Kate, Princess of Wales - not seen this year.

Geoff_B said:
Haha, brilliant, I haven't attempted to defend the value in a royal family, because I couldn't care less, as already stated, therefore have no interest in debating the pros and cons of one either.

I wouldn't want to waste my life getting so wound up by it, unlike yourself.

I just find it amusing how you in particular, along with others can not help themselves as soon as a royal thread appears, you must jump in and state your opinion, even when not wanted, like the Charles cancer thread.

Sun is shining outside, have a nice day :)
Click to expand...
Like I said ad hominems, if you don't care why even be on this thread?

I didn't say anything bad on the charles cancer thread thanks.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
We've had two lunatic PMs in the last few years in Johnson and Truss.

The PM is the leader of the country, the monarch is head of a sideshow.
Click to expand...
The monarch can exercise the royal prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet.

It's available in the conduct of the government, including foreign affairs, defence, and national security.
 
parmoboy said:
The monarch can exercise the royal prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet.

It's available in the conduct of the government, including foreign affairs, defence, and national security.
Click to expand...
the difficulty with this is that

A) if they exercise it, then they are over-riding the elected government, for better or worse. That is undemocratic and would create a massive constitutional crisis.

or

B) If they fail to exercise it in times of need (for fear or repercussion) , then, they have shown that they shouldn't have the power as they can't be relied on to utilise it appropriately and therefor other systems of governance would be better.

Of course they do already exercise undemocratic royal powers, they regularly stop bills going to parliament until changes are made. But it doesn't get the press that the use of the royal prerogative would.

We need a proper written constitution, with all men equal, a proper democratic voting process, removal of life privileges and inherited privileges for anyone. Meritocracy should over ride privilege and tradition every time in a modern democracy
 
parmoboy said:
The monarch can exercise the royal prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet.

It's available in the conduct of the government, including foreign affairs, defence, and national security.
Click to expand...
Last used in 1708. We've moved on a little towards democracy since then. Some way to go yet but an attempt to use it again may be a good thing for the long term future of the country.
 
parmoboy said:
Equally though, it's due to the electoral system that the maniac Vladimir Putin is currently President of Russia, and another maniac may be about to become the President of the USA.

I don't regard myself as being a royalist but equally, I can understand why many feel an attachment due to it being part of our heritage. If other countries can have a royal family without the enormous wealth and privilege then it would be great to think that one day we will get to that.
Click to expand...
This actually perfectly demonstrates why having an unelected Head of State is a problem and not the other way around. A monarchy like we have is fine while the monarch is not a mentalist but if Charles or William or one of the other heirs is a mentalist we have no way to remove them. They have a lot of power, which they currently don't enforce (supposedly).

Putin is not really elected. I wouldn't call a system where the opposition keeps unexpectedly dying a democracy. Trump is a problem because the people that have elected him, and want to again, are idiots but it is their choice as idiots to elect him. They can change their mind (and he's only able to be in charge for a maximum of 8 years anyway). If Trump was King he'd be in charge forever and then his kids would be next.
 
BoroMart said:
the difficulty with this is that

A) if they exercise it, then they are over-riding the elected government, for better or worse. That is undemocratic and would create a massive constitutional crisis.

or

B) If they fail to exercise it in times of need (for fear or repercussion) , then, they have shown that they shouldn't have the power as they can't be relied on to utilise it appropriately and therefor other systems of governance would be better.

Of course they do already exercise undemocratic royal powers, they regularly stop bills going to parliament until changes are made. But it doesn't get the press that the use of the royal prerogative would.

We need a proper written constitution, with all men equal, a proper democratic voting process, removal of life privileges and inherited privileges for anyone. Meritocracy should over ride privilege and tradition every time in a modern democracy
Click to expand...
If they were to over-ride the government it would most likely be if the government were to decide that the UK were to invade and declare a war on another country. I'd like to think that scenario will never become a reality in my lifetime, but it's reassuring to know that we have a head of state who possesses the power to do that.

Unfortunately, Russia didn't.
 
@parmoboy....I'll answert that. People are quick to attack Blair for supporting the USAs attack of Iraq to depose saddam. The public didn't want this war, the evidence for teh war was at best flimsy, and there are many that feel rightly or wrongly that it was a 'war crime'.

But the fact is only the royals can declare war on a foreign nation, and they (the Queen) had the opportunity to use the royal prerogative to stop it.....they didn't. So they have as much "blood on their hands" as Blair. There are hundreds of examples that could be used where royal prerogative could be used but wasn't, but that is one that directly addresses your concerns about war.

The royal prerogative can be used for foreign affairs and trade agreements and treaties, they could have stopped the whole rwanda sh!tshow, or even paused the brexit vote until due diligence was done on foreign interference (russia report) and financial abuses (vote leave) and data theft and misuse (Cambridge Analytica).....once again they failed to provide any essence of governance for the betterment of the nation and to protect democracy.

The only times they've used any royal powers in recent years, are for the protection and enhancement of their own income by blocking bills that would cost them money or power, until the bill excludes them.

They are inept at governance, so truly make them ceremonial, and reduce their powers, influence and funding accordingly. Even the royalists can't complain at that.....can they?
 
parmoboy said:
If they were to over-ride the government it would most likely be if the government were to decide that the UK were to invade and declare a war on another country. I'd like to think that scenario will never become a reality in my lifetime, but it's reassuring to know that we have a head of state who possesses the power to do that.

Unfortunately, Russia didn't.
Click to expand...
They didn't step in after Blair misled parliament on Iraq.
 
parmoboy said:
The word "misled" is key. Many people were misled, and plenty in this country supported the decision at the time.
Click to expand...
If thy are supposed to provide governance over the behaviour of the government......then they failed, they should have checked the provenance of the reports. They didn't, so they are inept at governance.
 
parmoboy said:
The word "misled" is key. Many people were misled, and many in this country supported the decision at the time.
Click to expand...
Of course people supported the decision, they were given information that wasn't true to persuade them the action was correct.

That's the perfect time for the head of state to step in if they were ever going to go against parliament, she didn't.
 
Geoff_B said:
Haha, brilliant, I haven't attempted to defend the value in a royal family, because I couldn't care less, as already stated, therefore have no interest in debating the pros and cons of one either.

I wouldn't want to waste my life getting so wound up by it, unlike yourself.

I just find it amusing how you in particular, along with others can not help themselves as soon as a royal thread appears, you must jump in and state your opinion, even when not wanted, like the Charles cancer thread.

Sun is shining outside, have a nice day :)
Click to expand...
You seem a tad upset though.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
Of course people supported the decision, they were given information that wasn't true to persuade them the action was correct.

That's the perfect time for the head of state to step in if they were ever going to go against parliament, she didn't.
Click to expand...
Was never going to happen. Both of the major parties supported it.
 
parmoboy said:
The monarch can exercise the royal prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet.

It's available in the conduct of the government, including foreign affairs, defence, and national security.
Click to expand...
Probably the more relevant is how the King and Queen before can get advanced reviews of legislation, so they can decide which bit should be changed if it impacts them too much.
 
BoroMart said:
If thy are supposed to provide governance over the behaviour of the government......then they failed, they should have checked the provenance of the reports. They didn't, so they are inept at governance.
Click to expand...
It wasn't just about the alleged WMD though was it.

The Iraq invasion was framed as being part of the 'War on Terror' after 9/11. We were told that the goal was to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism and free the Iraqi people.

Of course it was a mistake in hindsight but as I've said, many supported the decision at the time, and both of the major parties were also in favour.
 
parmoboy said:
It wasn't just about the alleged WMD though was it.

The Iraq invasion was framed as being part of the 'War on Terror' after 9/11. We were told that the goal was to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism and free the Iraqi people.

Of course it was a mistake in hindsight but as I've said, many supported the decision at the time, and both of the major parties were also in favour.
Click to expand...
And as I replied, basing their decision on lies told in parliament.
 
It is sometimes the government that exercises the Royal Prerogative itself, via an Order In Council, to carry something out that would otherwise be illegal (see Chagos Islands, 2000).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top