But then Torchwood simply reads as an anti-monarchist argument, which isn't a substantially different reading....
Then again, even to this clueless American, this seems like an oversimplified reading of British constitutional politics. I know there are supposed limits to the Sovereign's authority. She's not allowed in the House of Commons, for one, and -- ahem -- can be tried and executed for treason by Parliament.
If it's government-mandated it's legal.
Mu understanding is there's a distinction between the Crown and her Government. Elizabeth is Head of State and rules Britain (and Canada and Australia and....); Blair/Harriet Jones/Whoever is Head of Government and runs the government, which means that Torchwood isn't government-mandated, but state-mandated.
Indeed, it can't be government-mandated; Harriet Jones wasn't even supposed to know that it existed, if you remember.
It may be a distinction without a difference, but then, above about Torchwood simply reading as anti-monarchist.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 04:05 pm (UTC)But then Torchwood simply reads as an anti-monarchist argument, which isn't a substantially different reading....
Then again, even to this clueless American, this seems like an oversimplified reading of British constitutional politics. I know there are supposed limits to the Sovereign's authority. She's not allowed in the House of Commons, for one, and -- ahem -- can be tried and executed for treason by Parliament.
If it's government-mandated it's legal.
Mu understanding is there's a distinction between the Crown and her Government. Elizabeth is Head of State and rules Britain (and Canada and Australia and....); Blair/Harriet Jones/Whoever is Head of Government and runs the government, which means that Torchwood isn't government-mandated, but state-mandated.
Indeed, it can't be government-mandated; Harriet Jones wasn't even supposed to know that it existed, if you remember.
It may be a distinction without a difference, but then, above about Torchwood simply reading as anti-monarchist.