Thread: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
View Single Post
Old 29-06-2005, 10:26   #85
SMHarman
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Services: Cablevision
Posts: 8,305
SMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronze
SMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronze
Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
Does abolishment of the monarchy automatically mean the creation of a presidential role?
I think it does. The queen currently presides or queens (is that a verb) or rules over the country. She has the executive power to enact laws etc, this is delegated to the elected parliment.

If she is abolished then someone has to have the executive power to enact law, to be the ultimate arbiter of the country, to preside over the country.

I'm not fully aufait with global politics, but for example, France who ditched their monarchy have a President. I don't know if there are examples to the contrary.
SMHarman is offline   Reply With Quote