Congratulations Your Majesty

[Andrew D]

It's not a constitution, only Yanks are hung up on a "constitution".

Yeah. Only us.

Oh, and the other 120+ nations which have codified constitutions.

But other than them, it's only us ....

[Scooter]

Did you miss the "civilian authority" part, Scooter?

No, I didn't miss it. It just doesn't make what you claimed about Commanders-in-Chief to be true in many monarchies.

When I referred to the "civilian authority," I meant the civilian authority. I did not mean the civilian figurehead who has no actual authority.

Then you shouldn't have referred to the Commander-in-Chief without realizing that what was true in the U.S. would not be true in many monarchies.

But the fact remains that in every country in which the military authority is subordinate to the civilian authority, and in which the]civilian authority is the product of political processes, whoever has actual operational command of the military forces has that power by virtue of politics.

That is true, but it is nevertheless different from your original claim.

[Andrew D]

And you would be mistaken if you thought that such advice was ignored by those receiving it. More than one PM, of more than one of her realms, has been put in his/her place by Her Majesty, not the least among whom was Churchill.

And maybe Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was the result of his having been advised by extraterrestrial aliens.

How can anyone respond to a claim like yours?

If you identify which PM was told what by which monarch and how that PM's decisions were affected by what that monarch said to that PM, then we can discuss the matter(s). If not, then we might as well try to discuss how the UK government has been influenced over the centuries by the da Vinci code.

[Andrew D]

But the fact remains that in every country in which the military authority is subordinate to the civilian authority, and in which the]civilian authority is the product of political processes, whoever has actual operational command of the military forces has that power by virtue of politics.

That is true, but it is nevertheless different from your original claim.

If you want to treat it as significantly different, fine. I disagree, but I also don't much care.

What I do care about is this:

Monarchies whose armed forces and police and other publc servants owe their allegiance to the state, in the person of the monarch, and not to the puny partisan interests of the government of the day.

* * *

[The US] Constitution says that the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces is the partisan political hack of the week.

(a) If it is true that in every country in which the military authority is subordinate to the civilian authority, and in which the civilian authority is the product of political processes, whoever has actual operational command of the military forces has that power by virtue of politics,

(b) Then how is the US meaningfully different, in this context, from these monarchies which you so praise?

[Gob]

It's not a constitution, only Yanks are hung up on a "constitution".

Yeah. Only us.

Oh, and the other 120+ nations which have codified constitutions.

But other than them, it's only us ....

There is a difference between "having" a constitution, and being "hung up" on a constitution. If other countries have functioned since long before the USA was created, and continue to function without a constitution, then what would be the problem.

After all, it's not the Brits her who raise the constitution as a problem, that would be....

[Scooter]

If you identify which PM was told what by which monarch and how that PM's decisions were affected by what that monarch said to that PM, then we can discuss the matter(s). If not, then we might as well try to discuss how the UK government has been influenced over the centuries by the da Vinci code.

What goes on between a monarch and his/her prime minister is obviously secret. Two incidents that represented major checks on the power of the PM occurred during the reigns of Edward VII and George V, when the king refused to accede to the PM's request to create enough new peers to push through major legislation, until an election was held. On two occasions Elizabeth II has personally chosen PMs to succeed outgoing ones, without any political process, electoral or otherwise, taking place to determine the outcome. So the royal prerogative has been used both to block the passage of major legislation and indeed to choose who would govern, and therefore establish the government's direction.

(a) If it is true that in every country in which the military authority is subordinate to the civilian authority, and in which the civilian authority is the product of political processes, whoever has actual operational command of the military forces has that power by virtue of politics,

(b) Then how is the US meaningfully different, in this context, from these monarchies which you so praise?

It matters because formalities matter. Because a military and its leaders who depend for their positions on a political authority risk being politicized, and perhaps just as bad, being seen to be so by the populace. Because it is just as important for the military to be seen as something apart from politics as it does for a head of state who would claim to be so for the whole nation, and not just those who agree with him/her.

[Andrew D]

On two occasions Elizabeth II has personally chosen PMs to succeed outgoing ones, without any political process, electoral or otherwise, taking place to determine the outcome. So the royal prerogative has been used ... to choose who would govern, and therefore establish the government's direction.

I am not familiar with those instances, but I would like to be. I have never even heard of such a thing during the reign of the present monarch. Which PMs did she choose, and when did she choose them?

-------------------------

It matters because formalities matter. Because a military and its leaders who depend for their positions on a political authority risk being politicized, and perhaps just as bad, being seen to be so by the populace.

Didn't we just agree that military leaders depend for their positions on a political authority under constitutional monarchies just as they do under republican governments?

[Scooter]

Harold Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Home, at a time when the Conservative Party had no formal process for choosing a leader and the Queen relied on her own chosen advisors to decide whom to appoint. The latter was in the House of Lords at the time, and so had not been elected with a mandate to become dogcatcher, let alone PM.

To your last point, yes, we did so agree. But formalities still matter.

[Andrew D]

It appears that the Queen's "power" to appoint a Prime Minister is yet another fiction. It appears that what she has the "power" to do is to announce the appointment of the person whom the politicians have chosen for the job.

In Macmillan's case "immediately following the Suez crisis and Eden's resignation, he [Macmillan] was chosen by Cabinet colleagues to succeed Eden ...." And Douglas-Home became Prime Minister because Macmillan wanted him to become Prime Minister.

It appears that both cases are examples of how the Constitution Society describes the Queen's "power" to appoint a Prime Minister:

By convention, the Monarch is expected to appoint the leader of the party which gains a majority of the seats in the House of Commons: this leader will become ‘the Queen’s chief adviser’—the Prime Minister. This is considered a personal prerogative because there is no advisor to advise the Queen, but there is no real ‘choice’ here: the Queen simply appoints the leader of the successful political party.

To which a note adds:

This has been emphasised by the Cabinet Office in the 'Cabinet Manual', which is currently being drafted. Chapter 6 on 'Elections and Government Formation' makes it clear that the monarch no longer has discretion over who is to be appointed as Prime Minister, but merely validates the decision already made by the political parties.

It appears that the Queen's "power" is nothing more than the power to announce the doing of what the politicians have decided shall be done. Rather like the Queen's Speech: The politicians decide; she utters the words.

And rather like the Queen's "power" to refuse assent to legislation. According to the same source, "[t]he last recorded example of a Monarch refusing assent was in 1707." (George V did evidently threaten once to exercise that "power," but in the end, he did not even make the attempt.) After three centuries, would any monarch dare to try it? I think that unlikely.

The dusty old "power" to appoint a Prime Minister -- a power which amounts to nothing more than the "power" to be a mouthpiece.

And that is a good thing.

[Andrew D]

Monarchies that have democratic traditions going back hundreds of years.

Monarchies that have had democratic institutions thrust upon them over their vigorous and often violent objections.

The "democratic" -- more accurately, the partly democratic and partly anti-democratic, which is as it should be -- institutions have prevailed. The monarchies are vestigial appendages.

[Gob]

The Queen had a longer than expected trip in a lift following her speech in Parliament, the BBC has learned.

She and the Duke of Edinburgh had just attended a reception on the first floor of the Palace of Westminister before they entered the lift to get to the ground floor, where a car was waiting.

However, rather than descending, it went up and only reached the intended destination after three false starts.

Both the House of Lords and Buckingham Palace refused to comment.

The Queen's address to both Houses of Parliament was made to commemorate her Diamond Jubilee.

She later went to a reception of peers and MPs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17450366

Gawd bless'er!

[Lord Jim]

This story, from 30 years ago, has always been my favorite for showing just how great Her Majesty can be at "rolling with the punches"..:

1982: Queen fends off bedroom intruder
A man has broken into Buckingham Palace and spent ten minutes talking to the Queen in her bedroom.

At around 0715 BST Michael Fagan, 31, scaled the walls around the palace and shinned the drain-pipe up to the Queen's private apartments.

Barefooted and wearing a t-shirt the unemployed father of four evaded electronic alarms and palace and police guards before disturbing the Queen by opening a curtain.

Mr Fagan is already due to appear at Bow Street Magistrates' Court tomorrow to face charges of trespass and stealing half a bottle of wine from Buckingham Palace on 7 June.

Smoked out

The Queen was only able to raise the alarm when he asked for a cigarette.

She calmly called for a footman who held the intruder until police arrived.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 498731.stm

[Gob]

I don't bless them
Farewell to this land's cheerless marshes
Hemmed in like a boar between archers
Her very Lowness with a head in a sling
I'm truly sorry - but it sounds like a wonderful thing


I said Charles, don't you ever crave
To appear on the front of the Daily Mail
Dressed in your Mother's bridal veil ?
Oh ...
And so, I checked all the registered historical facts
And I was shocked into shame to discover
How I'm the 18th pale descendant
Of some old queen or other


Oh, has the world changed, or have I changed ?
Oh has the world changed, or have I changed ?


Some 9-year old tough who peddles drugs
I swear to God
I swear : I never even knew what drugs were
Oh ...
So, I broke into the palace
With a sponge and a rusty spanner
She said : "Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing"
I said : "That's nothing - you should hear me play piano"

[Gob]

A newly-wed couple who met the Queen when she unexpectedly dropped in at their wedding have said it was "one of the best presents you could wish for".

John and Frances Canning were married at Manchester Town Hall on Friday, as the Queen and Prince Phillip were at a lunch, hosted by the lord mayor.

The Queen was touring the city as part of her Diamond Jubilee celebrations.

Mr Canning said it was "just phenomenal" and "one of the most memorable moments of my life"



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-17499716

[Andrew D]

"fends off"?

Hardly.

[Lord Jim]

Regardless of what one might think of the Monarchy conceptually, (which I fully support) or about individuals members in it (I have no great respect for Charles, "I wish I was a tampon so I could be in your knickers all the time" Windsor)

One cannot help but have enormous regard for Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith.

The Queen is indisputably a class act....

[Gob]

And Queen Kate the 1 st, will indisputably be a class bit of ass.

[dales]

Monarchies are parasites.

[Scooter]

Your opinion.

One could say the same thing of your entire political class.

[Lord Jim]

Monarchies are parasites.

You might very well think that....I couldn't comment..

The nations not so blessed as thee
Must, in their turn, to tyrants fall,
While thou shalt flourish great and free:
The dread and envy of them all.