Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News British Monarchy Illigitimate?

  1. Oct 13, 2005 #1


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051011/wl_uk_afp/australiabritainroyals;_ylt=AsXgDqZGxZmdpM96Eosn6RcfYhAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA-- [Broken]
    Talk about rewriting history.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 13, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    What exactly is the point of the British Monarchy anyway? Do the members of the royal family serve any state function? Do they make any decisions about how the government executes its job? Are they even part of the government?
  4. Oct 13, 2005 #3
    Tourist attraction. No. No. No.

    I think that about sums it up.
  5. Oct 13, 2005 #4
    The Queen is the head of state of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northen Ireland, or UK for short... Great Britian consitiutes of England, Scotland and Wales. Which are countries in there own right.
    Scotland has its own parliment, Wales has its own assembly. The Laws in scotland are different than in England, and so is the education system. (The last part is what fueled Edinburgh to become "Athens of the north")
    She has very limited power, and is more cerimonial than anything. But any Law that is passed needs to be signed by her to take effect.


    Yup.. and history and pomp.. Plus she is VVEERRYYY wealthy, Give me Mary Queen of Scots any day!
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2005
  6. Oct 13, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    They exist so that we don't forget Elgar's music.
  7. Oct 13, 2005 #6
    wouldnt have been the first
  8. Oct 13, 2005 #7
    I'm going to go out on a limb and assume she plays the same role as the governor general does in Canada. She has 0 power, and if she ever refused to sign a bill that parliament passed they'd kick her out on her ass in a second and re-write that part of the constitution.
  9. Oct 13, 2005 #8
    For the record, I have always admired the Royal Family, for being....Royal.

    I believe that the planet needs a Royal Entity.

    However, while the current Royal Family is an entity based on style with little or no substance, a true monarch (for the entire planet), preferrably male, would be the ultimate combination of style and substance.

    He, by default, would be granted a physicality that, to say the least, presents an image of strength. He would be in the best shape he is able to be in, in terms of muscularity (beefy), flexibility (bendy), and cardiovascular (breathy? :smile:) fitness, be at least 6 feet tall, if not exactly 6 feet tall, and weigh at least 200 pounds, if not exactly 200 pounds, so as to be classified as a 'heavyweight', literally and figuratively.

    Indeed, his physicality would be topped off with a full head of hair that is deep dark brown, and have facial features that may be considered "handsome" by either the trained or un-trained eye. His facial skin would be the envy of many females; smooth, glowing, and flawless. His face would be accented with a smile filled with only real teeth that are straight, bright, and reminiscient of QEII's smile. He is always clean-shaven.

    His body, however, is merely a package for the product; substance, and that is where the rubber hits the road.

    His mental capacity would be greater than what could be considered "average"; he is, what is known as, "smart".

    His emotions are always in check, because he understands that what was "out" there, does not affect what is "in" here.

    His spirituality capacity is the icing on the cake. Indeed, it is his spirit, the icing, that holds together the cake, his body and all that it contains, including his soul.

    His personality has been fired in the oven for a long period of time; he has been 'cooking', tested by many obstacles that only he could survive, so as to prepare him for his true purpose: claim his rightful place on the Throne, and Rule.

    He would find joy in ALL children, and many but not all adult individuals. He would find joy in ALL animals, except mosquitoes that are "annoying", and ALL mosquitoes are an annoyance. He is not fond of talking, and is always polite to individuals that intend to be polite.

    As for individuals that intend to not be polite, he understands that only those individuals will not be permitted into his universal kingdom, and hence, only a temporary annoyance.

    That is my idea of a Royal Entity/King.

  10. Oct 13, 2005 #9


    User Avatar

    Most of the monarch's powers were taken by the lower house (house of commons) of parliament but they still have a few left. They can still award titles (birthday and new year's honours lists). Lords they appoint are entitled to sit in the upper house (house of lords) where bills passed by the lower house can be amended or even held up for a time.
    They also have to sign new acts that have passed both houses of parliament into law. The threat has always been that the commons would abolish the monarchy if the monarch were to exercise the royal perogative, as it is called, and refuse to sign. The only instance in modern times off this happening was under Queen Victoria. She refused to sign a law making lesbianism illegal as she didn't believe such a practice existed. For that reason only male homosexuality was ever illegal in Britain.
    As a non-political body (as the monarchy are deemed to be above politics) the royal family are useful for conducting trade talks or other negotiations with foreign governments particularly where the government of the day might not wish to seem to be associated directly.
    The institution of royalty is certainly more than just a tourist attraction. The prime minister of the day has to meet with the monarch each week to discuss proposed legislation and key issues and so during these discussions it is likely that the monarch has some influence. Obviously the prime minister can ignore any input from the monarch but it is not in their interest to promote a constitutional crisis and so it is likely there are compromises made.
  11. Oct 13, 2005 #10
    I still think the Kennedeys (Ted and that whole lot) should overthrow the British crown...
  12. Oct 14, 2005 #11
    You know you have spent too much time in this forum when after a quick glance you think you've found a thread titled:

    Bushist Monarchy Illigitimate? :rofl:
  13. Oct 14, 2005 #12
    So Edward IV was illegitimate. Well you have to allow for a few 'mistakes' in the royal line. But then William IV's 'family' would have a perfectly good claim. In which case...
    Adam Hart-Davis for King
  14. Oct 14, 2005 #13
    The Queen is the head of the Church of England, Queen in Parliament and commander of the armed forces. And a huge money-making tourist attraction. If you're CoE I guess she is required. Technically she has the right to disallow any bill passed by MPs. If she ever did this, the monarchy would probably be abolished. Also, if we ever need to go to war against the government, she'll be in charge. But this has only ever happened twice before, and both times the monarchy lost. Of course, she is also a figurehead, something for those suffering from post-empire depression to think they are proud about.

    The function of the royal family is largely the same as runners-up from Big Brother now - selling tabloids. And swindling tourists out of their holiday budget, of course.

    What else..? Protecting swans.
  15. Oct 14, 2005 #14
    And ravens
  16. Oct 14, 2005 #15
    Yes, and ravens, for bizarre historical reasons. Although only their own ravens if memory recalls, whereas all swans are protected.

    The Royal Family also produces over-priced, not very nice sausages as well as documentaries that no-one wants to see about... the Royal Family.

    Then there's the sheer comedy value of Princes Phillip and Harry.

    And we wouldn't know it was Christmas without the Queen.

    In fact, come to think of it, they're all right really.

    EDIT: just suddenly realised the fault in my post: ALL swans are the Queen's. But not all ravens, I think.
  17. Oct 14, 2005 #16
    yeh there needs to be at least 6 raven kept at the tower of london. If there number fall under this, the myth is, the tower and Monarchy will fall...
  18. Oct 14, 2005 #17
    And they worry that Harry is on drugs. :uhh:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook