Our monarchy is powerless and would remain that way under King Charles

Started by snokitty, February 05, 2015, 10:33:38 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

snokitty

February 05, 2015, 10:33:38 AM
Our monarchy is powerless and would remain that way under King Charles | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian
Quote
Whenever an American asks me how Britons can tolerate being "subjects" of a hereditary head of state, I give an unsatisfactory reply. I say we are not subjects, and anyway it doesn't really matter: other things are more important.

America's obsession with British royalty took another turn this week with a book by the Time magazine journalist Catherine Mayer. In the published extracts she depicts Buckingham Palace and Clarence House as being at war, with feuding courtiers, dejected aides and dark constitutional menace should Charles III ascend the throne. Mayer even conjures up images of a constitutional coup.

This is rubbish. The book is in reality mildly sympathetic to the Prince of Wales, if not to Prince Philip. The truth is that since the royals sorted out their emotional woes a decade ago, gossip has gone hungry. The Queen, a sprightly 88, continues as ever. Charles seems happier in his skin than for a long time. Prince Andrew has his troubles, but new heirs keep appearing. The monarchy is as popular as ever, with a steady 70% to 75% of the population in favour of its continuance.
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too"      Voltaire

I can see humor in most things & I would rather laugh than cry.    Snokitty

Limabeany

#1
February 05, 2015, 03:35:27 PM
Not subjects? Someone's in denial.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

x-Goody2Shoes-x

#2
February 05, 2015, 06:07:02 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on February 05, 2015, 03:35:27 PM
Not subjects? Someone's in denial.

I kind of understand how they feel, in that the Royal Family is essentially powerless in the UK, and a lot of the British Public don't really see them, or know about them unless they follow them closely.
"But as the years went on, I realised that all I really want to be, all told, is a human. Just a productive, honest, courteously treated human. One of 'The Guys'. But with REALLY amazing hair."

Limabeany

#3
February 05, 2015, 06:33:30 PM
True @x-Goody2Shoes-x  They are above the law, cannot be discussed in chambers of government, and basically can do whatever they want, but as they cut ribbons and shake hands to most people they seem harmless and decorative.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

snokitty

#4
February 06, 2015, 07:50:01 AM
^ Very true Ladies. It also keeps people from questioning how they spend tax money or if it should even be used on this family.
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too"      Voltaire

I can see humor in most things & I would rather laugh than cry.    Snokitty

amabel

#5
February 06, 2015, 05:40:11 PM
Quote from: x-Goody2Shoes-x on February 05, 2015, 06:07:02 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on February 05, 2015, 03:35:27 PM
Not subjects? Someone's in denial.

I kind of understand how they feel, in that the Royal Family is essentially powerless in the UK, and a lot of the British Public don't really see them, or know about them unless they follow them closely.
Much of the public are indifferent to them.  and yes they have a little influence but no power... like other constitutional monarchies

TLLK

#6
February 06, 2015, 05:44:40 PM
^^^Very true amabel. It is a constitutional monarchy with the power belonging to the government which was elected by the citizens.

amabel

#7
February 06, 2015, 05:46:29 PM
and that's the way it should be. I Do think that Charles pushes a bit and is in the wrong for that, but I can't see him ruining his short life as King by doing it more than a very little...William wotn, because IMO he doesn't have any issues that he cares that deeply about....

snokitty

#8
February 07, 2015, 10:51:22 AM
Charles?s real power is that of access and secrecy | Letters | UK news | The Guardian
Quote
Simon Jenkins is simply wrong to claim that Charles is harmless and powerless (Our monarchy is powerless and would remain that way under King Charles, 5 February). The royals have power and influence and seek to exercise it at every opportunity. It may not be in the form of formal constitutional power – most of that these days is exercised by the prime minister (another problem with the monarchy). The power the royals have is that of access and secrecy, the opportunity to influence behind closed doors and beyond any meaningful public scrutiny.

This influence is greatly enhanced by the existence of royal consent, a veto on new laws that Charles and the Queen can exercise if such laws affect their personal and private interest. So it is no surprise that a host of laws give privileged exemptions to the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. It is no surprise that royal secrecy and royal funding laws have been changed in recent years to the detriment of the public interest. It is because the royals have the power and opportunity to influence government policy.
Graham Smith
Chief executive officer, Republic
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too"      Voltaire

I can see humor in most things & I would rather laugh than cry.    Snokitty

Limabeany

#9
February 07, 2015, 11:46:51 AM Last Edit: February 07, 2015, 11:59:31 AM by Limabeany
Excellent article @snokitty

Quote
The power the royals have is that of access and secrecy, the opportunity to influence behind closed doors and beyond any meaningful public scrutiny.

This influence is greatly enhanced by the existence of royal consent, a veto on new laws that Charles and the Queen can exercise if such laws affect their personal and private interest. So it is no surprise that a host of laws give privileged exemptions to the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. It is no surprise that royal secrecy and royal funding laws have been changed in recent years to the detriment of the public interest. It is because the royals have the power and opportunity to influence government policy.

This old article is regarding the "harmless monarchy" myth.

Letters: The royal veto has no place in a democracy | UK news | The Guardian

Quote

That the royal family has power to subvert the parliamentary democratic process in such areas as military authority and civil partnership is, to say the least, surprising. That they also have direct influence over "laws affecting hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall" is surely relevant to the debate over tax evasion, tax avoidance, and now, bankers' bonuses deferred to reduce tax.

Less serious, but still breathtaking, is the fact that the two royals appear, as landowners, to have been able to entirely dictate the rules covering their own, enormous, landholdings. The need for a written constitution, transparently implemented, has never been clearer.

A court order has exposed the lie that the Queen's powers are purely ceremonial, can we now expect the Queen to receive the same criticism and vilification Tony Blair has had over the invasion of Iraq?

After all, she was the unelected monarch who used her royal prerogative to block Tam Dalyell's bill, which attempted to transfer power from the monarch to parliament for military action. Her refusal to grant consent for this bill to be debated in 1999 surely makes the Queen equally as guilty as Blair et al in unleashing the bloodshed that followed this insane enterprise?

Can we now expect to see her answering questions before a parliamentary committee to justify her part in the invasion of Iraq? Or will her supporters still lay claim to the lie her role was ceremonial? Her decision had a direct impact for the untold thousands of deaths that followed, and justice must extend even to a monarch. Or are some people more equal than others?
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

KaTerina Montague

#10
February 08, 2015, 07:51:23 PM
Quote from: amabel on February 06, 2015, 05:46:29 PM
...William wotn, because IMO he doesn't have any issues that he cares that deeply about....

Is that good or sad, or both?

amabel

#11
February 08, 2015, 08:05:00 PM
Honestly I don't care either way.  its the way he is.. no point expecting him to be different.

SophieChloe

#12
February 08, 2015, 08:45:23 PM
IMO that is a cop-out. Charlie boy should keep his mouth schtum.  If he continues to refuse to do so then - perhaps it is time to dissolve this nonsense of the fanny  lottery?
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions