Printable View
hmm... I don't think that the Queen should be overthrown... but maybe Prince Charles as no one likes him should be limited in what he can do after the illegitimate marriage to Camilla [also hate her]
He should be banned from becoming the King! :inquisitive:
You are aware that you don't get to vote for kings? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraWar
Well it would be possible to get him to step down as King if he becomes King if there is a overwhelming majority.... which last happened around 1936...Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I enjoyed the trooping of the colour today, what would we have in it's place eh? A 41 gun salute to Blair and big gurning cherie? It would be horrible...
I wouldn't think so... I would guess it would be a anti-Eric Bauman march...Quote:
Originally Posted by Masy
The abdication of Edward VIII had nothing to do with the voters, but with the opinions of a select group of political advisers who were concerned about a constitutional crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraWar
The average joe quite liked Edward, since he was good-looking, a playboy and filled the tabloids. Much better than a stammering, shy fella with a stern scottish wife... :dizzy2:
As some pro-monarchists have claimed as the reason for keeping the monarchy, it's precisely because it isn't a popularity contest. For that, you get a president.
Lol sending the welsh guards in their bearskins and red tunics to go and blow up his servers for public amusment...I like it! Screw the queen, who needs her anymore!?!? Down with Bauman!!! ahem...Quote:
I wouldn't think so... I would guess it would be a anti-Eric Bauman march.
I'm not particularly fond of a head of state that we can't get rid of, but I would be willing to keep the monarchy, if only because of the difficulty of changing the whole constitution of the land. What I am concerned about is the sweeping powers of the Royal Prerogative. I'm not concerned about the monarch misusing these powers, but rather the executive. The prime minister, who is not directly elected into that post, can declare war without referral to Parliament, just by telling the monarch to use the Royal Prerogative. I think this has to change.
Nah mate it'll never happen...Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
WAIT!!! it already has....:wall: :sweatdrop:
If the Queen did do that, it was the darkest hour of the Monarchy for a long time.
Monarchy is supposed to block measures that abuse powers, no facilitate them.
~:smoking:
Actually, the monarch has very limited powers to block anything without provoking a full-blown constitutional crisis. She is there to give assent, in that power is considered still to derive from the Crown, not the people. But exercise of that power is entirely down to the people's representative Parliament and its executive, which the monarch may not gainsay.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The Queen does not use the Royal Prerogative, the Prime Minister does. He does not have to ask her for permission, but if he does, she has no choice but to give her assent.
The Queen is blameless in any use of the Royal Prerogative.
Thank you for that clarifcation.
As you might be able to guess, I'd be keen for power to be further spread than it currently is. The Commons can force something through on an issue that was never mentioned at an election up to 6 years previously against the wishes of the populace, the Lords and the Monarch.
If not directly the Monarch saying in extremely rare cases "No", then I feel that having the legislation placed for review by a royal Commission should be possible.
I don't feel that this should be happening every 2 months, but I feel that the option should be there.
It has been shown that the PM can effectively wield dictatorial powers when the Commons is sufficiently cowed. A undemocratic balance to guard against undemocratic abuse.
~:smoking:
England is not England without the Queen. Monarchy rules! :2thumbsup:
Theoretically this is possible, even under the settlement of 1688. However, it would need an Act of Parliament to derogate to a Royal Commission and provide the powers of review to that commission. Currently (you guessed it) only the PM can set up a Royal Commission.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
In addition, this is what the House of Lords is supposed to do as the second chamber. Even stuffed with pork barrel appointees it still does on occasion.
But with the Parliament Act, all these avenues can be overruled. The constitution would need to be refined to make these minor irritations into a genuine system of checks and balances. But since the PM would be changing the constitution to reduce his powers, its not very likely to happen, methinks.
As it is, the British Prime Minister has all the powers of an unrestrained monarch. Parliament is supposed to be there to hold the executive to account, but with the party system being as it is, there are precious few checks on his almost absolute power, save a tedious election every four or five years. (And he even gets to choose when that will be!)
So, far from scrapping the Queen, it should be scrapping the PM!
~:smoking:
From an enhancing democracy perspective, damn right! Though I prefer your traditional method of dealing with untrammeled autocrats:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
'Off with his head!'
(Just think of the ticket sales - clear the national debt in no time). :balloon2:
May I be the first to volounteer to wield the axe. I'm afraid I'm not that good at using it, and it'll probably be rather blunt... But hell's bells he's earnt it :2thumbsup:
~:smoking:
I thought the Queen had no real power, but if you must rebel, go the full 100% and start a coup de'etat. We have no such problems, hahahaha!
Actually, thats how it used to go. The Monarch requests the axe, and a novice exicutionar!Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
If the Queen were to address the nation and say "I will not give my assent" to X Bill then the Speaker couldn't stamp it and it couldn't pass into law, if he did it would cause a constitutional crisis that, legally, would probably come out with the Queen on top.
Our William III in the 19th century once refused to sign a law, after wich the government under Thorbecke offered their resignation out of principle (and received it). That was the only such incident though, modern monarchs can't afford to be so arrogant.
Did that ever happen in the UK?
Pitt the younger regarding equal rights for Catholics in Ireland. King refused to sign the bill, so Pitt resigned.
~:smoking:
Isnt that just like getting rid of the emporer of Japan? it is a ceremonial title isnt it? upholding traditions that have existed since the dark ages.
A Texan speaks French: definitely a sign of the Apocalypse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Except that the Emperor is still decended from the sun and he was always a figurehead more than anything else. Remember Shogun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal99
Remember the history PDF from the WArlord CD. The Shogun ruled in place of the Fujiwara PM's who ruled in the place of the emperor.
Henry VII does not claim legitimacy through his wife, as such a case has never happened in England since women are allowed to assume the throne. Henry VII claims his right through his mother who was the great-grandaughter of John of Gaunt, son of Edward III, King of England and France and Lord of Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
So far as I can see the only objection to getting rid of the queen is that all those things with "Royal" in their name would sound silly. Try it. Her Majesty's ship Invincible of the Royal Navy has a ring to it, but "Ship" Invincible of the "Navy" is daft.
Otherwise though, its a bit much if we have to keep hold of that prat Charlie just to entertain tourists. All this talk of the Royals not costing anything is total cobblers, where did all this land and stuff that they own "privately" come from, eh? What were they doing, saving their green shield stamps really carefully until they popped down the Co-op one day and found they had enough to buy Cornwall?
Anyway, we have a perfectly good king, King Arthur. He never exactly died, and he is supposed to be the King again in the future at some point, so I say we kick big ears out after Brenda pops her clogs and declare the throne vacant pending Arthur's return from Avalon. Problem solved.
Then, where did anyone's ownership of anything come from?
I'd happily have Charlie with more power if it stops creatures as Tony having more.
~:smoking:
Well, in my case I went to work, got paid, paid my taxes, paid into my pension plan, paid for my food and clothes, and then what I had left over I spent or saved up. That's basically where everything I own came from.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Even if Charlie saved really really hard, I somehow don't think he paid the mortgage on Windsor castle from his brief stint playing sailors.
I feel you're missing the point.
Where does ownership for anything come from? Go back far enough and ownership always comes to people having land as they'd kill anyone that tried to take it. That's been dressed up down the centuries, but it comes back to that.
Items are inhereted, and why does inhereted belnogings not count in Charles's case?
~:smoking: