Any Monarchists on NS?

[Wildeson]

I don't mind constitutional monarchies. The King of Norway, for example, is a pretty good leader I suppose.

[Trotskylvania]

I'm sorry, but Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II doesn't perform any function in the polity that can't be fulfilled by something like the Statue of Liberty. She's a symbol of the nation, nothing more. Whether it's a person or a giant copper statue, it really doesn't matter.

She's also the Head of State - something which cannot be replaced with a giant copper statue.

Which is a meaningless position, made all the more meaningless by the passing day. The British head of state has no political function other than embodying the nation. The Cabinet is the de facto head of state in Britain.

[The Harrowlands]

There is no such thing as "no bias"

Fine then. She doesnt need to fulfil or break promises when in power to certain people, like presidents do.

I declare before you all, that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of the great Imperial Family to which we all belong.

The only promise Her Majesty has ever made to us, on her 21st birthday in 1947, and how wonderfully she has fulfilled that promise. A lifetime of service and duty to her people in Britain and all over the Commonwealth. This is why I hate when people in ignorance insult the Queen, and make such remarks as "parasite" etc. Would any politician swear to devote his entire life to unwavering service to his country, let alone actually fulfil that promise? Her resolution is more than evident. The Queen is never going to stop fulfilling her promise until the day she dies, as she is now well past the age the vast majority of us - and certainly the age politicians - would have retired. She is a product of her institution - that is, the monarchy. A person like Elizabeth would lack the ambition and drive ever to push for office of Prime Minister or President. The truth is that Elizabeth would never had taken the job if it had not fallen to her by right of succession and an accident of nature.

[North Suran]

She's also the Head of State - something which cannot be replaced with a giant copper statue.

Which is a meaningless position, made all the more meaningless by the passing day. The British head of state has no political function other than embodying the nation.

Aside from ratifying legislation. Without which, the country would effectively cease to govern. There's a reason why Germany has a President.

[Mikedor]

A Constitutional Monarchy a la Britain, yes. Otherwise they get too inbred to rule :/

[Person012345]

God save the queen! *drinks tea*

Also, I believe in authoritarianism, so monarchy works for me (my NS nation is a monarchy).

[Trotskylvania]

Which is a meaningless position, made all the more meaningless by the passing day. The British head of state has no political function other than embodying the nation.

Aside from ratifying legislation. Without which, the country would effectively cease to govern. There's a reason why Germany has a President.

The Monarch's royal assent is a meaningless formality. It has not been since 1914 that the Monarch has witheld assent, and it was controversial and damaging to the Monarchy even then. Whether's it's a Monarch or a figurehead president doing the ratification, it's equally meaningless on the constitutional process. It would be no different if the British Prime Minister was head of state in law as well as fact.

[North Suran]

Aside from ratifying legislation. Without which, the country would effectively cease to govern. There's a reason why Germany has a President.

The Monarch's royal assent is a meaningless formality.

A meaningless formality that is essential for a law to be passed. A meaningless formality which prevents the British Prime Minister from holding absolute power. A meaningless formality which would provoke a constitutional crisis if the Queen refused assent.

[Castleclose]

Ireland's president is useless to the same extent as the Queen and does not generate a fraction of the revenue nor the cultural importance, should we abolish her as well?

Yep.

Now all I can think off is just how much Haughey would have wanted that.

Anyway OT I'm all for a Constitutional Monarchy. Hell when it comes to Irish Nationalism I'm a Duel Monarchist.

[Trotskylvania]

The Monarch's royal assent is a meaningless formality.

A meaningless formality that is essential for a law to be passed. A meaningless formality which prevents the British Prime Minister from holding absolute power. A meaningless formality which would provoke a constitutional crisis if the Queen refused assent.

It's not essential, it's custom. It could be abolished at any time by parliament. In Britain, it's the parliament that is sovereign, not the Monarch. The Monarch is only a part of the Parliament in British constitutional tradition.

Further, to even think that an unelected, apolitical, hereditary relic of the feudal era is the only thing keeping the Prime Minister from having "absolute power" absolutely beggars credulity. The thing that keeps the Prime Minister in line is the existence of a democratically elected parliament, and the existence of a democratic populace on which the government must rely to maintain its legitimacy. Even the most powerful, popular of parliamentary leaders have seen their majorities dwindle, their backbenchers revolt, and their government revoked by parliamentary confidence when they have fallen out of favor with the public.

The last time a Monarch refused assent, it was in 1914, on a contentious Irish home rule bill that the Liberal government had little popular ground to support. That's the only reason it did not provoke an immediate counter reaction.

If the monarch actually refused assent to something one of the major parties (not just the leadership, but the whole party apparatus) supported, they'd quickly find that little prerogative curtailed. Royal assent has becoming nothing more than another tool of the Government, the elected political leadership, to maintain control of the state.

[Oterro]

It's a pretty ridiculous system in my opinion.
I could understand it being around back in the dark ages, before the masses were educated, but it just seems extremely irrelevant. Same with lords and dukes and what not.

Snip

You, my good sir, speaketh the truth.

[Person012345]

The last time a Monarch refused assent, it was in 1914, on a contentious Irish home rule bill that the Liberal government had little popular ground to support. That's the only reason it did not provoke an immediate counter reaction.

Source? From what I could find:

The bill's long title was An Act for settling the Militia of that Part of Great Britain called Scotland. The Scottish Militia Bill 1708 is noteworthy as the last bill to be refused Royal Assent. Although this veto power remains with the Monarch, it has not been exercised since.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill_1708
Also:

In 1914, George V did take legal advice on withholding the Royal Assent from the Government of Ireland Bill, a highly contentious piece of legislation that the Liberal government intended to push through parliament by means of the Parliament Act 1911. The King decided that he should not withhold the Assent without "convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillizing effect on the distracting conditions of the time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_asse ... evelopment

From what it says, assent was never witheld from that bill. He merely took advice on it.

[Keijzers]

I live in the Netherlands and we also still have a queen. Instead of a president, we have a minister-president. It is completely unclear to me why we shouldn't just move to a president and just remove the entire queen stuff. She has only very limited political power (after elections, she can elect a person that arranges the forming of coalition between parties). The royal house costs way too much money. All her diplomatic functionality can be performed by a president.

And in my opinion it's a very strange message that we portray. We allow one family to live in absolute wealth (the royal house gets a very large salary per year), without having to pay taxes. Why? Because they come out of the correct hole, crudely speaken. I simply do not think they deserve this position. One should earn a position like that, not inheret it. The only real benefit of having a queen that I can think of is that it supplies way too much material for tabloids and tv shows that concern gossip. Yet I think that one reason is the exact reason why we will most likely stick with a monarchy. Too many people consider the monarchy a part of our cultural identity and really identify with the queen. Because of the damned tabloids....

[The Harrowlands]

A meaningless formality that is essential for a law to be passed. A meaningless formality which prevents the British Prime Minister from holding absolute power. A meaningless formality which would provoke a constitutional crisis if the Queen refused assent.

It's not essential, it's custom. It could be abolished at any time by parliament. In Britain, it's the parliament that is sovereign, not the Monarch. The Monarch is only a part of the Parliament in British constitutional tradition.

Further, to even think that an unelected, apolitical, hereditary relic of the feudal era is the only thing keeping the Prime Minister from having "absolute power" absolutely beggars credulity. The thing that keeps the Prime Minister in line is the existence of a democratically elected parliament, and the existence of a democratic populace on which the government must rely to maintain its legitimacy. Even the most powerful, popular of parliamentary leaders have seen their majorities dwindle, their backbenchers revolt, and their government revoked by parliamentary confidence when they have fallen out of favor with the public.

The last time a Monarch refused assent, it was in 1914, on a contentious Irish home rule bill that the Liberal government had little popular ground to support. That's the only reason it did not provoke an immediate counter reaction.

If the monarch actually refused assent to something one of the major parties (not just the leadership, but the whole party apparatus) supported, they'd quickly find that little prerogative curtailed. Royal assent has becoming nothing more than another tool of the Government, the elected political leadership, to maintain control of the state.

In Australia, the Governor-General rejected a bill in 1984 (I think) about changing the Australian National Anthem. It was because the bill included something like "God Save the Queen shall be played only when The Queen or a member of the Royal Family is present". Worded like that, it was effectively banning the playing of GSTQ except when a royal is present - parliament could hardly do that, so the Governor-General rejected it and forced them to change it. It is unknown whether it was merely an error or if it was worded like that intentionally (as Bob Hawke is a republican), but the point is the authority is practical, even on such a small isssue, and the crown still retains that authority (at least in Australia) for a reason.

[Angleter]

A meaningless formality that is essential for a law to be passed. A meaningless formality which prevents the British Prime Minister from holding absolute power. A meaningless formality which would provoke a constitutional crisis if the Queen refused assent.

It's not essential, it's custom. It could be abolished at any time by parliament. In Britain, it's the parliament that is sovereign, not the Monarch. The Monarch is only a part of the Parliament in British constitutional tradition.

Further, to even think that an unelected, apolitical, hereditary relic of the feudal era is the only thing keeping the Prime Minister from having "absolute power" absolutely beggars credulity. The thing that keeps the Prime Minister in line is the existence of a democratically elected parliament, and the existence of a democratic populace on which the government must rely to maintain its legitimacy. Even the most powerful, popular of parliamentary leaders have seen their majorities dwindle, their backbenchers revolt, and their government revoked by parliamentary confidence when they have fallen out of favor with the public.

The last time a Monarch refused assent, it was in 1914, on a contentious Irish home rule bill that the Liberal government had little popular ground to support. That's the only reason it did not provoke an immediate counter reaction.

If the monarch actually refused assent to something one of the major parties (not just the leadership, but the whole party apparatus) supported, they'd quickly find that little prerogative curtailed. Royal assent has becoming nothing more than another tool of the Government, the elected political leadership, to maintain control of the state.

Parliament barely ever acts as a proper check on power. If Dave 'n' Nick decided to ban all other parties, abolish the monarchy and Lords, and declare themselves co-Presidents for life, they bloody well could. They have the power of the party whip, the ability to bribe MPs, and a majority in the Commons. The Lords can't do anything because of the Parliament Acts, so there it goes before the Queen.

Where it stops, because she commands the army, not Parliament; and she won't stand for any of that shit.

[Trotskylvania]

The last time a Monarch refused assent, it was in 1914, on a contentious Irish home rule bill that the Liberal government had little popular ground to support. That's the only reason it did not provoke an immediate counter reaction.

Source? From what I could find:

The bill's long title was An Act for settling the Militia of that Part of Great Britain called Scotland. The Scottish Militia Bill 1708 is noteworthy as the last bill to be refused Royal Assent. Although this veto power remains with the Monarch, it has not been exercised since.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill_1708
Also:

In 1914, George V did take legal advice on withholding the Royal Assent from the Government of Ireland Bill, a highly contentious piece of legislation that the Liberal government intended to push through parliament by means of the Parliament Act 1911. The King decided that he should not withhold the Assent without "convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillizing effect on the distracting conditions of the time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_asse ... evelopment

From what it says, assent was never witheld from that bill. He merely took advice on it.

Ah, I guess I was mistaken.

Anyway, that would strengthen my point about it being largely constitutionally meaningless with regards to the UK.

[Trotskylvania]

It's not essential, it's custom. It could be abolished at any time by parliament. In Britain, it's the parliament that is sovereign, not the Monarch. The Monarch is only a part of the Parliament in British constitutional tradition.

Further, to even think that an unelected, apolitical, hereditary relic of the feudal era is the only thing keeping the Prime Minister from having "absolute power" absolutely beggars credulity. The thing that keeps the Prime Minister in line is the existence of a democratically elected parliament, and the existence of a democratic populace on which the government must rely to maintain its legitimacy. Even the most powerful, popular of parliamentary leaders have seen their majorities dwindle, their backbenchers revolt, and their government revoked by parliamentary confidence when they have fallen out of favor with the public.

The last time a Monarch refused assent, it was in 1914, on a contentious Irish home rule bill that the Liberal government had little popular ground to support. That's the only reason it did not provoke an immediate counter reaction.

If the monarch actually refused assent to something one of the major parties (not just the leadership, but the whole party apparatus) supported, they'd quickly find that little prerogative curtailed. Royal assent has becoming nothing more than another tool of the Government, the elected political leadership, to maintain control of the state.

Parliament barely ever acts as a proper check on power. If Dave 'n' Nick decided to ban all other parties, abolish the monarchy and Lords, and declare themselves co-Presidents for life, they bloody well could. They have the power of the party whip, the ability to bribe MPs, and a majority in the Commons. The Lords can't do anything because of the Parliament Acts, so there it goes before the Queen.

Where it stops, because she commands the army, not Parliament; and she won't stand for any of that shit.

First off, it's called the British Army, not the Royal Army, for a reason. It's parliament that is in control of the Army, not the Monarch.

You obviously haven't read much of parliamentary history around the world if you think that a prime minister has that sort of power. Their parties would never allow. The civil service would never allow it. And you can bet sure as hell that the British public would never allow it.

Governments with far greater majorities than the current the current have been toppled by backbencher revolts.

The simple fact of the matter is that legal restraints on power are only as strong as the power the populace gives them. Constitutions have been subverted hundreds of times throughout world history. Tyrants of all shades have found ways to make their seizure of power legal, or to post hoc legitimize their regimes.

The one constant in every surviving democratic, free society has been a politically organized populace. Because, without them, any institutional restraint on power is meaningless.

[Angleter]

First off, it's called the British Army, not the Royal Army, for a reason. It's parliament that is in control of the Army, not the Monarch.

You obviously haven't read much of parliamentary history around the world if you think that a prime minister has that sort of power. Their parties would never allow. The civil service would never allow it. And you can bet sure as hell that the British public would never allow it.

Governments with far greater majorities than the current the current have been toppled by backbencher revolts.

The simple fact of the matter is that legal restraints on power are only as strong as the power the populace gives them. Constitutions have been subverted hundreds of times throughout world history. Tyrants of all shades have found ways to make their seizure of power legal, or to post hoc legitimize their regimes.

The one constant in every surviving democratic, free society has been a politically organized populace. Because, without them, any institutional restraint on power is meaningless.

Would you like to try that again? Check the 'Allegiance' bit in the infobox. Now, if the Queen went to 'war' with Parliament, would the army support her or break its oath and defend Prime Ministerial domination?

Backbencher revolts barely ever win on major issues, such as Britain becoming a despotic republic. The Nirish parties could be convinced to support anything, and the leadership has several tools to use against individual MPs- sure you don't want a seat for life? Pay rise for MPs? Pork-barrel spending? Minister post, anyone? If you're still unsure, how's your expenses? Tax returns? Deselection, did you say?

Defeating Parliament is generally quite easy. The monarchy holds enough reserve power to stop anything in its tracks, even if the populace aren't politically engaged.

[Trotskylvania]

First off, it's called the British Army, not the Royal Army, for a reason. It's parliament that is in control of the Army, not the Monarch.

You obviously haven't read much of parliamentary history around the world if you think that a prime minister has that sort of power. Their parties would never allow. The civil service would never allow it. And you can bet sure as hell that the British public would never allow it.

Governments with far greater majorities than the current the current have been toppled by backbencher revolts.

The simple fact of the matter is that legal restraints on power are only as strong as the power the populace gives them. Constitutions have been subverted hundreds of times throughout world history. Tyrants of all shades have found ways to make their seizure of power legal, or to post hoc legitimize their regimes.

The one constant in every surviving democratic, free society has been a politically organized populace. Because, without them, any institutional restraint on power is meaningless.

Would you like to try that again? Check the 'Allegiance' bit in the infobox. Now, if the Queen went to 'war' with Parliament, would the army support her or break its oath and defend Prime Ministerial domination?

Backbencher revolts barely ever win on major issues, such as Britain becoming a despotic republic. The Nirish parties could be convinced to support anything, and the leadership has several tools to use against individual MPs- sure you don't want a seat for life? Pay rise for MPs? Pork-barrel spending? Minister post, anyone? If you're still unsure, how's your expenses? Tax returns? Deselection, did you say?

Defeating Parliament is generally quite easy. The monarchy holds enough reserve power to stop anything in its tracks, even if the populace aren't politically engaged.

The last time the Monarch acted as commander-in-chief, our great-great-grandfathers were in diapers. It's a meaningless ode to a bygone era. The Army, ever since the English Revolution, has been controlled by parliament. Need I remind that it was the Army that overthrew King Charles and ultimately executed him?

And they would do the same today, if the Monarch tried to exercise a coup d'etat against the elected British government. Their loyalty is with the state, not with the monarch. The moment the Monarch betrayed the silence which is expected of him or her, that'd be the moment the monarchy ended.

To even suggest that the only thing preventing despotism in Britain is the monarch is ludicrous. Blair never was able to get rid of the Old Labour core of the Labour party, in spite of his control of the party apparatus and his rather frequent shuffling of the Cabinet. And lo, Blair's one of the most unpopular PMs in history. Cameron wouldn't dare try to do anything like that; no PM would. They'd be usurped in a palace coup quicker than you can say "feudal relic".

The monarch's reserve powers are meaningless. Considering they largely haven't been exercised in 2 centuries except at the request of the Government, you have absolutely no basis to claim they have any relevance to the British constitution.

[The Harrowlands]

Constitutions have been subverted hundreds of times throughout world history. Tyrants of all shades have found ways to make their seizure of power legal, or to post hoc legitimize their regimes.

The one constant in every surviving democratic, free society has been a politically organized populace. Because, without them, any institutional restraint on power is meaningless.

Please explain: how a tyrant could succeed in overthrowing government (and subverting constitution) in a country where the Westminster system exists in its purest (its proper) form. That is, where:
- the monarch is the Sovereign and has practical contitutional authority to refuse assent, dismiss the P.M. etc.
- but only uses the reserve powers when a crisis arises and it is necessary and expected for the sovereign to use the reserve powers
- otherwise the monarch exercises executive authority purely on ministerial advice
- the monarch is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
- the line of succession may be changed and the monarch removed only through referendum

Barring a mass murder of the entire royal family and all the MP's, I can't see any other obvious way to overthrow the government, especially when the monarch is the highest source of authority for the Armed Forces. Any Prime Minister who tries to seize power can be dismissed by the sovereign, and his government relieved of its legitimacy and authority. But this is generally (more-or-less) how things are in Australia, as all this is enshrined in the Australian Constitution. In a way, power does in the Australian version of the Westminster system, rest ultimately with the people, as it is written in Section 128 of the Constitution that the Constitution may only be changed/amended through a referendum in which the majority of people in a majority of states approve the proposed changes. In 1999 the Australian people were even able to decide in a referendum whether or not they wanted to keep the monarchy, and it was rejected by the Australian people.

[Vetokia Prime]

*Raises hand* If you ask me its the only form of government that isn't doomed to fail and collapse every single time. If done properly it is fairly stable and if the populace is kept uneducated, then they are fairly cowed. But that's just me....

What s/he said.

[Trotskylvania]

Constitutions have been subverted hundreds of times throughout world history. Tyrants of all shades have found ways to make their seizure of power legal, or to post hoc legitimize their regimes.

The one constant in every surviving democratic, free society has been a politically organized populace. Because, without them, any institutional restraint on power is meaningless.

Please explain: how a tyrant could succeed in overthrowing government (and subverting constitution) in a country where the Westminster system exists in its purest (its proper) form. That is, where:
- the monarch is the Sovereign and has practical contitutional authority to refuse assent, dismiss the P.M. etc.
- but only uses the reserve powers when a crisis arises and it is necessary and expected for the sovereign to use the reserve powers
- otherwise the monarch exercises executive authority purely on ministerial advice
- the monarch is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
- the line of succession may be changed and the monarch removed only through referendum

Barring a mass murder of the entire royal family and all the MP's, I can't see any other obvious way to overthrow the government, especially when the monarch is the highest source of authority for the Armed Forces. Any Prime Minister who tries to seize power can be dismissed by the sovereign, and his government relieved of its legitimacy and authority. But this is generally (more-or-less) how things are in Australia, as all this is enshrined in the Australian Constitution. In a way, power does in the Australian version of the Westminster system, rest ultimately with the people, as it is written in Section 128 of the Constitution that the Constitution may only be changed/amended through a referendum in which the majority of people in a majority of states approve the proposed changes. In 1999 the Australian people were even able to decide in a referendum whether or not they wanted to keep the monarchy, and it was rejected by the Australian people.

Like any tyrant always has. Force the monarch to comply with the new order. It's happened numerous times in history, and like I've previously made clear, it's only happened in cases when civil society itself has previously disintegrated. So here's a few obvious cases. The Spanish Falange very successfully reinstalled a Constitutional Monarch from the Carlists as a puppet when they overthrew the Spanish Republic. The Italian fascists made the King of Italy into a puppet as well, and the Italian monarch had far more reserve powers than the British monarch had.

The easiest way to overthrow a government is to keep as much of it intact as possible. So, if say civil society in Britain degenerated to the point where a coup or the imposition of an authoritarian regime were possible, it would happen in largely the same way. Either some paramilitary force would provide the muscle necessary for the tyrants, by hook or crook, to legitimate their regime, or some element of the military itself would participate in a coup against the state. Military coups have made puppets of monarchs many times, if not outright overthrown them.

[Nadkor]

It's not essential, it's custom. It could be abolished at any time by parliament. In Britain, it's the parliament that is sovereign, not the Monarch. The Monarch is only a part of the Parliament in British constitutional tradition.

And, tell me, what are the three components of the British Parliament (hint: you can find the answer in my signature)? What is the enacting clause in UK legislation?

[The Harrowlands]

Please explain: how a tyrant could succeed in overthrowing government (and subverting constitution) in a country where the Westminster system exists in its purest (its proper) form. That is, where:
- the monarch is the Sovereign and has practical contitutional authority to refuse assent, dismiss the P.M. etc.
- but only uses the reserve powers when a crisis arises and it is necessary and expected for the sovereign to use the reserve powers
- otherwise the monarch exercises executive authority purely on ministerial advice
- the monarch is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
- the line of succession may be changed and the monarch removed only through referendum

Barring a mass murder of the entire royal family and all the MP's, I can't see any other obvious way to overthrow the government, especially when the monarch is the highest source of authority for the Armed Forces. Any Prime Minister who tries to seize power can be dismissed by the sovereign, and his government relieved of its legitimacy and authority. But this is generally (more-or-less) how things are in Australia, as all this is enshrined in the Australian Constitution. In a way, power does in the Australian version of the Westminster system, rest ultimately with the people, as it is written in Section 128 of the Constitution that the Constitution may only be changed/amended through a referendum in which the majority of people in a majority of states approve the proposed changes. In 1999 the Australian people were even able to decide in a referendum whether or not they wanted to keep the monarchy, and it was rejected by the Australian people.

Like any tyrant always has. Force the monarch to comply with the new order. It's happened numerous times in history, and like I've previously made clear, it's only happened in cases when civil society itself has previously disintegrated. So here's a few obvious cases. The Spanish Falange very successfully reinstalled a Constitutional Monarch from the Carlists as a puppet when they overthrew the Spanish Republic. The Italian fascists made the King of Italy into a puppet as well, and the Italian monarch had far more reserve powers than the British monarch had.

The easiest way to overthrow a government is to keep as much of it intact as possible. So, if say civil society in Britain degenerated to the point where a coup or the imposition of an authoritarian regime were possible, it would happen in largely the same way. Either some paramilitary force would provide the muscle necessary for the tyrants, by hook or crook, to legitimate their regime, or some element of the military itself would participate in a coup against the state. Military coups have made puppets of monarchs many times, if not outright overthrown them.

Forgive me I'm not an expert on WW2 history, but yes Mussolini took advantage of civil instability after the war to seize power. But Victor Emmanuel III always retained the right to dismiss Mussolini, and eventually exercised that right (albeit on the advice of the Council) and the replacement government joined the Allies. The Japanese Emperor played a central role in ending WW2 as well, by issuing the surrendor and having his ministers STOP after the bomb. I agree that the King of Italy should probably have acted sooner though

Military coups are led by power-hungry military commanders, and I can see how a coup led by the armed forces could occur, but I think it quite unlikely in country where the system works as it is supposed to. All soldiers owe their highest allegiance to their sovereign (their Commander-in-Chief), not to their immediate military superior. Leaders quail from army generals because of the supposed military power they carry, not because the army general has thousands of troops following him around who obey his every command. Soldiers are not robots, but they obey him because he is their superior and they need a superior to obey. The Commander-in-Chief is the general's own superior, and even if he doesn't want to obey his superior's commands, his reluctant soldiers will, or the Commander-in-Chief may relieve the general of his authority over his soldiers - because what is a tyrant-in-waiting but a single, power-hungry man? Sorry I just started rambling there but I think that it is more likely - allegiance to one's sovereign, thus to one's country, is higher than allegiance to one's immediate superior. Unless, of course, you have an army who all agree that they want to overthrow the king, but really, what can any leader - king or president - do to stand against an army all bent on a coup d'état?

[New Chalcedon]

As I recall, the UK's monarchy costs each British citizen something like 2 pence per year to support. Meanwhile, they bring in millions in tourism each year,

Why should I pay taxes for people to be better than the rest?

British tax payers (primarily the working class) pay to feed and clothe those worthless leeches on society that serve no purpose at all.
Just seems like such an absurd concept to begin with... But I guess history and culture are the justifications, as per usual

In this picture, probably enough to pay for any budget shortfall in the UK. (hyperbolic I know but seriously)

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/ph ... lymt03.jpg

Someone's forgetting the Civil List, I see. In case you can't read Wikipedia, here's the short version:

HM the Queen owns a great deal of property, both personally (as Elizabeth Windsor-Mountbatten the individual) and as the Monarch.

This property generates vast sums of revenue - approximately 190 million pounds per year. This money is given, by the Queen (save only those revenues generated by the Duchy of Lancaster), to Parliament, in exchange for the List, which amounts to about 8 million pounds per year. This money is supposed to be able to maintain the various Palaces (heritage sites one and all for the British people), defray the Queen's expenses related to official duties (the Queen also uses the majority of her Privy Puse income - which is her private income and is supposed to be to maintain her allegedly "extravagant" private lifestyle - to add to the List for these purposes) and, naturally, cover all other such expenses.

I'd say, given the figures above, that the UK taxpayer is doing fairly well out of the whole matter - not one penny of the Queen's lifestyle, the Palaces or any other aspect of Royal panoply is funded by the taxpayer, who enjoys all of the considerable economic benefits (mostly tourism-related) which accrue from such.

Now, to the main topic, I'm going to be honest: I am indeed a monarchist, being disillusioned with democracy. I look at every. single. one. of the "democracies" of the world, and what do I see? Corrupt, shortsighed idiots, dominated by whoever shovels the most money into their re-election funds and unwilling to take any steps or enact any policies that don't generate huge benefits before their next election, for fear of generating attack ads against themselves for "wasting" taxpayer money on stuff that hasn't produced anything yet. One sterling example is the healthcare "reform" bill that got through the US Congress: Big Pharma marshalled ten lobbyists for every man and woman in Congress (the Reps and the Senate combined), and got the damn bill watered down to the point of unrecognisability.

A more local example to myself is Australia's laughable excuse for a defence policy, which instead of being correctly focussed on the Navy - as the guardian of the sea lanes which carry 99.6% of Australia's trade, as well as the first line of defence for our island-continent - is dominated by the Army, which gets to effectively dictate the terms, not only of its own procurement of equipment, but of the other branches' procurement! The reason why this is? One can buy Army equiment in $10-$20 million lots, and they'll be ready to showcase to the population before the next election. It takes $500 million - and four years - to build, test and sea-ready a latest-generation heavy frigate, much less a carrier (which Australia is more than capable of operating). (Rant over: I just completed a course on geostrategic thinking, and have apparently been indoctrinated; then again, I have long felt the Navy has been neglected: the lecturer merely confirmed this.)

Having said this, I don't advocate an absolute monarchy, either, or one in which the Monarch cannot be removed by sufficiently large majorities of the (elected) legislature. Ideally, this is what my preferred monarchy would look like:

1 - The Crown.

Powers: Veto power over bills - in absolute. Right to nominate Ambassadors. Right to appoint Cabinet officials. Right to nominate judicial officials. Right to negotiate and sign treaties binding the realm. Commander-in-chief of the military.

2 - The Legislature.

Collective right: To declare war, initiating hostilities. Right to confirm/reject treaties signed by the Crown. (Each House must agree to either of these.)

2a: Upper (States/Regional) House.

Powers: Pass/initiate legislation. Right to confirm Ambassadors. Right to confirm judicial officials. Right to launch audit/investigation into the conduct of any other branch of government. Right to confirm impeachment of officials from Executive/judicial branches. Right to ask Judiciary for advice on constitutionality of any bill on the floor.

2b: Lower (Population-based) House.

Powers: Pass/initiate legislation. Right to launch audit/investigation into the conduct of any other branch of government. Right to initiate impeachment of officials from Executive/judicial branches. Right to name upper Departmental positions, barring only Cabinet positions. Right to ask Judiciary for advice on constitutionality of any bill on the floor.

3: Judiciary.

Powers: Right to confirm/deny constitutionality of any law.

Basically, an idealised version of America's governmental structure, with a couple of powers shuffled around and a lifetime Presidency. For that matter, I'd favour something akin to the Tanistry system of the Irish Celtic clans: basically someone is elected for as long as they fulfil the requirements of the position (as set by the Constitution, such as residence length, minimum/maximum ages, education level, full posession of mind & body, etc.) rather than for a fixed term - as long as they meet all the requirements, they are King/Queen, although they can be impeached by the will of each legislative House in turn, as with most current Presidencies. Upon position vacancy, a fresh election is held.