Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Yellow Fever

The Royal Family - Does Anybody Care ?

Recommended Posts

In theory, Parliament is only wielding power on behalf of the Monarch. 

And that cannot be right.

The Monarch can be head of the Church for their status and stipend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

To be fair, in the UK you couldn't have a day where the English language was celebrated, Somebody would be calling it racist.

The UN celebrates the English language 

23rd of April, believed to be the birthday and date of death of William Shakespeare. Quite appropriate

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

BTW I used to hate the royal family-on Charles’ and Di’s wedding day I was furiously writing anti-monarchy lyrics to songs that never saw the light of day. I have mellowed since then, mainly due to the fact that Wills and Harry seem to be a bit more normal.

I dont mind Harry. Think he was a **** in his youth, but weren't we all? I have massive respect for him having the balls to serve on the front line. He's the only actual human amongst them, pretty telling that he wants no part of the charade.

William I have zero respect for. As mentioned above, stole an army helicopter to impress his then girlfriend (now wife obv). Anyone else does that, they get court Marshall and jail time. He didn't even get a slap on the wrist and his little trip cost us over £100k. Cant respect that. Think he's just as sycophantic as the rest of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/02/2021 at 22:50, Creative Midfielder said:

But I don't think there is any getting away from the fact that having a Head of State who is both unelected and who chooses not to exercise their powers\undertake their responsibilities as Head of State is a really major problem.

 

 

On 22/02/2021 at 19:04, kick it off said:

It doesn't upset me that she doesn't discharge her responsibilities, no, because then we would live in an absolute monarchy which is the direct opposite of democracy. Having an unelected head of state is an existential threat to democracy when they hold the power to dissolve government.

I'm sure you are a great teacher but I really hope you don't teach history, politics, citizenship etc because the idea that the Head of State, even in a constitutional monarchy, exercising their powers equates to an absolute monarchy is total tripe.

And you should be very concerned that she didn't exercise her powers because that is actuallly an existential threat to our democracy, as Johnson so vividly demonstrated in 2019 when he illegally requested the Porogation of Parliament. She should stopped it, it was her duty and responsibility to stop it but she didn't and so Johnson effectively ruled as a dictator for a period. None of the Westminister political establishment tried to stop him, and much of the British press and media were quite happy to go-along for the ride.

It took Joanna Cherry and Gina Millar to eventually get a case to the Supreme Court to do what our Head of State should have done - all credit to them but Johnson had achieved what he wanted by then and of course there was no penalty for illegally suspending our 'democracy' - that is why you should should be upset!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/02/2021 at 18:25, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

The UN celebrates the English language 

23rd of April, believed to be the birthday and date of death of William Shakespeare. Quite appropriate

St. George's Day, too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rock The Boat said:

St. George's Day, too

Indeed 

As a further comment, I  believe the Icelanders celebrate their language due to its age and also the threat it is under from English 

Its possible for a native Icelandic speaker to comprehend the sagas of hundreds of years ago. English, meanwhile, has changed enormously. I guess (and it's a guess) that an Icelander might understand old English better than an British person 

Maybe there is a comparison between the value of the Icelandic language to an Icelander and the Royalty to the British? Both have been around for hundreds of years, and help to provide an identity for many of their respective citizens 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I'm sure you are a great teacher but I really hope you don't teach history, politics, citizenship etc because the idea that the Head of State, even in a constitutional monarchy, exercising their powers equates to an absolute monarchy is total tripe.

And you should be very concerned that she didn't exercise her powers because that is actuallly an existential threat to our democracy, as Johnson so vividly demonstrated in 2019 when he illegally requested the Porogation of Parliament. She should stopped it, it was her duty and responsibility to stop it but she didn't and so Johnson effectively ruled as a dictator for a period. None of the Westminister political establishment tried to stop him, and much of the British press and media were quite happy to go-along for the ride.

It took Joanna Cherry and Gina Millar to eventually get a case to the Supreme Court to do what our Head of State should have done - all credit to them but Johnson had achieved what he wanted by then and of course there was no penalty for illegally suspending our 'democracy' - that is why you should should be upset!!!

If the head of state is an unelected monarch, and they have power to dissolve government, laws require royal assent etc then it is absolutely a threat to democracy. She literally has the power to appoint, or refuse to appoint a Prime Minister. Equally, she has the power to send us to war (as her father did in 1939). Sure, many of the powers that still reside in the crown haven't been put into practice in centuries but the fact that she has them sits well with democracy does it? We could pass a law abolishing the royal family if we liked.... but the queen would have to approve it.

Can I see the constitution that our "constitutional monarchy" is based on? We don't actually have one, do we? So we have a constitutional monarchy without actually having a constitution to frame that. Many of her powers within the royal prerogative are only limited by convention and tradition rather than legitimate legal limits. Makes perfect sense. (I'm not querying your use of the term which is accurate, just passing comment on the situation - appreciate it could be read both ways so hopefully this clarifies)

I agree she should have stopped the prorogation, because it was entirely illegal and she had the power to do so.... however she shouldn't have the power to do so because we should have an accountable, elected head of state instead of her. That's the main issue I have with that situation.

NB - I do teach citizenship, don't teach history or politics but I do have a degree in International Relations which I think most would consider to be a "political" degree.

Edited by kick it off
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, kick it off said:

If the head of state is an unelected monarch, and they have power to dissolve government, laws require royal assent etc then it is absolutely a threat to democracy. She literally has the power to appoint, or refuse to appoint a Prime Minister. Sure, the powers that still reside in the crown haven't been put into practice in centuries but the fact that she has them sits well with democracy does it?

Can I see the constitution that our "constitutional monarchy" is based on? We don't actually have one, do we? So we have a constitutional monarchy without actually having a constitution to frame that. Makes perfect sense. (I'm not querying your use of the term which is accurate, just passing comment on the situation - appreciate it could be read both ways so hopefully this clarifies)

I agree she should have stopped the prorogation, because it was entirely illegal and she had the power to do so.... however she shouldn't have the power to do so because we should have an accountable, elected head of state instead of her. That's the main issue I have with that situation.

Perhaps if a head of state if in doubt had the limited power to refer an issue direct to the Supreme Court would help?

However as with the current Queen we see only recently the fuss about the Monarch's consent being used to tailor laws to suit behind the scenes and indeed the weekly chat with the PM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Perhaps if a head of state if in doubt had the limited power to refer an issue direct to the Supreme Court would help?

However as with the current Queen we see only recently the fuss about the Monarch's consent being used to tailor laws to suit behind the scenes and indeed the weekly chat with the PM. 

What would help would be an elected, accountable head of state with a sensible set of powers written into law in a formal constitution. Not an unelected hereditary monarchy where the monarch wields ridiculously scary power which is only limited by convention and tradition.

Feel free to explain to me how the Queen being able to send us to war, refuse to open parliament, refuse to appoint legitimately elected Prime Ministers etc is not the absolute definition of absolute monarchy though. Just because the powers aren't used, doesn't mean they can't be and that is precisely why I am glad she doesn't use them at all. (EDIT - not directed at you specifically YF, I thought CM had made your post, that response doesn't make sense to you!)

The Royal family and indeed, the royal prerogatives are literally the antithesis to democracy.

Edited by kick it off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kick it off said:

If the head of state is an unelected monarch, and they have power to dissolve government, laws require royal assent etc then it is absolutely a threat to democracy. She literally has the power to appoint, or refuse to appoint a Prime Minister. Sure, the powers that still reside in the crown haven't been put into practice in centuries but that sits well with democracy does it?

Can I see the constitution that our "constitutional monarchy" is based on? We don't actually have one, do we? So we have a constitutional monarchy without actually having a constitution to frame that. 

I agree she should have stopped the prorogation, because it was entirely illegal and she had the power to do so.... however she shouldn't have the power to do so because we should have an accountable, elected head of state instead of her. That's the main issue I have with that situation.

The weird thing is we pretty much agree on most of this but to run through your points:

We are a constitutional monarchy as I understand it for two main reasons; we have a constitution of sorts although it is really an ancient and cumbersome set of conventions and precedents many of which not really applicable to the 21st century and most of which have never tested as to whether they actually have any real legal standing. This is highly unsatisfactory and IMO should have been replaced by a written constitution years ago. But I would say the problem has become much more acute very recently as it is only the last two PMs and governments that have actively tried and succeded in breaking those rules on a systematic basis.

The second reason, which should be good news, is that we have a constitutional monarchy rather than an absolute monarchy because notwithstanding the powers that the monarch has as Head of State there is absolutely no question that within our system Parliament is sovereign and that is firmly embedded in law. I completely agree with you that these powers should be vested in an elected Head of State rather than a hereditary monarch but you say yourself those powers to dismiss/appoint Prime Ministers etc have not been used inappropriately.

However all systems need checks and balances, and a huge weakness in our system is that we have no checks or balances in our system against a rogue PM/government other than the Head of State exercising those powers. But in the last 18 months we have had a rogue PM/government - not just the the prorogation though that was bad enough, but the government itself breaking international law, the PM condoning and excusing appalling and illegal behaviour by his chief advisor, his Home Secretary (should have been sacked automatically for proven breaches of the Ministerial Code) and open corruption by several ministers again excused by the PM. In normal times, or at least the past, Parliament itself would never have permitted these abuses and any PM or minister who behaved so appallingly would be toast. But no longer it seems, and the only independent check or balance to a rogue Parliament has chosen to ignore her responsibilities and take no action.

So I think we entirely agree that we should have a written constitution and an elected Head of State but you seem really exercised that we have a Royal Family who cost a fair bit of public money and provide no value at all but you're not too worried that the Queen hasn't exercised her powers to stop our PM and his ministers repeatedly breaking the law.

Whereas as I, though I'm no great fan, could see some value in a hereditary monarchy in a purely ceremonial/symbolic role (costing a bit of cash but small change in the overall scheme of things). But what I am really exercised about is that she has allowed and permitted our already shabby democracy to be successfully abused and in doing so has allowed new precedents to be created which will also certainly be exploited again in the future. This government has repeatedly shown that in practice it is above the law and that there is nothing whatsoever we can do about it - it is inaction by our Head of State that is the existential threat to our democracy.

 

Edited by Creative Midfielder
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

So I think we entirely agree that we should have a written constitution and an elected Head of State but you seem really exercised that we have a Royal Family who cost a fair bit of public money and provide no value at all but you're not too worried that the Queen hasn't exercised her powers to stop our PM and his ministers repeatedly breaking the law.

Whereas as I, though I'm no great fan, could see some value in a hereditary monarchy in a purely ceremonial/symbolic role (costing a bit of cash but small change in the overall scheme of things). But what I am really exercised about is that she has allowed and permitted our already shabby democracy to be successfully abused and in doing so has allowed new precedents to be created which will also certainly be exploited again in the future. This government has repeatedly shown that in practice it is above the law and that there is nothing whatsoever we can do about it - it is inaction by our Head of State that is the existential threat to our democracy.

Yeah we do agree on vast majority but semantics.

My issue is that I don't want any hereditary monarch exercising the powers. The powers held in royal prerogative are dangerous should we get a rogue monarch. So I'd rather have a rogue government than a rogue monarch. At least governments are accountable to the ballot box (although I don't have any hope that the public are sharp enough to see through the rabid right wing press and actually hold Boris and his ilk to account). I absolutely agree with you on checks and balances, but my issue is where the power lies. If it was an elected head of state who had failed to exercise them, I would be in lockstep with you at being outraged, but as it's the untouchables (in every sense of that word) who hold the power then I would rather they continue to not use them, as we have no recourse whatsoever should they go rogue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, intelligent debate KIO and CM. It has always seemed to me that no genuine democracy can coherently maintain that an unelected head of state is consistent with its fundamental principles. Yet the strange fall-out from 1649 has meant that it has never been as pressing an issue on these Isles as it has been elsewhere in the world. The experience of the despotism of Cromwell, the Restoration of 1660, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the crowning of William and Mary in 1689 with their acknowledgement of the sovereignty of parliament, combined to provide the unique raison d'etre for the enduring arrangement we currently find ourselves with. Thus, the norm has been a "well understood" balance or tension between a "constitutional monarchy" that recognises it shouldn't interfere with the will of parliament, and a parliament that recognises it shouldn't push our "unwritten" constitution so far as to provoke any real possibility that the monarch might be called upon to exercise her legal powers. The government of Johnson has recklessly refused to acknowledge or practise the subtlety of thought required to maintain that balance or tension, and once again our constitutional arrangements have become a more pressing concern. 

Personally, I would prioritise reformation of the House of Lords before reformation of the monarchy. The fact we find ourselves in 2021 with an unelected second chamber that is a bastion of inherited privilege and personal favour is the most egregious offence against the very idea of democratic government. That Johnson has made use of his power to appoint Lords at will in order to place them in key positions of government ought to be considered a constitutional scandal of the most dispicable kind. The power and authority of privilege is an ideology that burns deep in Johnson's Eton educated soul. I suggest we get rid of this corrupting anachronism first before we turn our attention to the future of the monarchy.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Personally, I would prioritise reformation of the House of Lords before reformation of the monarchy. The fact we find ourselves in 2021 with an unelected second chamber that is a bastion of inherited privilege and personal favour is the most egregious offence against the very idea of democratic government. That Johnson has made use of his power to appoint Lords at will in order to place them in key positions of government ought to be considered a constitutional scandal of the most dispicable kind. The power and authority of privilege is an ideology that burns deep in Johnson's Eton educated soul. I suggest we get rid of this corrupting anachronism first before we turn our attention to the future of the monarchy.

 

Hi Horsey, certainly agree on the House of Lords, reform well over due. No doubt that role of scrutiny is hugely important and IMO there is a powerful argument for a Second Chamber, but for obvious reasons not constituted as it now is. Some form of Chamber comprising maybe representatives of regional government and the four nations as an embryonic idea to be further developed and expanded. I seem to recall reform was in the Tory manifesto this time round, but presumably has fallen off the agenda for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, horsefly said:

 

Personally, I would prioritise reformation of the House of Lords before reformation of the monarchy. The fact we find ourselves in 2021 with an unelected second chamber that is a bastion of inherited privilege and personal favour is the most egregious offence against the very idea of democratic government. That Johnson has made use of his power to appoint Lords at will in order to place them in key positions of government ought to be considered a constitutional scandal of the most dispicable kind.

 

Why is it a constitutional scandal of the most despicable kind that the leader of a nation appoints people to government?  Isn’t this fairly common practice across democratic nations? The US secretary of state,  for instance, is appointed and not elected but you weren't all over the President Biden thread with this concern.

Is your concern then more that there is insufficient separation between the legislature and the executive, and have we not already solved that issue by making our upper chamber an advisory body in all but name?

I'm all for reform of the Lords, probably to move it more squarely and more successfully into this advisory role

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Why is it a constitutional scandal of the most despicable kind that the leader of a nation appoints people to government?  Isn’t this fairly common practice across democratic nations? The US secretary of state,  for instance, is appointed and not elected but you weren't all over the President Biden thread with this concern.

Is your concern then more that there is insufficient separation between the legislature and the executive, and have we not already solved that issue by making our upper chamber an advisory body in all but name?

I'm all for reform of the Lords, probably to move it more squarely and more successfully into this advisory role

I don't mind an unelected second chamber - but not one that then follows party lines or is based on privilege or patronage. Anybody there must be wholly independent of politics. Life terms only for leading scientists, businesses, lawyers etc. but not political hacks. It's only role is to scrutinize proposed legislation for faults or oversights with the expertise to hand.

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Why is it a constitutional scandal of the most despicable kind that the leader of a nation appoints people to government? 

Don't be so fatuous and absurd. My point is clearly about unelected individuals, ie. individuals with no accountability to an electorate, being appointed to government. That Johnson shovels these individuals into cabinet positions via the fiat of handing them a peerage is indeed a constitutional scandal. We're not the USA (thank God), but if you think it was ok that Trump appointed his family members (Ivanka, Jared etc) to government positions, then that explains why you're so content to see Boris enoble and appoint his own brother in a similar way (and, of course, several of his mates). The American system is open to the same sort of corruption and democratic unaccountability that Johnson is using to an alarming degree. Nobody interested in a truly representative, accountable democratic political system ought to be happy with this situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I don't mind an unelected second chamber - but not one that then follows party lines or is based on privilege or patronage. Anybody there must be wholly independent of politics. Life terms only for leading scientists, businesses, lawyers etc. but not political hacks. It's only role is to scrutinize proposed legislation for faults or oversights with the expertise to hand.

Pretty much where I am to be honest.  President of the Royal society of x or  30 years service as Y etc gets you in.  

It won't eliminate patronage but shifts it away from government and grants independence from it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Don't be so fatuous and absurd. My point is clearly about unelected individuals, ie. individuals with no accountability to an electorate, being appointed to government. That Johnson shovels these individuals into cabinet positions via the fiat of handing them a peerage is indeed a constitutional scandal. We're not the USA (thank God), but if you think it was ok that Trump appointed his family members (Ivanka, Jared etc) to government positions, then that explains why you're so content to see Boris enoble and appoint his own brother in a similar way (and, of course, several of his mates). The American system is open to the same sort of corruption and democratic unaccountability that Johnson is using to an alarming degree. Nobody interested in a truly representative, accountable democratic political system ought to be happy with this situation.

Personally I thought the funniest one recently was Frost being appointed as 'Brexit Minister', attending cabinet and wielding real power as he's now been appointed to the Lords. He can at least try and sort his own mess out I suppose.

Never been elected to anything.

Not quite sure how that squares in the fevered Brexiteer mind with all their rants about the EU commissioners and similar. Better not to ask. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Pretty much where I am to be honest.  President of the Royal society of x or  30 years service as Y etc gets you in.  

It won't eliminate patronage but shifts it away from government and grants independence from it.

Yes  - a reviewing body to use the best expertise in the nation on hand. No politics or politicians allowed. A reviewing / revising / challenge the government to think again if needed Technocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes  - a reviewing body to use the best expertise in the nation on hand. No politics or politicians allowed. A reviewing / revising / challenge the government to think again if needed Technocracy.

That sounds like where I am coming from but I would also like to see regional representatives and reps from devolved governments involved.

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Van wink said:

That sounds like where I am coming from but I would also like to see regional representatives and reps from devolved governments.

Providing they are not politicians with agendas! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Providing they are not politicians with agendas! 

I take that point and it’s a tricky one, my preference is for much greater devolution of power and I do believe that devolved nations and regions need to be involved. By definition though these individuals would probably have to be elected but maybe not with express political affiliations. Work that one out, it’s too tough for me 😁

Edited by Van wink
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Personally I thought the funniest one recently was Frost being appointed as 'Brexit Minister', attending cabinet and wielding real power as he's now been appointed to the Lords. He can at least try and sort his own mess out I suppose.

Never been elected to anything.

I doubt there has ever been a government where no minister at all was in the Lords, even discounting roles only open to members of the lords. I'm pretty sure, for instance, that lord mandelsson had a government role and i am sure baronness scotland was given the nod once.  So presumably horse's shouts of constitutional outrages should be directed at every modern prime minister and i am sure that he would be glad to clarify that they are...

I'm fairly relaxed about it.  The big roles should go to elected politicians but if the best person for a more junior role needs to be appointed then so be it, the higher ups are accountable for the actions of their subordinates afterall

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

The last time we had a republic didn’t last long, I don’t mind them and the tourists love them. 

The tourists also love those souvenir toot shops so I wouldn't trust their judgement.😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should move the Royal Household to Alton Towers and concentrate our major tourist attractions on one site.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...