Reply #8: The monarchy is not purely ceremonial [View All]

[sweetheart]

The queen retains serious powers, including the head of the state
church (church of england), weekly meetings with the prime minister,
the right to dissolve parliament and lots of other things. It is wayyyy
more than ceremonial. It is an unwritten balance of power between
the monarchy and the parliament, where the long standing tradition
is that the queen does not exercise most of those powers.

I am in favour of officially changing things that the monarchy become
officially "out" of any government process, that the whole of british
government be elected. That she serves as a ceremonial head of state
i feel is a brilliant thing, as it takes a huge burden off the prime
minister. And in some circumstances, provides stability in problem
cases, like say america had a ceremonial head of state during the bush
coup 2000, then there would have been no rush to push though a fraudulent
count, and a runoff election could have been held without disturbing
the overall leadership vacuum.

The problem with the existing monarchy is that it enshrines in to law
the very concept that people are not created equal, that some are
born special and have special rights to be different under the law.
This specific problem, sets a precedent that weakens the diversity and
unity of british socieity. The cost of this, like the war in iraq,
is not worth the benefits... tourists will still come to look at the
palaces of the ceremonial monarch without constitutional powers.

The monarchy does a lot of good in its ceremonial role, by bringing
focus and balance to the government's public face, visiting hospitals
schools and social functions that the elected members of government
can stay busy and not distracted visiting funerals, parades and whatnot.