-follows on from an excellent discussion at Robert Sharp’s a few weeks back, but rather than rehash old posts, might as well simply link to them. Why I converted from Republicanism to monarchism, an we need a constitutional convention-…

Annoying, several good conversation going on in blogland, and some major news in politics, and I’m too exhausted to worry about it too much, let alone write.

Stick around. I haven’t finished with Clarice yet, and I sense she hasn’t finished with me. This one is going to run and run.

Being very picky, she fired Heath. 1st ‘74 election, he lost his majority but was largest party (I think) in a hung Parliament. He went to her and told her he could form a govt, precedent said he should be able to do so, she changed precedent by saying no and calling for Wilson. I recall reading a paper that said it shocked quite a few constitutionalists (who tend to not actually be democrats per se).

Then there’s Whitlam in Aus, but that matters less.

Wish I wasn’t exhausted after the 13th 12+ hour day in a row, there’s some good stuff above but I really can’t analysise it properly for a few more weeks.

I see no problem with a head of state without influence, assuming the actual political system is working nicely.

Secondly, I’m not sure the system can only be moral if the monarchy is without power. At first, I would have taken this as read, but surely the moral imperative is towards the “best” possible political system out of available alternatives. Given certain flaws inherent in our present “democracy”, a monarchy with some power would go some way to counterbalance these flaws, thereby improving the system of government. What’s immoral about that?

Third of all, your de jure/de facto argument I don’t think is exactly true. It’s just a pedantic belief, which is not very nice to force on other people.

Clearly we do have different standards - yours I think are pretty mean and macho, and I’m afraid I do not buy into them.

As for MatGB, you took the words right out my mouth Rob. Although I think he was talking about some Australian thing, it wasn’t the Queen who sacked anyone. Whether it’s true, or the same or not, I a) doubt and b) don’t much care - it simply isn’t relevant to the present context.

And I’m disappointed that the “emind” thing was just a fortuitous typo. You can see why I thought otherwise, given the context. He must have thought I was being rather mean, but I wasn’t. I love that word and concept.

I do.

I didn’t realise ole’ Queeny had actually fired a Prime Minister. Who was that? If its Callaghan, then Clarice would surely argue that the power to sack was technically weilded by the Queen, but actually weilded by the Parliament who forced a no-confidence vote… Personally though, I still think that’s a rubbish system. Such things must be judged not by how they are being used, but by their potential. Why does no-one think that the general principle of the thing has any relevance!?

Robert; I personally favour a ceremonial Head of State, little to know governance power, but constitutional roles that are essential and non-party-political.

We don’t, currently, have that, we have someone with immense powers that chooses not to use them that often (she’s only personally fired one PM, and only personally chosen two, for example).

Then there’s the whole powers of the Crown thing…