Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Kian** · 05-31-2010, 11:18 PM

agreed

**kcoll** · 06-01-2010, 05:11 AM

all mps need to sware oath of alegience to the queen.
you are prosecuted by the crown.
monarch can dissolve goverment.
many royals hold high military ranks.
our monarch is more than symbolic.

**Fuzzly Bear** · 06-01-2010, 05:53 AM

No the monarch is merely symbolic. There would be so much trouble if she tried to do anything on her own. The Queen has no power. It is in name only.

**kcoll** · 06-01-2010, 06:23 AM

britain needs a monarch with power otherwise we would need a president as most countrys with a prime minister do.

**Boboulas** · 06-01-2010, 01:55 PM

Why do we need a monarch with power?

**Kian** · 06-01-2010, 02:01 PM

(06-01-2010 05:53 AM)HamishFTW Wrote: No the monarch is merely symbolic. There would be so much trouble if she tried to do anything on her own. The Queen has no power. It is in name only.

What form of contemporary power are we discussing here? The monarch's have set the pre-text for power the prime-minister is their puppet, he is a representative of the Queen. Now, some people don't necessarily agree with the monarch but see them as integral in preserving Britains rich history, however, linking it back to class struggle it is evident that the monarch have always been extensively involved in supressing the people.
Yes the queen bears no centralised power but they're still existent.
If they are powerful enough to even exist and remain rather wealthy through their consumption, this is what is problematic for me.

**kcoll** · (This post was last modified: 06-01-2010 03:21 PM by kcoll.)

(06-01-2010 01:55 PM)Boboulas Wrote: Why do we need a monarch with power?

just the way our government is set up .i think it is to do with when england was breifly a republic under oliver cromwell .

**Boboulas** · 06-01-2010, 04:51 PM

eh? cromwell was a military dictator. But thats besides the point of the thread.

A republic is one step closer to socalism. The monarch isnt even part of the state, its funny when people say the queen can do whatever she wants but when she does it will be 1642 all over again.

**Fuzzly Bear** · 06-01-2010, 06:24 PM

(06-01-2010 02:01 PM)GuerillaRebel Wrote:
(06-01-2010 05:53 AM)HamishFTW Wrote: No the monarch is merely symbolic. There would be so much trouble if she tried to do anything on her own. The Queen has no power. It is in name only.

What form of contemporary power are we discussing here? The monarch's have set the pre-text for power the prime-minister is their puppet, he is a representative of the Queen. Now, some people don't necessarily agree with the monarch but see them as integral in preserving Britains rich history, however, linking it back to class struggle it is evident that the monarch have always been extensively involved in supressing the people.
Yes the queen bears no centralised power but they're still existent.
If they are powerful enough to even exist and remain rather wealthy through their consumption, this is what is problematic for me.

Class struggle?

The Lords are powerful enough to still exist, and they are actually involved with the running of the country. Sorting that out is obviously a more pressing issue than an old woman that is the actual puppet. The Prime Minister is the 'puppet master'.

**Kian** · (This post was last modified: 06-01-2010 06:51 PM by Kian.)

Well we only have to look at history to see how monarch's bore significance over the people, whether it be Japan, Iran etc. If we're talking of specifically, who constitutes power here, yes the lords are involved again, where those imperialistic connotations interplay. Actually, it is surprising that a baroness without having been elected by the PEOPLE as it were, forms one of the cabinet members.
I'm not saying her power is extensive as it is limited. Whereas, the prime-ministers isn't. But, if we are speaking in the context of who dominates as a sovereign power in the U.K. then yes, they are included as we see symbolic remnants of the monarch in our present-day judiciary, armed forces etc. I'd personally love to see Che's image over the crown/magistrates courts but hey!
Say, I felt like meeting the queen, that wouldn't be possible now would it? I wouldn't even be able to be in her presence even if she had her personnel. It is very unlikely that I would ever, even reach the point of contacting them at all. Simple as. They do have a realm of power, even if it is not centralised and even if she is not in control at the root of all decision-making; she is still consulted on it and able to advise.

We won't see Socialism until we are rid of this 'constitutional monarch'.

**Boboulas** · 06-01-2010, 07:36 PM

Well japan and iran are completly different circumstances and cultures. Its fairly obvious that monarchs had power over the people considering all of europe was practicly run by absolute monarchs for arround 2000 years.

Quote:They do have a realm of power, even if it is not centralised and even if she is not in control at the root of all decision-making; she is still consulted on it and able to advise.

But she doesnt advise on anything. The government hands her their ideas and she reads them to the public, i dont remember the last time a monarch refused to sign a perticular policy.

Quote:We won't see Socialism until we are rid of this 'constitutional monarch'.

And replace it with a republic. Honestly i dont understand what you are argueing about. The queen is powerless!!

**Fuzzly Bear** · 06-01-2010, 08:45 PM

If the monarchy is abolished it won't make the slightest difference. It will cost a lot changing all the signs though.