The monarchy lost power over centuries. Perhaps the turning point is when the House of Windsor was brought in from Hanover in 1714 as a Protestant alternative to the Catholic pretender who was the son of James II. From that point on the monarch owed his/her crown to Parliament, not directly to God Almighty.
I want to see you go up to Connery and call him an Englishman. Can I sell the photos of when he punches your lights out?
[Personally I'm ethnically English, Welsh, Scot, and Scots-Irish. Through my great-great Grandfather, A. D. Drew, I'm related to the Spencer Churchills and thus am a cousin of her late Majesty the Princess of Wales and her sons.]
Shows how much I know about James Bond. I know Connery is a Scot but I thought the studios were trying to pull a fast one on everyone and say a Scotsman and an Englishman are close enough, one can pass for the other onscreen.
It is well known amongst the intelligentsia that the Royal Family are in fact shape-shifting space lizards and their apparent loss of power was a clever ruse: http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=147792006 Honestly, don't any of you guys keep up with the serious news?
For the full impact of this story, you really need to have been immersed in Brit culture for some time. David Icke has been a figure of (well, let's put it as diplomatically as possible) interest for some time. Imagine one of your well-respected sports commentators giving up the day job, entering green politics and then progressing from there to declaring they are the reincarnation of Jesus and warning about space iguanas running the world, and you'll get some sort of idea of Mr Icke's status in the Brit media.
Is republicanism so odd? I'm not really sure what the Presidents of Ireland, Israel, etc actually do, but does the United Kingdom really need an unelected head of state?
Please keep a certain type of politics out of this post, if possible!
I mean, I have to bite my knuckles NOT to reposte: "Did the US really need an unelected...".
OK, you've had new elections since then. But let's drop that subject.
The truth is: the person may not be elected by an individual election round, the method of appointing that person (birth into a certain appointed family) is officially chosen by a majority of the voters and carefully described in a lawful and accepted document.
No offense intended. In the United Kingdom, the "Head of State" is the queen; in Israel and Ireland, it's the president. In those states, political control remains with the prime minister.
If you want to read a sensible but very entertaining book on the Brit Royal Family, try: The Royals, written by Jeremy Paxman (perhaps our most respected poltical TV interviewer). This gives what is probably the nearest thing to a concensus opinion of Brits on the topic - i.e. we're not phenomenally keen on a monarchy but we hate the alternatives even more (for us, that is - what other countries choose is their own business). Out and out republicanism is, and always has been, a minority interest in the UK, and I would guess in most of the surviving European monarchies.
Andrew, as you may recall I'm starting a book project, and am therefore reading copiously on history and politics in the UK/Can/Aus. I just ordered this book used via Amazon (for $2 )
Is the author a serious person or is this another David Icke?
I have gathered as much, but it's always difficult as a foreigner to gauge the opinions in another country.
Didn't Churchill say "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the alternatives"?