The Queen is Dead

[Chap]

Thanks for that perspective, Chap.

That is why, now the Queen is gone, someone like myself begins to think that we need to begin to contemplate the (doubtless long and rather bumpy) road that leads to an Irish-style elected and largely ceremonial head of state, but with clear power to ensure that a new (written) constitution is respected.

This is a sentiment I've heard a few times already, do you have any good insight into how popular the idea is and if there is any solid movement on that front?

For recent poll data, see here:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/art ... on-stand-m

That links leads to detailed charts detailing the views of different parts of the population on related issues. It includes this summary:

Six in 10 Britons (62%) think Britain should continue to have a monarchy in the future, with only 22% saying the country should move to having an elected head of state instead.

More than eight in 10 (84%) Conservative voters and 77% of Britons aged 65 and older say the monarchy should continue, while just 9% and 13% respectively say we should have an elected head of state instead. Conversely, Labour voters are 48% in favour of a monarchy and 37% in favour of a head of state, and 18 to 24-year-olds are even more split: 33% favour a monarchy and 31% a head of state.

The institution clearly has a while to go before a majority want to change anything.

I'm also curious about the relationship of the Crown now with places like Australia. My understanding is that Head of the Commonwealth is not a hereditary title and that a changing of the guard may lead to some changes in the old colonies.

Distinguish between:

(a) Who is the Head of the Commonwealth.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_t ... Succession

This role is not hereditary:

The position of Head of the Commonwealth is not hereditary and successors are chosen by the leaders of the Commonwealth [...] In 2018, following the 2018 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Commonwealth leaders declared that Charles would be the next head of the Commonwealth.[35] The role remains non-hereditary.

(b) Who is the monarch of Australia and the other commonwealth countries that are 'realms', not republics.

The monarch of the United Kingdom is simultaneously the monarch of a number of Commonwealth countries known as 'realms', which currently comprise Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu. That role is hereditary - but any country that wants to stop being a realm and become a republic within the Commonwealth (or just plain leave the Commonwealth entirely) can choose freely so to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm

[Xenophon]

Thanks for all the additional information, Chap. Obviously this is somewhat "new" territory as we haven't had a change in so long. I'll be interested to see how the dynamic plays out.

[Res Ipsa]

She’s been the queen for my entire life. PMs have come and gone, Presidents have come and gone, but the queen has just always been there. I don’t know if I can think of a similar constant. It feels to me like the finishing of a book or the ending of an era.

That really is the explanation of why so much is being made of the death of a woman who did not have any real political power at all; all of the "royal prerogatives" held by her ancestors were exercised on her behalf by elected politicians, or (even if she appeared to exercise any of them) by her on the "advice" of ministers, from which by long established custom she never deviated. In the 19th century, Walter Bagehot famously divided the unwritten British constitution in into two parts - the "dignified" and the "efficient" (that is, the bit that actually did things). Her job was to embody the former, and she did it pretty well on the whole, and even people opposed to having a monarchy tended to like her as a person.

That being said, one great defect of having an unelected head of state with no powers is that they cannot exercise the role played by some elected heads of state in other parliamentary democracies, where one of the few powers held by the head of state is to declare that some law or some government act is unconstitutional, and suspend it while matters are reviewed. Thus, for instance, the powers of the largely ceremonial President of the Irish Republic include:

The Constitution also provides the President with the power to refer certain Bills to the Supreme Court for a determination as to whether the bill or any provision thereof is repugnant to the Constitution.

That cannot be done by a British monarch. Under the premiership of Boris Johnson, it became clear that:

(a) The old customary restraints on a prime minister's actions no longer operated: he just lied and cheated his way through any obstacle in his way.

(b) The country needs a written constitution to protect it from utterly unscrupulous elected politicians excercising what were once royal powers.

That is why, now the Queen is gone, someone like myself begins to think that we need to begin to contemplate the (doubtless long and rather bumpy) road that leads to an Irish-style elected and largely ceremonial head of state, but with clear power to ensure that a new (written) constitution is respected.

Thanks, Chap. Having context is really helpful.

[Dr. Shades]

It’s a bit harder to be sympathetic to professor Uju Anya when she doesn’t even tell us where or when this supposed genocide took place.

Colonization is usually accompanied by rape and murder.

Which colonizations did Queen Elizabeth supervise?

Think of the atrocities that happened with Malaya, Kenya, Yemen, Cyprus and Ireland.

Were any of them the genocides that supposedly affected Uju Anya?

[Hawkeye]

Uju Anya along with others on the far left believe that everything good about British colonialism would still exist if white men were never to set foot in Africa, Australia, North America, etc. Everything evil that currently exists on the African, North American, Australian continents would not exist if white men were to never set foot on these lands and import their culture, values, faith, system of government etc. That's not to say that there weren't evil things that happened during colonialism as with any empire whether it be the Romans, the Aztecs, China, Russia, etc. All empires are a mixed bag.
But the truth that really irks the left is that the Brititsh and Anglo American empire has been a huge force for economic progress, the progress of freedom, democracy, and other values that are unique to Western Civilization.

And while her role was only symbolic, Queen Elizabeth was a force for faith, conservative values, and the traditions that made Anglo culture, economy, military, and, science, the leader of western civilization and the free world. Even those that hate anything anglo, can't help but envy them and flock to their homelands in search of a better life.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Uju Anya along with others on the far left believe that everything good about British colonialism would still exist if white men were never to set foot in Africa, Australia, North America, etc. Everything evil that currently exists on the African, North American, Australian continents would not exist if white men were to never set foot on these lands and import their culture, values, faith, system of government etc. That's not to say that there weren't evil things that happened during colonialism as with any empire whether it be the Romans, the Aztecs, China, Russia, etc. All empires are a mixed bag.
But the truth that really irks the left is that the Brititsh and Anglo American empire has been a huge force for economic progress, the progress of freedom, democracy, and other values that are unique to Western Civilization.

And while her role was only symbolic, Queen Elizabeth was a force for faith, conservative values, and the traditions that made Anglo culture, economy, military, and, science, the leader of western civilization and the free world. Even those that hate anything anglo, can't help but envy them and flock to their homelands in search of a better life.

Hrm … I wonder where Ajax falls on this one …



- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

My family comes from Canada and Canada recognizes me as a citizen. My was here for a visit and we started talking about the history of Canada last night. We only got as deep as the relevant wiki article, but was mostly new information to me.I had never quite understood Canada’s relationship with England — either historical or President day.

It was fascinating to me. Canada is a constitutional monarchy. The monarch is the same monarch as England’s, but it’s not the same monarchy as England’s. The change from colonies to Canada as a nation happened gradually over a long period of time, in contrast to the US’s revolutionary war. The Monarch has a representative that is a part of Canada’s government. When a new government is formed, the new cabinet writes the equivalent of a U.S. inauguration speech. But the speech is delivered by the Monarch’s representative, not the PM.

And the Queen’s picture is on Canada’s money. It’s going to be a bit of culture shock to see King Charles’ mug instead of the Queen’s.

[Vēritās]

Which colonizations did Queen Elizabeth supervise?

Supervised? She is viewed as a symbol of Great Britain's reign. The monarchy doesn't control things, but they do give their blessings.

Were any of them the genocides that supposedly affected Uju Anya?

Dunno. Does one need to be personally affected by specific genocides to be against genocide?

[Vēritās]

Uju Anya along with others on the far left believe that everything good about British colonialism would still exist if white men were never to set foot in Africa, Australia, North America, etc. Everything evil that currently exists on the African, North American, Australian continents would not exist if white men were to never set foot on these lands and import their culture, values, faith, system of government etc. That's not to say that there weren't evil things that happened during colonialism as with any empire whether it be the Romans, the Aztecs, China, Russia, etc. All empires are a mixed bag.
But the truth that really irks the left is that the Brititsh and Anglo American empire has been a huge force for economic progress, the progress of freedom, democracy, and other values that are unique to Western Civilization.

And while her role was only symbolic, Queen Elizabeth was a force for faith, conservative values, and the traditions that made Anglo culture, economy, military, and, science, the leader of western civilization and the free world. Even those that hate anything anglo, can't help but envy them and flock to their homelands in search of a better life.

Hrm … I wonder where Ajax falls on this one …



- Doc

Be careful now.

Play the ball!

[Dr. Shades]

Supervised? She is viewed as a symbol of Great Britain's reign. The monarchy doesn't control things, but they do give their blessings.

Right. But according to the article, "Following the news of the Queen’s death, Anya took to Twitter again to reaffirm that she will not be expressing 'anything but disdain' for the 'monarch who supervised a government that sponsored the genocide that massacred and displaced half my family.'" Clearly, she's blaming Queen Elizabeth personally for supervising a government that sponsored "the" genocide. Which specific British genocide during Queen Elizabeth's reign massacred and displaced half of Ms. Anya's family? She doesn't specify, so it's hard to sympathize.

Were any of them the genocides that supposedly affected Uju Anya?

Dunno. Does one need to be personally affected by specific genocides to be against genocide?

No. But she refers to "the" genocide that massacred and displaced half [her] family as the reason she holds the former Queen in such contempt. All I'm asking is which specific genocide it was, 'cause for the life of me I can't think of a genocide that the United Kingdom carried out while Queen Elizabeth was, uh, the Queen.