The Queen's Jubilee

[amateur51]

And Alfie Boe nearly turned me the other way...

Have you considered counselling, EA?

[amateur51]

Have any arguments for the monarchy been put forward on this thread - apart from 'most people like it', 'it would cost less than a president', & 'it's good for tourism'?

[amateur51]

Just for a moment , Beefy, I almost mistook that for the royal "we" !!

we could have a statistical battle, but the last two governments have made that too easy, so I shall let it go.

Here is one that both you and Brenda would enjoy though... me too.. !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fbXfk51R1o

Is the Royal "we" anything to do with "a Peer of the Realm"?

[amateur51]

Or, far better still, relocate to the Isle of Man where they can for the time being be guaranteed a ceiling on total tax liability of some £100Kp.a. and then spend not more than 6 months of the year in France if so they wish...

However, you do run the risk of being run over, maimed and even killed for quite a bit of the year; and unless you're careful you might wind up with Jeremy Clarkson as a neighbour

[ahinton]

It's true that the monarch's powers are severely limited by the constitution, though since the latter is unwritten there remain grey areas, notably relating to the royal prerogative. There are some pernicious effects of the royal prerogative in discretionary powers exercisable in theory by the monarch alone but according to the constitution by the monarch on the advice of the PM (and in some cases the cabinet). The royal prerogative was used (via order in council), for instance, to prevent the return of the depopulated Chagossians to their islands from which they had been forcibly removed, and this use was upheld by the House of Lords.

This was a most regrettably shameful - nay, despicable - example of a case where royal prerogative was gravely abused. That said, if this were typical of the misuse of royal prerogative (which, mercifully, I do not believe to be the case), Parliament does ultimately have the power to have a referendum so that the electorate can have its say on the continuation of the royal prerogative and, in the highly unlikely even that this issue became contention between the electorate and the monarchy, the days of the monarchy might be numbered.

Although it is assumed that the role of the monarchy is largely ceremonial, there is nothing in legislation which confirms this. It cannot be regarded as not really involved in government if every statute has to be signed by the monarch, there are theoretical powers to declare war or annexe territory by royal prerogative etc. Because we have had a benign and non-interventionist monarch for 60 years, that does not mean we could not have one who is far more involved and less benign - after all, in the 1930s Edward VIII (or rather in his later capacity as Duke of Windsor) was known for his pro-Hitler sympathies, even giving the Nazi salute on his visit to Germany shortly before the war.

Sure, but see my argument above. I don't see the British electorate standing for frequent instances of this kind of thing if a majority of it perceived this to be against its interests. You are, of course, correct in principle that a future monarch might seek to act in a more intgerventionist manner but this could become counter-productive for the future of the monarchy if such interventionism were generally perceived to be disadvantageous and/or damaging. You are also correct to point out that the evident Hitler sympathies displayed from time to time by the Duke of Windsor following his abdication revealed themselves only after he had given up the British throne and thereby the power to do what an actual serving British monarch is empowered to do.

[ahinton]

However, you do run the risk of being run over, maimed and even killed for quite a bit of the year

Not unless you deliberately put yourself in the way of the TT.

and unless you're careful you might wind up with Jeremy Clarkson as a neighbour

So be careful, then! - which wouldn't be so difficult, as he owns only a very small part of IoM...

[amateur51]

Not unless you deliberately put yourself in the way of the TT.


So be careful, then! - which wouldn't be so difficult, as he owns only a very small part of IoM...

Your relaxed approach to risk surprises me, ah

[Beef Oven]

Just for a moment , Beefy, I almost mistook that for the royal "we" !!

we could have a statistical battle, but the last two governments have made that too easy, so I shall let it go.

Here is one that both you and Brenda would enjoy though... me too.. !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fbXfk51R1o

Great track - I got the album. Might play it after the footie

[french frank]

(and the Crown Estates if these must in principle remain an essential component part of the monarchical infrastructure)

Though, I assume, if there were no monarchy, there would be no basis. But my point was also that, even if the monarchy continued (or ceased) and the Crown Estates were appropriated for the benefit of the State, the State would be no better off financially, since it already receives all the revenues - nothing goes to the Crown. The only benefit might be a windfall gain which the State could spend at the drop of a tiara. This is why the financial argument is a non-starter: stick with the political/democratic one.

However, I have pointed out that 'heredity' - as a principle - has a much wider application than the monarchy. You have it or you abolish it. As one who has no children, I'm easy

[teamsaint]

Is the Royal "we" anything to do with "a Peer of the Realm"?

very "6.30 pm, radio 4 " !!

(or whatever time the funny stuff is !!)

[Beef Oven]

very "6.30 pm, radio 4 " !!

(or whatever time the funny stuff is !!)

Don't encourage Tiddles!

[Lateralthinking1]

A fortnight of waving the union jack has seen the country lurch politically to the far right. Sorry, typographical error. Has seen the country lurch politically towards the Labour Party. Today's poll shows that Labour's lead over the Conservatives is now 8% which would give the party a majority of 80. The Lib Dems have dropped to 10% and would have 10 seats after the next General Election.

I suspect that those who hated the Jubilee have felt their Labour impulses returning, not that they are convinced by them. Among those who loved it, there are probably very many who have experienced a stark contrast between Her Majesty's modernised old style conservatism and both the new liberal conservatism of this Government and the wild eyed libertarianism on the back benches.

[aeolium]

You are also correct to point out that the evident Hitler sympathies displayed from time to time by the Duke of Windsor following his abdication revealed themselves only after he had given up the British throne and thereby the power to do what an actual serving British monarch is empowered to do.

I'm not sure that reveals the limitations on monarchical power - after all, he was only king for 10 months. Also there is plenty of evidence - aired in the 1990s Channel 4 documentary Edward VIII - The Traitor King - that his strong pro-Hitler sympathies predated his abdication. In that documentary, it was reported that when German troops marched into the Rhineland in 1936, the king made clear his support for that action to the Germans as well as his intention to oppose any military response by his own government. Not only that, but secret Cabinet discussions had been disclosed to the Germans either by the king or by Mrs Simpson. That was almost certainly unconstitutional, and caused great anxiety to the then British cabinet.

[Serial_Apologist]

A fortnight of waving the union jack has seen the country lurch politically to the far right. Sorry, typographical error. Has seen the country lurch politically towards the Labour Party. Today's poll shows that Labour's lead over the Conservatives is now 8% which would give the party a majority of 80. The Lib Dems have dropped to 10% and would have 10 seats after the next General Election.

I suspect that those who hated the Jubilee have felt their Labour impulses returning, not that they are convinced by them. Among those who loved it, there are probably very many who have experienced a stark contrast between Her Majesty's modernised old style conservatism and both the new liberal conservatism of this Government and the wild eyed libertarianism on the back benches.

You get to sound more and more like this man, with each passing day, Lat!

http://www.maxhastings.com

[ahinton]

Though, I assume, if there were no monarchy, there would be no basis. But my point was also that, even if the monarchy continued (or ceased) and the Crown Estates were appropriated for the benefit of the State, the State would be no better off financially, since it already receives all the revenues - nothing goes to the Crown. The only benefit might be a windfall gain which the State could spend at the drop of a tiara. This is why the financial argument is a non-starter: stick with the political/democratic one.

However, I have pointed out that 'heredity' - as a principle - has a much wider application than the monarchy. You have it or you abolish it. As one who has no children, I'm easy

I agree - and, as another childless person, I'm "easy" too.