There are quite a few countries that use the parliamentary republic system where the president is basically a figurehead who promotes and represents their country on the world stage, while the Prime Minister and parliament sticks to day-to-day governing. Ideally, the monarch in a constitutional monarchy should be representing the country on the world stage in the same way a president would in the parliamentary republic. I don' think the British monarchy has any desire to promote Canada, nor do Canadians really want them to. It puts the Prime Minister in the position to be both the face of the country and the leader of parliament.
Ireland have had some iconic Presidents that have in many ways contributed to many of the modernising aspects of the country and significantly enhanced global perceptions.
Unpopular opinion but always #### the monarchy
Enough cousin ####ers.lets mive past this crap tradition. racist pedophiles that #### there own family to maintain status .
We make fun of people 8n the south for being incestsual racists but praise the royal family for being the same #### the south and #### the monarchy.
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 09-09-2022 at 01:55 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to combustiblefuel For This Useful Post:
I’ll bet she would have some incredible stories to tell. What a life!
The idea of monarchy seems outdated in today’s world, but her tireless dedication to public service was admirable. Hopefully Charles inherits her sense of duty.
Unpopular opinion but always #### the monarchy
Enough cousin ####ers.lets mive past this crap tradition. racist pedophiles that #### there own family to maintain status .
We make fun of people 8n the south for being incestsual racists but praise the royal family for being the same #### the south and #### the monarchy.
most people are praising Queen Elizabeth, not the monarchy and the royal family itself.
I don't have anything bad to say about the Queen, especially at this moment.
Britain has certainly done a lot of really horrendous things. No doubt about that.
I don't really pay a lot of attention to details of British government. Has the monarchy still been much of a relevant influence in the actions of government during the decades of her rule? I kind of thought that she was basically a figurehead for the UK as well. Did she have any real power during any period of her reign?
Really, I just don't know what the queen actually did all the time and what influence she actually had over government. She has always presented as a person who was just decent and not driving any particular political or national agenda, but my point of view is pretty ignorant on what her actual role was.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
Britain has certainly done a lot of really horrendous things. No doubt about that.
I don't really pay a lot of attention to details of British government. Has the monarchy still been much of a relevant influence in the actions of government during the decades of her rule? I kind of thought that she was basically a figurehead for the UK as well. Did she have any real power during any period of her reign?
Really, I just don't know what the queen actually did all the time and what influence she actually had over government. She has always presented as a person who was just decent and not driving any particular political or national agenda, but my point of view is pretty ignorant on what her actual role was.
She had very little institutional power.
Quote:
The Crown's political role had dwindled to almost nothing by the time she came to the throne. Two areas of discretion - where she as monarch had a say - survived: who to call to become prime minister and form a government, and when Parliament could be dissolved.
Early in her reign, before the Conservatives started electing their leaders, she exercised her judgement, amid some controversy, as to who she would call to form a government when a Conservative prime minister resigned between general elections.
But once the Conservatives started electing their leaders, that judgement was no longer called for. And over the decades, the very idea of the Palace becoming involved in such a decision became alien to British politics. The talk around closely fought elections was of "protecting" the Palace from having to make political decisions over who to call to form a government if there were no decisive winner.
Not at the moment, but I think it's expected Charles will proclaim William and Kate the Prince and Princess of Wales.
I think right now all that's changed is that they are now also the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall.
Last edited by GordonBlue; 09-09-2022 at 08:45 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GordonBlue For This Useful Post:
Britain has certainly done a lot of really horrendous things. No doubt about that.
I don't really pay a lot of attention to details of British government. Has the monarchy still been much of a relevant influence in the actions of government during the decades of her rule? I kind of thought that she was basically a figurehead for the UK as well. Did she have any real power during any period of her reign?
Really, I just don't know what the queen actually did all the time and what influence she actually had over government. She has always presented as a person who was just decent and not driving any particular political or national agenda, but my point of view is pretty ignorant on what her actual role was.
She has/had absolute power though. I'm not sure that this is the place to get into this (seems a little wrong), but the monarch literally signs off on every law and advises and guides the government. To really stoke the fires, a man who cheated on his wife and divorced her is now head of the Church of England...interesting times. There are those wo want to play the "loveable granny" card for the Queen and I do definitely understand that. But you can't really absolve the royals of all blame for all of the terrible things. Part of that power is that they had it to wield and didn't, or worse they went along with it.
And as far as Alberta, things could be pretty interesting here. If Danielle Smith wins and pushes her sovereignty act through and the Lt. Gov decides not to give this royal assent, people will soon realise the power that comes in those roles. You might think that's great because the sovereignty act is stupid, and I personally would agree. But the truth is, that's where things could get really sticky as far as the power and unelected people making those kinds of decisions.
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
