Can someone tell me what the hell use Royalty is when they can’t make policy decisions? I mean, are they like a pet dog, a useless (and horrendously expensive) mascot, or do they have some sort of function?
Brainwaves of Sken
The why-is-its of a video editor, photographer, designer, convention-runner.
They’re pretty much moot these days. It’s all pomp and circumstance. The Queen does actually sign off on everything that passes through the HOC and HOL, but still….antediluvian.
Not only them, but Thailand’s Bhumibol, too. It seems he just exists to give legitimacy to each successive military coup, keeping the people from rioting. Most of the time.
Oh, and to hold obscene amounts of wealth.
Obscene amounts of wealth and to give the tabloids something to write about.
And she wears the most amazing hats!
They all wear hats. Lots and lots of hats.
And have tea. With Crumpets.
Whoa Nelly! I drink tea. I eat crumpets, I actually love them, there’s nothing wrong with that, the hats however….
Of course not! I love tea and crumpets too. :D I just know that they’re a “predominately” “English” thing. Like really really big hats.
Oh gawd help me when I start wearing the hats….I live in fear.
*hides all the ugly hats from you*
Aww, fanks. I should make that a friend requirement. I WILL NOT BE YOUR FRIEND UNLESS YOU HIDE THE UGLY HATS!
*grins*
They all wear hats. Lots and lots of hats. It’s the thing to do dah-ling.
They’re the circuses half of bread and circuses.
I keep asking myself the same thing about Paris Hilton…
Funny that you drop that name. I was just comparing Queen Elizabeth to her.
Gotta ask, QEI or QEII?
No wait, can’t be QEI, she was a political powerhouse, so it has to be QRII and other than being politically useless I can’t think of any thing else they would have in common.
QEII at least has ceremonial importance and rudimentary manners…Paris Hilton has no importance (except to the bold young prostitutes everywhere who want to be like her) or manners (she thinks she’s awfully cool for a spoiled rotten brat who behaves like a cheap hooker).
Awww, that’s not fair to cheap hookers!
They’re mostly mascots, but they’re political function is not totally gone. It is the Queen who calls for votes which can unseat a Prime Minister, for example.
I actually think it’s handy to separate the country’s mascot from the political office. Imagine taking the air out of the incredulous Republican argument, “You can’t question the President!” Yes, we can’t say bad things about the King, but the President, he’s just doing a job. You could send the mascot to do the tree lighting on Christmas and not care if the President has an affair and care when they lie to the country. Fun things like that.
Having royalty is very VERY good for tourism. Seriously.
The primary value of having the Queen as your head of state is that no one can accuse you of being insufficiently patriotic when you point out that your chief administrator is a low-grade moron. It comes in handy sometimes; it reduces the “deification of the dweeb in charge” problem the US faces from time to time, anyway.
For that, it’s cheap at the price.
— Steve likes the separation.
In England? They collect rent for their ridiculously large land holdings. Besides, someone’s gotta knight celebrities.
What I don’t understand is why everyone in the States is so fascinated by Britain’s royalty. Didn’t we have that whole big war over telling them to go to hell?
I don’t see how that relates. I wasn’t alive during that whole big war.
This is actually very easy to explain…
I think you are referring to Queen Elizabeth’s visit, so I’ll use Britain as the basis of comparison.
First, I’d like to remind you of something you know, but may bot be thinking when you made your post. The President of the United States is a governmental position that makes up many different actual duties. for example, the more known roles are:
Chief Executive
Commander in chief
Chief of State
Chief Diplomat
Now, there are several more roles that our president plays, but those 4 are the biggies.
So, anyway, the queen and stuff. Let’s start with Tony Blair. Tony Blair is seen as Bush’s British counterpoint, which is almost True. Tony Blair is Britain’s Chief Executive and Chief Diplomat. He is not the Chief of State. In Britain, the Chief of State is the Queen.
So, Bush’s equivilant in Britain is a wierd hybrid of Elizablair. A Chief of State is the one responisble for all the rituals that a countries leader is forced through. Such things as throwing the first pitch of the base ball season, and knighting a soldier. In Britain, the royalty is responsible for all these symbolic activities, while here, it is our dear President.
Some people believe that by splitting the role of Chief Executive and Chief of State, you make a more efficient Chief Executive.
They talk about this on the West Wing, actually. The Queen can do things like open libraries and visit other countries and be a Public Figurehead to go to events and it doesn’t get in the way of governing getting done because honestly, she doesn’t do a whole hell of a lot. In our case, we have the President as our Public Figurehead but s/he’s expected to pardon a turkey and run an easter egg hunt, etc, etc, ON TOP OF doing government stuff. That’s pretty much how it came up on the West Wing; Martin Sheen is doing bullshit ceremony crap instead of dealing with legislation or battles in other countries. And that’s why the Royals are useful.
It makes sense to me. I actually wish we had more of a system like this; the president wouldn’t be expected to be Really Friendly in the same way if the office’s only function was government. I think so, anyway. I’d certainly think of the office differently.
Yeah, go ahead and make your jokes…one day…some day soon…there will be riot and a coup and the royalty are going to make a comeback! Like Michael Jordan … and the Bee Gees!
*shudder* Don’t you threaten me with the Bee Gees!