Who will be crying out in chorus an allegiance to the king?

Norman_Conquest said:
Far from it, I was just wondering who they asked or who answers these polls. Although it sounds ironic as I'm discussing this with you on a football message board when I could and should be doing something better, I couldn't see myself wasting my time completing a poll regarding if we should become a Republican. ;)

It will happen but we won't see it.
Click to expand...
it will happen, and not before time. Whose vagina you fell out of at birth isn’t a meritorious system of dishing out power and influence
 
It's going to be a strange week for the country. On Thursday there's local elections where the party of Government has been actively discouraging and making it more difficult for voters from demographics unlikely to vote for the status quo to actually register their vote.

And then on Saturday an entire country is being brought to a halt with a request to pledge allegiance to a King no-one has been asked if they actually want to have.

No amount of Union Jack bunting can cover up the fact of how lost this country has become in the past 20 years.
 
BoroMart said:
Kinda misses a few key points. This is about the power and wealth in this country and how they expect to be treated as above the rest of us
Click to expand...
Oh I didn’t misunderstand what some people are meaning, but the monarchy does not have the power it once had. It is largely ceremonial these days (much to some, like Andrews annoyance). They enjoy wealth gained from ancestral powers that belong in the past and have no place in a modern world. Their roles nowadays imho are largely as government orchestrated puppets. They bring wealth to the economy and receive a cut from it. They operate in a world that means nothing to me, they enjoy grandeur, fine wines, lavish accommodation, meet powerful people as sweeteners for the government of the day. They can’t enjoy the privileges of normal daily life though like I can. I wouldn’t swap my life for their goldfish bowl and so called privileges.

I have no doubt public money spent will have been reviewed on a cost benefit analysis by politicians. I’d gamble that in a referendum, more would keep them than vote in a republic where a Boris Johnson could be supreme leader. At least we have some balance checks built in, but I’d keep them in a slimmed down way (Charles seems to be doing that tbf) and channel my vote toward a PR Govt. system than toward a republic giving more power and control to say a single Presidential style Johnson, Truss or Corbyn type.

Anyway, I appreciate there are all various options as to what could be done, just like there were with Brexit, but it is never the people that choose the replacement very often, it is usually those in power at the time and as such, change can be for the worse despite the will of the people and how they think things will be.
 
coluka said:
Oh I didn’t misunderstand what some people are meaning, but the monarchy does not have the power it once had.
Click to expand...
It does have power though. It has the power to see every bill before it goes to parliament and modify or block it , it has the power to call the pm to them once a week to inform them of anything and everything, it has the power to access state secret information as part of the privy council, it has power to avoid any attempt to hold them to account by removing itself from freedom of information laws, the true power of the aristocracy is likely far more than we actually know, otherwise they wouldn’t utilise their power to hide it
 
Last edited:
BoroMart said:
it will happen, and not before time. Whose vagina you fell out of at birth isn’t a meritorious system of dishing out power and influence
Click to expand...
It helps in all walks of life though and people can and do take advantage of their luck handed from birth when it happens. We are all part of the lottery of birth, we can all largely be grateful for being born, some use whatever advantage they can gain for personal privilege over their close cohorts, just to varying degrees of success whether through meritorious hard work, luck or by manipulation of others, or indeed terrible choices. Life is a large game of snakes and ladders and when we roll that dice, we hope for a ladder, but there are snakes a plenty.

I am sure your lineage has initially given you advantages over say that of other fellow Brits, mine has in some ways, but not in others, like most of us. Hard work and effort gets you so far, but every avenue you go down in life doesn’t always create opportunity, it can be a cul-de-sac too. The cream doesn’t always rise to the top, sometimes it curdles, thats why I don’t get jealous too much of others, nor do i gloat at the less fortunate, I doubt there will be a republic in my lifetime or that of my kids, I hope not anyway as change isn’t always for the better as the last decade has proved, be careful what you wish and vote for as what develops may not always be for the better.
 
BoroMart said:
It does have power though. It has the power to see every bill before it goes to parliament and modify or block it , it has the power to call the pm to them once a week to inform them of anything and everything, it has the power to access state secret information as part of the privy council, it has power to avoid any attempt to hold them to account by removing itself from freedom of information laws, the true power of the aristocracy is likely far more than we actually know, otherwise they wouldn’t utilise their power to hide it
Click to expand...
It is ceremonial power, how often is it exercised in reality? How would you know what the true power is if you dont know it?
 
NYboro said:
It was published fairly recently.
Click to expand...
Copied from Internet…..
The most important prerogatives still personally exercised by the Sovereign are the choice of whom to appoint Prime Minister, and whether to grant dissolution of Parliament on the request of the Prime Minister. The most recent occasion the monarch has had to exercise these powers were in February 1974, when Prime Minister Edward Heath resigned after failing to secure an overall majority in Parliament. Queen Elizabeth II appointed Harold Wilson, leader of the Labour Party, as Prime Minister, exercising her prerogative after extensive consultation with the Privy Council. The Labour Party had the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, but not an overall majority (Constitution of the United Kingdom-Wikipedia).
Royal Assent is the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1708, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality.

So when has the Monarchy in recent times used or abused its ‘power‘ over the government of the day, other than in the ceremonial way? If it has can someone post the details, I am genuinely keen to learn what it was.
 
coluka said:
Copied from Internet…..
The most important prerogatives still personally exercised by the Sovereign are the choice of whom to appoint Prime Minister, and whether to grant dissolution of Parliament on the request of the Prime Minister. The most recent occasion the monarch has had to exercise these powers were in February 1974, when Prime Minister Edward Heath resigned after failing to secure an overall majority in Parliament. Queen Elizabeth II appointed Harold Wilson, leader of the Labour Party, as Prime Minister, exercising her prerogative after extensive consultation with the Privy Council. The Labour Party had the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, but not an overall majority (Constitution of the United Kingdom-Wikipedia).
Royal Assent is the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1708, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality.
Click to expand...
That seems to ignore the bills that the Windsors have had dropped, because they would have affected them. Probably in The Guardian, but I can't be bothered to search for it.
 
NYboro said:
That seems to ignore the bills that the Windsors have had dropped, because they would have affected them. Probably in The Guardian, but I can't be bothered to search for it.
Click to expand...
The opt out when inheritance tax was being reformed in the 90s was a massive cost to the country that they got because they had access to the bill before it became law
 
NYboro said:
That seems to ignore the bills that the Windsors have had dropped, because they would have affected them. Probably in The Guardian, but I can't be bothered to search for it.
Click to expand...
I’m aware the monarchy always vet new bills before exercising their ceremonial consent, it makes sense given they are required to give Royal Assent, but has Royal Assent been refused in modern times?

As far as I can see, the last bill that was refused assent by the Sovereign was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708. Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice advises "...and from that sanction they cannot be legally withheld", meaning that bills must be sent for royal assent, not that it must be given.
 
junos_boots said:
The opt out when inheritance tax was being reformed in the 90s was a massive cost to the country that they got because they had access to the bill before it became law
Click to expand...
That was an agreement made by John Majors Government, for whatever reason, the government chose to do that, I seriously doubt the monarch made them do it. I accept the reasons should be made public and why to avoid a guessing game, the effect is significant, but that surely rests more on Majors conscience as to why?
 
coluka said:
I’m aware the monarchy always vet new bills before exercising their ceremonial consent, it makes sense given they are required to give Royal Assent, but has Royal Assent been refused in modern times?

As far as I can see, the last bill that was refused assent by the Sovereign was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708. Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice advises "...and from that sanction they cannot be legally withheld", meaning that bills must be sent for royal assent, not that it must be given.
Click to expand...
Not refused per se, but pressure put on to have them amended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top