Iain Murray compares America's State of the Union address with our Speech from the Throne (via Brits at their Best):
What is interesting in its monarchical design, though, is that it compares unfavorably to its actual monarchical counterpart. The Queen's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament also lays out the priorities of the executive for the year. The difference is that, despite all the splendor (crown, throne, Lords walking backwards, Silver-Stick-in-Waiting, Black Rod, etc.), it actually downplays the content of the speech and provides little glory to the government. Her Majesty reads the speech from paper in a flat monotone, while the chap who actually wrote it has to stand crammed in a small alcove literally rubbing shoulders with his worst political enemy (or, in Gordon Brown's case, the Leader of the Opposition). Advantage the Constitutional Monarchy there, I think . . .Yes, but if only it were more what it should be...
Yes, the flat delivery is a relief, but the role of the Sovereign, long part of Britain's Constitution, has been usurped by the Prime Minister and House of Commons. There is no longer an independent monarch, sworn to defend the people's laws and liberties, who can check the power of Parliament...How sad and true. Her Majesty looks more and more like the King of Sweden who holds no reserve powers at all, who has no theoretical ability to withhold Royal Assent, declare war or dismiss a government. In Sweden, the king is purely ceremonial and purely symbolic. How much longer will it be until Her Majesty becomes a bicycle riding monarch too?
Hear, hear, sir!
ReplyDeleteSince you are speaking of Sweden, you might be interested in this.
I, myself, have had several motions before the General Assembly of the Confederation of Swedish Conservative and Liberal Students, the latest in 2008, going much further than MP Engblom, but they always got defeated.
I might add, though, sir, with all due respect, that Her Britannic Majesty, sadly, has been looking like that for a very long time.
ReplyDeleteI believe, sir, that the only area where the signature of the King of Sweden is still required is for diplomatic letters of credence.
ReplyDeleteSwedish ambassadors are still formally envoys of the King of Sweden.
For those interested, more info can be found here.
Without the Stone under the seat, the throne is pretty much vacant anyway. The British people have to hit rock bottom, and we're not there yet.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete