Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I don't think HRM ever quite trusted Bonny Prince Charlie to be up to the job and so clung on in the hope the succession might pass him by and go straight to Prince William. She may also have wished to avoid the fate of the Queen Mother reduced to a life of dressing up, the odd tipple, and boring parties. Given she has almost zero discretionary power, I don't know if it matters an awful lot which century she lives in. She adds a veneer of respectability to the truly tawdry business of UK government and the appearance of constitutionality to the unconstitutional. Best to create a real elected Head of State role with real powers.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Sep 23rd, 2019 at 10:40:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would point out an advantage of having a separate, non-administrative monarch. In Britain, and many other countries, there is a PM and a queen (or president), while in the US there is only a president.

That means that two important functions of national leadership can be separated in most countries. There is the pomp and circumstance part of government, with parades and fancy dress balls and photo ops and meetings with movie stars, and there is the technical working part of government, with boring committee meetings and complex behind-the-scenes policy decisionmaking. Having the Queen and her entourage on the front page of the tabloids is good, because it allows the PM to work* on actually running the government. In the US, the two jobs are combined, and the POTUS has to alternate between public relations and administration.

*Certain current PMs excluded.

by asdf on Mon Sep 23rd, 2019 at 02:24:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"He's doing our work for us, in a certain respect," said the speaker of the House.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Sep 23rd, 2019 at 05:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series