alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Have a look here then:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/j...P=share_btn_fb

Blue by You

iTrader: (23)

No real surprise there.
They are the ruling Monarchy after all.

hodgy0_2

this is old news off course - the article is over 3 years old btw

the role of the monarchy (not the queen per se) is little understood in our "constitution"

the government of the day can leverage a lot of power by invoking the historic powers vested in the monarchy

neil-h

What a load of ****e, it's common knowledge the Queen (or other ruling monarch) has a veto over proposed legislation.

Tidgy

Queen still has full control of the country, she could dissolve the government and take over is she wanted to.

neil-h

Hence why we still have laws pertaining to the act of treason.

GWJ

Dissolving government, like in an acid bath? What a great idea, get rid of these wasters and parasites once and for all

Martin2005

She could try, but the inevitable result would be the end of the monarchy

brendy76

iTrader: (6)

Yup, this. Having a group of politicians (voted in) pass a bill only for a small set of people to block it seems a little odd to me, especially when they are all out of touch with common man.

Navigation Aids bill btw, that must have been a biggy eh?

They are still a souvenir superpower, they, along with H.O.P/Big Ben (Liz tower) etc make London millions, where else gets to see any of it? Flippant comment I know, but seriously, the group of countries would survive just fine without.

Tidgy

How so?

as soon as she said the word the police and military would fall under her control, the gov has no power without them.

Im not saying it ever would happen, would be a civil war if it was tried, but from a legal stand point she could do if she wanted to.

Martin2005

Parliament is sovereign, parliament would abolish the monarchy - there is no mechanism by which the Police and Army would 'fall under her control'

hodgy0_2

rather than the queen exercising her "power", which she thankfully realises is largely symbolic


it is more the way the implicit power of the monarchy is used by the Government of the day - via Royal Prerogative and the Privy Council etc

the worry is that her view of the role may not be Charles's

he may well see himself as a more interventionist Monarch, pushing the boundaries (he is already quite vocal in private)

which as you say would more than likely see the end of the Monarchy

my point essentially is that the Queen "gets" it, whereas there is no certainty that another Monarch would

in that way the Queen is a republicans nightmare, because she is undoubtedly a class act (and I am a republican)

Tidgy

Thats actually incorrect, parliament can not abolish the monarchy, up until 2011 it would have been easy for her to dissolve the government, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 means give has a fixed term of office of 5 years.

That said,

She still has to approve and can remove ministers
She still appoints the prime minister
She can still declare war
She can not be prosecuted for any crime (she is above the law)
She is still commander in chief of the armed forces

plus a whole heap of other stuff.

In reality i don't think she ever could, however from a legal stand point i expect she could do if she wanted to.

but depends, the amount of people who moan about politicians now a days they may well want her too lol

yabbadoo4

iTrader: (8)

the house of lords did it not long ago didnt they? and surprisingly most of them are considered out of touch with the common man and are sleeping most of the time they are in chambers but they did vote against the legislation on working tax credits

Tidgy

Seems to just be an old boys club now, perhaps its time for it to go?

brendy76

iTrader: (6)

I never said they were perfect neither

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

I happen to think it's a good thing for the royals to have a right to vito the government of the day, reason being they have and always will have the best interests of the country at heart, where as politicians will always have their personal interests at heart.

I know to a degree so will the monarchy, but ultimately their continued existence depends on and requires UK PLC to be doing good, so in effect they are in it for the long haul, not short term gain like most politicians.

I'm no royalist but I do think we are probably better off with them and all the pomp and circumstance that goes with having a royal family than we would be without them, after all we are the envy of the world.

hodgy0_2

how do you know "they" will always have our best interest though

Charles may have a different view as to his role

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

I doubt the world has very many selfless people in it, ultimately we are all pre-programmed to have our own and that of our families best interests at heart, SO by default since their good fortune is inextricably linked to the nations good fortune "they" will ultimately do what is best for Queen and country.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

We are the envy of the world for having a Royal Family leaching off us?
Laughing stock, more like.

yabbadoo4

iTrader: (8)

yep, the saxe-coburg-gotha family has done really well over here, oh sorry, i meant windsor!

neil-h

Fortunately I don't think the rest of the world is as pathologically bitter as you are.

hodgy0_2

But this is the point - the current Queen comes pretty close, I am sure she is not perfect but she has been pretty selfless for the last 60 odd years and put the country first

Just witness the meltdown in the Spanish Royal family

Maybe that's why she is hanging on, the thought of Charles, or God forbid that chancer Andrew as the Monarch - jeez

Maybe she knows something we don't !!!!!!!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

How many foreigners have YOU spoken to about our royal leaches?

I've spoken to quite a few, they don't want 'em, that's for sure.

And come on...REALLY? Just because of who you were born? HOW out of date are you?

hodgy0_2

It would be interesting to hear an armed services view

Can you imagine having to lay down your life for king and country - and the king being prince Andrew

Who may well have brokered the arms deal, that gave the enemy the weapons systems that smoked your ****

Lol

Martin2005

Didn't think you spoke to foreigners, or 'miggers' as you like to call them

neil-h

So from your small (tiny even) sample size we can conclude that we're the laughing stock of the world... Ok then.

As for the last part, I'm not even going to dignify that with a proper response.

DYK

Well when joining the forces you give an attestaion and handed a New Testament bible,printed inside is your name date and place where the attestaion ceremony had taken place,it also says the bible is presented on behalf her majesty the queen,and during the ceremony say you'll serve the queen etc,but it's just what you have to do and say as part of the process in joining.most thought it was b0ll0cks 👍

hodgy0_2

So ultimately, when you are on your chinstraps and the chips are down, under fire etc - you are doing it aka are there for your mates

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

I'd have thought you of all people would know that the royal family bring in way more than they receive via the civil list.

I'll say it again I'm no royalist nor am I a republican but I can see the math and the kudos we as a nation receive from the rest of the world.

Personally I don't think any man is better than me, nor I them, we are all humans and to be completely honest I really don't envy anyone born into the royal family or a "high society" type position, it would be my worst nightmare.