You're misunderstanding the power that the Queen has. Just because it's a 'Royal pardon', it doesn't mean that she actually pushed for it. The opposite is true, in fact (the Queen is a symbolic head of state, and does not interfere politically - anything you hear the Queen doing is almost certainly at the request of the UK government).
Granted. But still, symbolically, that's how it sounds, so maybe there's a problem with this system?
What I mean is that even if it's done at the request of the government, that's only a description of the political backstage, but in public it is expressed as the monarchy's doing ("royal" pardon).
There are many problems. When you find a better system to replace it with, then let us know. Until then throwing away a millenia of history so we can have President Cameron sounds like hell to me.
Well, any democratic system in which no citizen is institutionally above every other citizen by mere reason of being born certainly seems better to me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to troll. It's just that I would have a really hard time living in a country where such privileges by birth exist.
> Well, any democratic system in which no citizen is institutionally above every other citizen by mere reason of being born certainly seems better to me.
Sounds good to me, but the Monarchy isn't a particularly big part of that. Once we've solved or made at least some progress on fixing social mobility we can bother to get rid of powerless figureheads that bring us only profit.
Sorry to tell you, but this kind of system does not exist in reality. Heads of states in all States are above some laws and there are plentiful of reasons for this.
And by the way, if you think is undemocratic to have an unelected head of state, just think about the reasons that supreme court members are not elected. Democracy has its limits :-)
> Sorry to tell you, but this kind of system does not exist in reality. Heads of states in all States are above some laws and there are plentiful of reasons for this.
But they are not so by birth, that was my point.
>supreme court members are not elected
I assume you are talking about the US? In any case, they are not nominated by right of their birth, but they are chosen by elected people.
