February 22, 2010 7:53 AM Subscribe
Could I have a case in the European Court of Human Rights against being subject to an unelected monarch?
posted by northerner to law & government (18 answers total) 2 users marked this as a favorite
I'm repeatedly amazed by the lack of interest my fellow British subjects (remember we're not 'citizens') have in republicanism. Occasionally I can persuade people with the old expensive-unelected-spongers argument, but as far as I'm concerned it's the principle of it that should be getting people angry.
As a British subject I, and all my fellow subjects, are represented to the rest of the world by and unelected queen. It is not possible for anyone else to be head of state.
Although this question is to address the possible human rights issue I would also like to get a sense of why the political will for republicanism isn't stronger than it appears to be.
Before you ask, yes, I've heard the arguments for the monarchy before:
1. But it's only ceremonial, they have no real power, why not continue for sake of tradition? - Even if it is only a formality it is offensive that we are subjects of the unelected and our elected government has to ask the unelected for executive powers.
2. But it's good for tourism. - Why should we allow one sector of the economy to decide the most important part of our constitution? I'm sure if Colonel Sanders' family line became permanent heads of state it would be good for the fast food sector, but that's no excuse.
3. It removes the political element from the head of state so they can get on with championing the country to the rest of the world and we can unite behind them. - But the monarchy is a political entity. Also, isn't a few citizens disliking the politics of the head of state a small price to pay if they are elected and truly representative?