So if QE2 were a transitional monarch?

Question

Until maybe we choose our own. House of Represetatives and a Prime Minister ought to be elected. What about Governors? Hereditary or elected? Senators both hereditary, both elected, or one each? Opinions appreciated from people who live under constitutional monarchies. What's it like?

Answer 1

I thought QE2 was a cruise ship?

Answer 2

I live under a constitutional monarchy and I do not understand your question at all - all a constitutional monarch is, is an hereditary Head of State...in countries (such as Australia) where the monarch does not reside, there is a vice-regal representative: this is the Governor-General, and he is appointed by the Government of the day, meaning via parliament. We are a parliamentary democracy: both our House of Representatives (lower house where the Government is formed) and our Senate (upper house, States House of house of review) are directly elected by the populace. The head of the Government is the Prime Minister, and he is the leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives.

Our upper house is not hereditary...neither anymore is the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, as most of the peers are life peers created by the government...the hereditary Lords have been reduced to a monority number there and the peerage representated in the House of Lords is no longer the hereditary barons, but appointed ones.

The fundamental difference between the American system and British and Australian systems, is we have a separation between our legislative and executive branches of Government...our Head of State is not the chief executive. The American President combines the role of both Head of State and head of government...which would be tantamount to having our prime Minister being Head of State, not just head of government.

We do have the same thing repeated in each of our six states, where the vice regal representative is the Governor, appointed by the government; and the State Government, whose leader is the Premier.

The debate over whether to replace the Monarchy with an appointed or elected President and become a republic is a whole different argument here...but people living under consitutional monarchies do not have any less a democratic system than any other democratically elected society. We live under parliamentary democracy. What we have is a separation of powers between the Head of State, which is a figurehead and largely symbolic and supposedly above politics ( and does not wield any political power) and the prime minister and government formed in the lower house.

The anomaly in the Australian system, whereby in 1975 a Governor-General, under a Convention of the Australian Constitution, was able to dismiss a duly elected government during a constitution crisis when the Opposition in the Senate was blocking Supply Bills (of money) to the Government...was an aberration: because the monarch Sir John Kerr represented, Elizabeth II, herself, COULD NOT have exercised the powers the Governor-General had!

Answer 3

In the United Kingdom, the main parliament is the Westmnster Parliament which can be described as bicameral, i.e there are two chambers. These chambers are the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Basically, legislation is proposed, debated and voted upon in the House of Commons and then goes for further debate in the House of Lords before it is enacted. The Lords cannot prevent legislation from being enacted completely but they can cause delays. The House of Commons is a fully elected chamber whilst the House of Lords is mainly appointed. The House of Lords is attended by two types of peers. Hereditary peers are those who became Lords by inheritance (the title was held by their fathers before them and they inherited the title upon their father's, or in some cases mother's, death) whilst life peers are those who have not inherited their title but have been appointed by the government on behalf of the monarch in recognition of services to the country. Life peerages unlike heridatry peerages are not passed on to the next genaration.

This system of hereditary peerage is flagrantly undemocratic and it is no longer considered by most people to be acceptable. They are not elected by the public nor are they appointed by an elected government. There is a dimension of democracy in life peerages though as they are appointed by a democratically elected government. The debate now is whether the House of Lords should be made of appointed or elected members, or possibly, a mixture of both. Until 1997 the majority of peers in the House of Lords were hereditary. However when New Labour, under Tony Blair, came to power in the House of Commons, the House of Lords underwnet reform. The right for most Hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords was abolished and these vacant positions in the chamber were taken up by more life peers. This is only intended to be a temporary arrangment and further reform is still underway although what reforms will take place is still unclear.

In 1997, a vote was given to all members of both Houses on how the Lords was to be reformed. The Lords voted in favour of a fully appointed second chamber whilst the Commons voted for a fully elected one. Further reforms are the responsibility of the Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman.

In my opinion (for what it's worth), I believe that a second chamber should be fully appointed. This is still democratic as members are appointed by an elected government and these appointments can be made in consideration of the experience and expertise that they can bring to legislation. If the chamber were fully elected, then the majority of members would be merely professional politicians with very little expertise on anything but politics. In addition, party politics will become an issue and legislation would be blocked simply because Conservative members for example will most likely vote against any legislation proposed by Labour. In short it would become a clone of the House of Commons which would be a huge waste of time and money considering that one chamber should be enough.

Answer 4

I am British..

The Prime Minister is elected. The house of commons is elected and the house of Lords is just that, a house of unelected peers. As a system it has worked pretty well for hundreds of years. Its not perfect and has had its ups and downs. (We had a civil war in the mid 1600s and a king was beheaded by the people. We became a republic from 1649 until 1658 after which we returned to Kings and Queens.)

The Lords have nothing to gain from speaking their minds because no one can take their titles away unlike MPs who will do anything for votes! Lords can be honest and non PC and lose nothing! It sounds crazy but it works because they are not motivated by greed alone unlike career politicians. Lords have a job for life and do not have to please anyone!

The Queen has little power but she has devoted her whole life to our service. She lives in a goldfish bowl and she cannot breathe without people judging her. I would hate her job!

England would not be England without a Royal family. Not for me anyway. I remember all the tube (subway) trains being decorated for Charles and Diana's wedding (the people did this not the government) and the atmosphere outside St. James palace as Diana's body was moved to a chapel the night before her funeral. The smell of all the fresh flowers that night was overwhelming, the silence was deafening and complete strangers fell into each others arms.I did this too!

I will take my children to sleep on the streets on the eve of  Prince Williams wedding because I am a Londoner and that's what my family have always done. Its like your 4 th July or your thanks giving. Its about patriotism. A Queen is not political like a president. Her family have ruled mine since 1066. It is part of who I am.