Or is it always going to be led by the first born of a German aristocratic family?
2007-06-10 06:29:07 · 11 answers · asked by pagreen1966 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I can't believe how uninformed some of the comments below are.
The queen is our head of state and she is not elected!
2007-06-10 06:39:08 · update #1
What planet are you from?!?!?! They've always had elected heads of state! Do you think Tony Blair wasn't elected???????????
2007-06-10 06:37:05 · answer #1 · answered by Larry1972 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Well, it wasn't always led by a German family - and you can hardly call them German now, after so many generations. You might be more accurate to say they are part Greek after the current Queen.
I think the UK's best chance to dump the monarchy as head of state will be after the death of the Queen. No-one much likes or wants Charles, and he's too stupid and arrogant to abdicate in favor of his son, who would be a popular monarch.
It's likely the monarchy will be retained as a 'title only' tradition, since it generates considerable tourist income. However, an elected president would certainly be a preferable way to head up the UK in political terms.
Drake is incorrect - the monarchy was left with certain important powers, and a President would need those same powers. One is to be the head of the armed forces. This prevents the takeover of all branches of government by a rogue party.
2007-06-10 09:24:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Umm just in case you haven't figured this out England is a constitutional monarchy. Basically in the English constitution stripped the king/queen of all of their powers. Really they only have an influence now a days and now real power. The English elect a prime minister who is their real head of state. The most famous heads of state of england have been winston churchill, Margret Thatcher and Tony Blair. When was the last time you saw Queen Elizabeth at a G-8 summit or addressing the UN.
2007-06-10 08:02:33 · answer #3 · answered by Drake 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think the German family augment is infantile after over 100 years. The Royal family are British the same as the decedents of say a Polish serviceman who came hear during the second world war and stayed.
I think that a so called elected head of state will be the for-runner of a dictatorship. You only have to see what this gang are trying to do to realise that we are almost there. the Blairina and Clown Brown between them have their lackeys have messed up this country good style and you will not realise until after the next election .
2007-06-10 06:44:43 · answer #4 · answered by Scouse 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The last time we had an elected head of state he turned in to a dictator, his name was Cromwell. Frankly, I would rather a hereditary system that is run as ours is, and has been a guarantor of our constitution as well as preventing an executive power similar to that of George Bush as well as being a continuity that has guaranteed our stability as our governments change hands. (Although one has to admit that Blair has made every effort to grant himself the rights and privileges of the Head of State - even now claiming the need for a private jet for Downing Street while the Queen goes on State visits in chartered planes!)
2007-06-11 07:31:45 · answer #5 · answered by J John M T 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think so. Support for the royal family has declined pretty dramatically. People love the Queen, but future royals are not likely to enjoy her popularity. I would expect that the nation would continue to chip away at their privileges until during some future political and economic crisis, an unpopular monarch helps a labor government win power on a pledge to do away with them once and for all.
2007-06-10 06:38:51 · answer #6 · answered by TG 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. No. No. Despite recent problems HM is very popular. Just think of the number of times the capital has been brought to a standstill by thousands of peaceful people just to see HM.
This in comparison to football supporters who travel the world causing mayhem wherever they go.
We have very little now - thanks to El Presidente Blair that has not been down-graded - apart from Her Majesty. He and his cohorts have interferred with everything good about this country, the Union Flag, our customs, our history the education of our children et al.
The only thing that he can't touch is the Queen despite dipping his tow into the water to test the temperature a couple of times - the Queen is sancrosanct and should continue to be so. She is in her 80s yet continues to stand for hour upon hour, shake thousands by the hand and travel thousands of miles.
I for one don't begrudge the meagre cost for this to continue. At the last calculation is was 2p per per head.
2007-06-11 00:02:22 · answer #7 · answered by quette2@btopenworld.com 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with scouse most people havn`t a clue about how far this government have gone or about a lot of the things they have done were lucky to have a royal family at least we have some stability The Queen is as English as any of us seeing as there is no such thing as indigenous English people anyway .
2007-06-10 07:34:38 · answer #8 · answered by keny 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sadly, I think Queenie will live on and on and on and on....
And no one will have the guts like Olly Cromwell did to over throw the waste of tax payers money.
Who ever it was that thought Blair was head of state, then you need to go back to school and study politics and history
2007-06-10 21:42:28 · answer #9 · answered by Spawnee 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope, while the head of state is allowed to keep their head they will remain.
Bring back Madam Guillotine!
2007-06-10 06:38:30 · answer #10 · answered by ALLEN B 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋