even more recently than that, and that it has been done quite regularly in recent centuries, they laugh in your face. "Our constitution has lasted so long because it is so well written. If other countries need to fix their consitution, it is a sign of weakness."

Oh dear. (May I point out that I am a card-carrying American?)

Cholmondley_Warner

We haven't got a constitution. Also our mopey teenagers hang around in shopping centres in black t-shirts drinking cider and don't go on a shooting rampage.

I think we've got it right.

Palenque

the Duke of Edinburgh. Hey, they're the UK's number one tourist attraction.>

Barf! If true is a pathetic statement about the UK's tourist attractions.

kerouac - Constitutions evolve without being re-written necessarily - it's up to the Courts to interpret the Constitution and they can, not right now, but sooner or later bend when needed.

IMO The lack of a written Constitution is a far more danger than a Constitution that is difficult, on purpose, to ammend.

Yes France re-writes its Constitution every new Republic - about twice a century or so.

In any case 2 wrongs do not make things right with the silly notion of a Constitutional monarch without a Constitution.