Queen Elizabeth's speech

[gotsnowgotslush]

If I did not go in search of the Queen's speech, I would not have known.
My American news media has all but ignored that it happened.

I had no idea of the amount of pageantry that is involved.
Some news sites have seen fit to show plenty of pics, to cover
every step leading up to the Queen opening her royal mouth.

I understand the Queen is elderly. But, good gracious!
Why did she agree to recite that speech ?

Does she not understand what is about to happen ?

 

[AZMotherLover]

What, exactly, about this year's speech has your knickers in a twist?

 

[suckonsimon]

She makes the speech because it is her constitutional duty, not because she agrees. The one and only person who knows if she agrees with the contents is the Prime Minister who wrote it, and he / she will never tell.

As to her understanding - I suspect she understands better than most of the politicians.

You guessed ... royalist to the death.

 

[Aglaopheme]

If I did not go in search of the Queen's speech, I would not have known.
My American news media has all but ignored that it happened.

I had no idea of the amount of pageantry that is involved.
Some news sites have seen fit to show plenty of pics, to cover
every step leading up to the Queen opening her royal mouth.

I understand the Queen is elderly. But, good gracious!
Why did she agree to recite that speech ?

Does she not understand what is about to happen ?

I saw plenty of coverage of it on the news here in the states. This is why they covered the steps leading up to her speech.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/stateopening/

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why did she agree to recite that speech ?

Agree? Does she have any choice? The PM writes (or has final edit on) the speech -- fittingly, as the Speech from the Throne is merely a list of things HM Government hopes to get done this session -- and the Sovereign reads it out at the opening of Parliament without changing a word. That's how it has been done every year for centuries now. Technically the Queen could exercise her power of royal veto, which she still has -- in theory -- but that is a power she retains only on the condition that she never use it; using it would precipitate a constitutional crisis that might end in the abolition of the monarchy. At least, that's my understanding of the British constitutional system. Is yours different?

 

[Miss_Scarlett]

She makes the speech because it is her constitutional duty, not because she agrees. The one and only person who knows if she agrees with the contents is the Prime Minister who wrote it, and he / she will never tell.

As to her understanding - I suspect she understands better than most of the politicians.

You guessed ... royalist to the death.

Well said, and ditto.

She gave a little bit of subtle royal side-eye while reading the part about abolishing the HRA, which might not seem like much to those who have true freedom of speech, but is more of a "comment" than she usually makes during the reading.

 

[someoneyouknow]

If I did not go in search of the Queen's speech, I would not have known.
My American news media has all but ignored that it happened.

I had no idea of the amount of pageantry that is involved.
Some news sites have seen fit to show plenty of pics, to cover
every step leading up to the Queen opening her royal mouth.

I understand the Queen is elderly. But, good gracious!
Why did she agree to recite that speech ?

Does she not understand what is about to happen ?

I have seen both the Queen's speech and the opening of Parliament via BBC America. Awesome on both counts.

I know many Brits think it's time for the monarchy to go, and I fully understand why, but the pageantry you folks have is something not to be missed. Some traditions should remain, just because.

 

[demos]

I know many Brits think it's time for the monarchy to go, and I fully understand why, but the pageantry you folks have is something not to be missed. Some traditions should remain, just because.

Would you like to have our ludicrous pageantry.... at the cost of having a head of state:
1) who is not elected
2) who rules for life
3) whose everlasting tenure is based on accident of birth, rather than ability/suitability/electability or democratic principles
4) whose tenure is not even open to debate in parliament, let alone challenge
5) whose extremely extended family of long-living relatives must, by no better reason than custom and the quiescence of a supine and lickspittle political establishment, be financially supported by the hard-pressed taxpayer, in the lavish style to which they have become accustomed

No, it's not very democratic, is it?

 

[Hard_Rom]

The Speech from the Throne is the word of her government not the Queen's. On Christmas she says her own words. The Queen has no real power. Purely a figurehead head of state. All power is invested in Parliament and the person who can control the majority in Parliament. Her and her family just represent a continuity of culture and history. They do have a lot of their own money that they legitimately can claim. I bet electing presidents every 4 years cost shit loads. Makes for big government too, one more layer of politicians. Can anyone say that Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands or Belgium are less democratic or better governed than Italy, Greece, France or the US? How about Russia?

 

[oggbashan]

Would you like to have our ludicrous pageantry.... at the cost of having a head of state:
...
5) whose extremely extended family of long-living relatives must, by no better reason than custom and the quiescence of a supine and lickspittle political establishment, be financially supported by the hard-pressed taxpayer, in the lavish style to which they have become accustomed

No, it's not very democratic, is it?

5) Is not true. The Queen, and the Royal relations, are supported by the Crown Estates and the monarchy pays the bulk of the income TO the taxpayer. What is agreed by Parliament is the amount the monarchy can keep of its own money. The Queen is taxed at a higher rate than the most wealthy subject.

The whole Royal family costs the taxpayer NOTHING and actually contributes far more money to the country than almost anyone. Compare that with the costs of a US President.

Of course, if the UK became a republic, Parliament might nationalise the Crown Estates, effectively stealing the Royal Family's money. Then, as in France, Parliament would have to maintain all the Royal properties for the Nation. Ask the French about the cost of maintaining Versailles, the Louvre etc...

Osborne House on the Isle of Wight, Sandringham and Balmoral (and Buckingham Palace) were bought with the Monarch's own money and are maintained at the Monarch's expense.

 

[Targetarear]

Agree? Does she have any choice? The PM writes (or has final edit on) the speech -- fittingly, as the Speech from the Throne is merely a list of things HM Government hopes to get done this session -- and the Sovereign reads it out at the opening of Parliament without changing a word. That's how it has been done every year for centuries now. Technically the Queen could exercise her power of royal veto, which she still has -- in theory -- but that is a power she retains only on the condition that she never use it; using it would precipitate a constitutional crisis that might end in the abolition of the monarchy. At least, that's my understanding of the British constitutional system. Is yours different?

The Queen has no power whatsoever, but that is not the point. By just being there she denies to others the ability to usurp power in the name of this or that group. The Government is 'Her Majesty's Government'. The armed forces are her armed forces. Our police uphold 'the Queen's Peace'. Our courts dispense justice in her name. So although the speech she reads is that of the elected government, of whatever political stripe, no government in the United Kingdom could ever use the armed forces, the police or the courts to impose upon the people of the United Kingdom the kind of regime that existed in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Would you like to have our ludicrous pageantry.... at the cost of having a head of state:
1) who is not elected
2) who rules for life
3) whose everlasting tenure is based on accident of birth, rather than ability/suitability/electability or democratic principles
4) whose tenure is not even open to debate in parliament, let alone challenge
5) whose extremely extended family of long-living relatives must, by no better reason than custom and the quiescence of a supine and lickspittle political establishment, be financially supported by the hard-pressed taxpayer, in the lavish style to which they have become accustomed

No, it's not very democratic, is it?

Democracy is the illusion of choice. The first four issues you mention basically apply to the Bushes, Hiltons, Trumps, Waltons and a few other families that actually run our country. We get all the downsides of your system without the fun.

It's like getting fucked but he won't take you out for dinner. As is mentioned above you not only get taken out for dinner be buys you pretty things.

 

[oggbashan]

The Queen has no power whatsoever, but that is not the point. By just being there she denies to others the ability to usurp power in the name of this or that group. The Government is 'Her Majesty's Government'. The armed forces are her armed forces. Our police uphold 'the Queen's Peace'. Our courts dispense justice in her name. So although the speech she reads is that of the elected government, of whatever political stripe, no government in the United Kingdom could ever use the armed forces, the police or the courts to impose upon the people of the United Kingdom the kind of regime that existed in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

Her Majesty's whatever actually represents an ideal of the Monarch in conjunction with Parliament. Since the Middle Ages The Queen's (or King's) Peace continues even when a Monarch dies or a Government falls. The institutions that owe allegiance to the Monarch such as the Police, the Armed Forces and the Civil Service will continue to operate even if the political Government is in disarray.

"No government could ever..." unfortunately ignores history particularly the Chartist movement of the mid 19th Century when troops were used against those peacefully asking for change.

The massive Chartist demonstration in London was facing a massacre to make the deaths at Peterloo look trivial, but the Chartist leaders decided that it was better to ask the demonstrators to disperse peacefully instead of confronting the Army. It was a victory for reason and pragmaticism over deeply held beliefs. The Chartist leaders and the Army officers saw sense despite the orders from Parliament.

 

[Scotsman69]

And PM Cameron's reference to the Queen's disapproval of Scottish independence in the immediate runup to last year's referendum here on the subject was intended to have NO political consequences Ogg?

The monarch has considerable political power.

Witness the fact that she has insisted that, flying in the face of history, she is Queen Elizabeth II of the UK, when in fact all reputable historians agree that she is Queen Elizabeth II only of England. And NOT of the UK.

Her Majesty's whatever actually represents an ideal of the Monarch in conjunction with Parliament. Since the Middle Ages The Queen's (or King's) Peace continues even when a Monarch dies or a Government falls. The institutions that owe allegiance to the Monarch such as the Police, the Armed Forces and the Civil Service will continue to operate even if the political Government is in disarray.

"No government could ever..." unfortunately ignores history particularly the Chartist movement of the mid 19th Century when troops were used against those peacefully asking for change.

The massive Chartist demonstration in London was facing a massacre to make the deaths at Peterloo look trivial, but the Chartist leaders decided that it was better to ask the demonstrators to disperse peacefully instead of confronting the Army. It was a victory for reason and pragmaticism over deeply held beliefs. The Chartist leaders and the Army officers saw sense despite the orders from Parliament.

 

[oggbashan]

Witness the fact that she has insisted that, flying in the face of history, she is Queen Elizabeth II of the UK, when in fact all reputable historians agree that she is Queen Elizabeth II only of England. And NOT of the UK.

She is Queen Elizabeth of Scotland. I remember the protests in 1952/3 about II on post boxes in Scotland.

 

[Scotsman69]

And if at her coronation over sixty years ago, she had accepted that she was Queen Elizabeth I, no postboxes in Scotland bearing the initials EIIR would have been blown up. The only ever act of violence in Scotland's long struggle for independence. One which only inflicted damage to mail boxes, not to people.

And who knows. Maybe the Scottish National Party wouldn't currently be the party of Government in Scotland. And wouldn't have won 56 out of 59 Scottish seats at Westminster last month?

So Ogg, the Queen has no political power?

Aye she has. Very negatively in Scotland. But you, of course, like most English folk, are blissfully unaware that your colonisation of Scotland will end. Very soon.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Aside from pride and centuries old rivalries would there be an upside for Scotland breaking off?

 

[Scotsman69]

was there an 'upside'

from the USA declaring its independence from the UK well over two centuries ago Sean Renaud? (An interesting combination of Irish and French names....)

Aye. We'll cease to subsidise huge infrastructure projects in England, like CrossRail, HS2, and the third runway at Heathrow/Gatwick. From which Scotland will benefit zilch.

We have better things to do with our hard-earned money pal. Like spending it in OUR country, not THEIRS.

Aside from pride and centuries old rivalries would there be an upside for Scotland breaking off?

 

[Sean Renaud]

from the USA declaring its independence from the UK well over two centuries ago Sean Renaud? (An interesting combination of Irish and French names....)

Aye. We'll cease to subsidise huge infrastructure projects in England, like CrossRail, HS2, and the third runway at Heathrow/Gatwick. From which Scotland will benefit zilch.

We have better things to do with our hard-earned money pal. Like spending it in OUR country, not THEIRS.

I thought it sounded nice. Americans, we have no culture so I apologize.

First I wasn't born when the US declared its independence and the world was a much different place back then anyway.

So you guys lose tax dollars as a whole? Okay sounds legit. We have states over here that are constantly talking about it and it's like. . .uh guys you realize it would be a net loss for you if you left.

The only real information we get on the UK is news blurbs about you voted on this that or the other, something on royalty or stuff I hear from you guys and honestly reading it both doesn't do any justice to the reality of the situation and it's hard to know where the fuck to start to get an accurate picture of what's important.

 

[Scotsman69]

If English PM Cameron (a Scots name NB) committed himself tomorrow to extend HS2 from Leeds/Manchester to Edinburgh and Glasgow, he would really commit himself to the UK remaining a 'United Kingdom'.

But he won't. Because he doesn't understand Scotland, and doesnie want to.

If he did, it would go a long way to stopping the SNP's progress here.

Oh, and it would help if auld Lizzie finally admitted she's Elizabeth I of the UK.

But Ogg, you know neither of these will ever happen.

Because the English Establishment has never understood that Scotland is a nation, not a colony.

And for all your apparent wisdom Ogg, I don't think you do either.

 

[Scotsman69]

Thanks for this Sean Renaud...

I realise the USA doesn't, alas, have the best international news information in the world.

Which may be part of the reason why in a few years, you will no longer be the most powerful nation on the globe. Global primacy requires accurate global information. If Scotland relied on Murdoch for news, we'd be dead in the water long ago.

And Sean, you have a gigantic culture which has dominated the world for nearly a century. And you have so much going for you. The USA has contributed enormously to world progress in many ways. From the US PEOPLE... not usually your elected political leaders, alas.

I thought it sounded nice. Americans, we have no culture so I apologize.

First I wasn't born when the US declared its independence and the world was a much different place back then anyway.

So you guys lose tax dollars as a whole? Okay sounds legit. We have states over here that are constantly talking about it and it's like. . .uh guys you realize it would be a net loss for you if you left.

The only real information we get on the UK is news blurbs about you voted on this that or the other, something on royalty or stuff I hear from you guys and honestly reading it both doesn't do any justice to the reality of the situation and it's hard to know where the fuck to start to get an accurate picture of what's important.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I realise the USA doesn't, alas, have the best international news information in the world.

Which may be part of the reason why in a few years, you will no longer be the most powerful nation on the globe. Global primacy requires accurate global information. If Scotland relied on Murdoch for news, we'd be dead in the water long ago.

And Sean, you have a gigantic culture which has dominated the world for nearly a century. And you have so much going for you. The USA has contributed enormously to world progress in many ways. From the US PEOPLE... not usually your elected political leaders, alas.

Our international news is a joke. Hell I barely trust our news to get our own shit straight so when they talk about anyplace else on the planet I try to find local sources (if the subject is interesting/important enough to catch my interest.

I think we'll still be on top for more than a few years. . .but pride goes before ascension to godhood if I recall properly. So we might not be the most powerful people on the globe but rather the galaxy. That's my story and I'm stickin to it.

I have no doubt that we have dominated, I guess it is close to a century depending on where you count from and how but a lot of that has to do mostly with our economy being a bit hard to ignore and. . .well when you park enough troops in enough places people start. Which isn't to downplay our country.

I still don't think we have much that can be truly identified as uniquely American. Almost everything we are we adopted from other nations that came here.

 

[Scotsman69]

Sure pal...

I don't think we're too far apart, politically or in other ways Sean.

And aye. The USA is certainly the largest nation on earth whose population was largely determined by other cultures. Originally mainly European, but the Afro-Americans and 'Hispanics', ie Spanish/Portugese colonialists mixed with native Americans, have higher birthrates and will in our lives outnumber European-originating whites.

A fascinating prospect. Alas, I'm probably too old to live to see the outcome.

Take care mate.

Our international news is a joke. Hell I barely trust our news to get our own shit straight so when they talk about anyplace else on the planet I try to find local sources (if the subject is interesting/important enough to catch my interest.

I think we'll still be on top for more than a few years. . .but pride goes before ascension to godhood if I recall properly. So we might not be the most powerful people on the globe but rather the galaxy. That's my story and I'm stickin to it.

I have no doubt that we have dominated, I guess it is close to a century depending on where you count from and how but a lot of that has to do mostly with our economy being a bit hard to ignore and. . .well when you park enough troops in enough places people start. Which isn't to downplay our country.

I still don't think we have much that can be truly identified as uniquely American. Almost everything we are we adopted from other nations that came here.

 

[oggbashan]

If English PM Cameron (a Scots name NB) committed himself tomorrow to extend HS2 from Leeds/Manchester to Edinburgh and Glasgow, he would really commit himself to the UK remaining a 'United Kingdom'.

But he won't. Because he doesn't understand Scotland, and doesnie want to.

If he did, it would go a long way to stopping the SNP's progress here.

Oh, and it would help if auld Lizzie finally admitted she's Elizabeth I of the UK.

But Ogg, you know neither of these will ever happen.

Because the English Establishment has never understood that Scotland is a nation, not a colony.

And for all your apparent wisdom Ogg, I don't think you do either.

We used to share a King called James 1st and 6th. I see no reason why Queen Elizabeth shouldn't be Queen II and I. Whether she is or isn't was a political decision.

She is QE II of Australia, despite Australia being undiscovered by Europeans when QE I was on the throne of England. The Australians have no problem with her being QE II. There is a minority movement for Australia to become a republic with its own President, but the apparent calibre of their politicians makes The Queen as their Head of State seem much more sensible, even if she effectively 'rules' through a Governor General who is an Australian.

Since I was born in Wales, not a colony but a Principality, and have lived in a Colony (Gibraltar) and a former Colony, now an independent nation and its own Commonwealth (Australia), I understand perfectly that Scotland is a nation, never a colony despite 'The Hammer of the Scots' attempts.

During some parts of our political history, Scots domination of Westminster politics has meant that England felt like a colony owned by Scotland. Now that Labour has been defeated in Scotland by the SNP, rule of the UK by the influence of Scots MPs seems less likely.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The reign of Scottish kings over the English did not go over well. James I not bad, Charles I lost his head, Charles II kept his, James II had to run and hide to keep his. Very turbulent times. Stuart/Stewarts clan not the best rulers the UK has had.

I see no reason for Scotland not to be more independent. Economics says stay close. Money does talk and matter. Scotland may be a bit small to go it completely alone. North Sea oil won't last forever. Might be to late for a Norwegian style heritage fund for oil tax revenue. Maybe a federal system like Canada. Make Eng. Scot. and Wales provinces of UK. N. Ireland too if they want. Of course population will give Eng. the nod in may decisions.

Hard to avoid being dominated by large population on your borders especially if similar culture. We in Canada are always on our guard with the Yanks.

Heck if the Europeans can give up some "nationalistic" ideals for the EU and it's economic clout, Scotland and England can admit they are closer than France and Germany in culture, language and trade and work out a system that is fair to all.