| 6th February 1952 17:41 - Feb 3 with 1919 views | britferry |
The death of King George VI and the ascension of Queen Elizabeth II
60 years was the Diamond jubilee, 70 years now will be Platinum.
All those years on the throne, an amazing innings, GSTQ
[Post edited 3 Feb 2022 19:45]
|  |
| |  |
| 6th February 1952 on 21:16 - Feb 4 with 750 views | Flynnidine_Zidownes |
| 6th February 1952 on 21:10 - Feb 4 by onehunglow |
Not all monarchies have been removed by revolution.
I would bin the House of Lords and scrap the "honours" system ,a we know it,starting with the grotesque Sir/Lady drivel. |
Well imagine a scenario where the monarchy is gone. We’ve got Blair vs Boris in a presidential election. One of those becomes head of state and gains the power to fire off executive orders all over the place. It’s terrifying. At least now the PM and government are limited largely by what Parliament allows them to do. | | | |
| 6th February 1952 on 21:32 - Feb 4 with 734 views | onehunglow |
| 6th February 1952 on 21:16 - Feb 4 by Flynnidine_Zidownes |
Well imagine a scenario where the monarchy is gone. We’ve got Blair vs Boris in a presidential election. One of those becomes head of state and gains the power to fire off executive orders all over the place. It’s terrifying. At least now the PM and government are limited largely by what Parliament allows them to do. |
On the other hand,we have a plethora of palaces with incumbents to keep.
It doesnt haver to be a Blair or Boris | |
| |
| 6th February 1952 on 21:46 - Feb 4 with 728 views | Flynnidine_Zidownes |
| 6th February 1952 on 21:32 - Feb 4 by onehunglow |
On the other hand,we have a plethora of palaces with incumbents to keep.
It doesnt haver to be a Blair or Boris |
It inevitably would be a Blair or a Boris. Look at the choice the Americans have to make every four years. | | | |
| 6th February 1952 on 08:15 - Feb 5 with 690 views | Kilkennyjack |
| 6th February 1952 on 21:46 - Feb 4 by Flynnidine_Zidownes |
It inevitably would be a Blair or a Boris. Look at the choice the Americans have to make every four years. |
Ireland has a poet.
The uk could have Ant or Dec. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| 6th February 1952 on 11:05 - Feb 5 with 670 views | 73__73 |
Time to abolish the royal family. Harry crying that he’d been cut off from his fathers money. Welcome to the real world, where the vast, vast majority of people in their 30’s have to get a proper job, and not rely on daddy | |
| |
| 6th February 1952 on 20:49 - Feb 5 with 658 views | Catullus |
| 6th February 1952 on 21:16 - Feb 4 by Flynnidine_Zidownes |
Well imagine a scenario where the monarchy is gone. We’ve got Blair vs Boris in a presidential election. One of those becomes head of state and gains the power to fire off executive orders all over the place. It’s terrifying. At least now the PM and government are limited largely by what Parliament allows them to do. |
Getting rid of the monarchy doesn't have to mean that, we can still have our parliamentary system and an honorary president who we elect but has no more powers than the Queen. | |
| |
| 6th February 1952 on 20:56 - Feb 5 with 654 views | onehunglow |
| 6th February 1952 on 20:49 - Feb 5 by Catullus |
Getting rid of the monarchy doesn't have to mean that, we can still have our parliamentary system and an honorary president who we elect but has no more powers than the Queen. |
But it would help to end class war and division which plagues us | |
| |
| 6th February 1952 on 22:01 - Feb 5 with 632 views | Kilkennyjack |
| 6th February 1952 on 20:49 - Feb 5 by Catullus |
Getting rid of the monarchy doesn't have to mean that, we can still have our parliamentary system and an honorary president who we elect but has no more powers than the Queen. |
We would we want to keep FPTP ?
Why keep the unelected House of Lords ?
I mean Boris Johnson has put Ian Botham in there to vote on our laws.
A joke.
Rip it all down and modernise.
No place for the royals after Brenda leaves us.
Might even stop the break up of UK ? | |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 6th February 1952 on 22:21 - Feb 5 with 627 views | pencoedjack |
All people in this great country of ours should be very proud of our queen.
Let’s all embrace the celebrations this year.
GSTQ |  | | |
| 6th February 1952 on 07:07 - Feb 6 with 590 views | 73__73 |
| 6th February 1952 on 22:21 - Feb 5 by pencoedjack |
All people in this great country of ours should be very proud of our queen.
Let’s all embrace the celebrations this year.
GSTQ |
Why should people be proud of the queen ?
I’m pro British, but don’t support the royals at all.
They live a privileged life, the best of everything, all at the taxpayers expense. | |
| |
| 6th February 1952 on 07:51 - Feb 6 with 574 views | Flynnidine_Zidownes |
| 6th February 1952 on 20:49 - Feb 5 by Catullus |
Getting rid of the monarchy doesn't have to mean that, we can still have our parliamentary system and an honorary president who we elect but has no more powers than the Queen. |
What would be the point though? Why go through an election process to select someone who can’t actually do anything? | | | |
| 6th February 1952 on 10:32 - Feb 6 with 556 views | Catullus |
| 6th February 1952 on 22:01 - Feb 5 by Kilkennyjack |
We would we want to keep FPTP ?
Why keep the unelected House of Lords ?
I mean Boris Johnson has put Ian Botham in there to vote on our laws.
A joke.
Rip it all down and modernise.
No place for the royals after Brenda leaves us.
Might even stop the break up of UK ? |
Who said keep FPTP? That's how we elect people.
Who said keep the Lords, we could have an elected upper chamber too.
I've said all this before, this country needs massive change or things won't improve. Apart from anything else we need a fully independent oversight body that can force changes in political rules, a body that could, for example, investigate Boris Johnson without fear or favour and announce their ruling openly. Bojo could already be toast under that system.
When you mention Botham, ever considered he could stand in an election and be there to vote on laws in a modernised system? When you look at some of the idiots we vote in, surely Botham would stand a chance? | |
| |
| 6th February 1952 on 10:39 - Feb 6 with 554 views | Catullus |
| 6th February 1952 on 07:51 - Feb 6 by Flynnidine_Zidownes |
What would be the point though? Why go through an election process to select someone who can’t actually do anything? |
Well a president could have the constitutional powers, just like the Queen. Unlike Monarchy though they would be the peoples choice and not forced on us by birthright. If Charles died tomorrow we could have gotten prince Andrew (I think they changed the rules and it'd be Anne now?) as King, what a shocking thought. if Andrew had died in the Falklands there's Edward.
Why should we have idiots foisted on us purely because they were born?
We could open up the palaces to tourism, keep the pomp and circumstance that so many tourists like to see and give the president an official residence, just one. | |
| |
| 6th February 1952 on 11:42 - Feb 6 with 542 views | Flynnidine_Zidownes |
| 6th February 1952 on 10:39 - Feb 6 by Catullus |
Well a president could have the constitutional powers, just like the Queen. Unlike Monarchy though they would be the peoples choice and not forced on us by birthright. If Charles died tomorrow we could have gotten prince Andrew (I think they changed the rules and it'd be Anne now?) as King, what a shocking thought. if Andrew had died in the Falklands there's Edward.
Why should we have idiots foisted on us purely because they were born?
We could open up the palaces to tourism, keep the pomp and circumstance that so many tourists like to see and give the president an official residence, just one. |
Exactly, it doesn’t matter if they are idiots because they cannot use their power. You could stick a monkey on the throne and just have him signing the bills off. A president would use the fact they are elected as a mandate to use their power. We see in America that the law can be changed immediately with the swipe of a pen. The only limiting factor is the constitution which we don’t have. A president would also have the power of veto over parliament.
It’s a dangerous road to go down really. We’d be essentially handing an individual virtually unlimited power. Whereas now the person holding that unlimited power can not and will not use it. The PM and government are limited by a lot of factors. We’ve seen even with a massive majority Johnson has faced huge opposition from his own side and has had to compromise on a lot of things.
I’m not a huge fan of the monarchy. I think the queen is exemplary in her duties but the rest of them seem like an absolute bunch of muppets. But it does and has played a vital constitutional role in this country, our system probably needs an overhaul in a lot of areas (too many safe seats, smaller parties often sidelined, cronyism, nepotism etc.) but it generally works well because the government is limited and often has to compromise. You wouldn’t get that with a partisan president. | | | |
| 6th February 1952 on 13:33 - Feb 6 with 536 views | CountyJim |
What an incredible woman long may she reign |  | | |
| 6th February 1952 on 16:38 - Feb 6 with 518 views | britferry |
The Queen has announced today that Camilla will become Queen Consort when Charles becomes king, I don't see why she decides, it would be down to the government of the day surely? | |
| |
| 6th February 1952 on 16:45 - Feb 6 with 517 views | Catullus |
| 6th February 1952 on 11:42 - Feb 6 by Flynnidine_Zidownes |
Exactly, it doesn’t matter if they are idiots because they cannot use their power. You could stick a monkey on the throne and just have him signing the bills off. A president would use the fact they are elected as a mandate to use their power. We see in America that the law can be changed immediately with the swipe of a pen. The only limiting factor is the constitution which we don’t have. A president would also have the power of veto over parliament.
It’s a dangerous road to go down really. We’d be essentially handing an individual virtually unlimited power. Whereas now the person holding that unlimited power can not and will not use it. The PM and government are limited by a lot of factors. We’ve seen even with a massive majority Johnson has faced huge opposition from his own side and has had to compromise on a lot of things.
I’m not a huge fan of the monarchy. I think the queen is exemplary in her duties but the rest of them seem like an absolute bunch of muppets. But it does and has played a vital constitutional role in this country, our system probably needs an overhaul in a lot of areas (too many safe seats, smaller parties often sidelined, cronyism, nepotism etc.) but it generally works well because the government is limited and often has to compromise. You wouldn’t get that with a partisan president. |
No mun, the president would have whatever powers the government decided before the vote. If we only decided to give the same powers as the Queen he couldn't do what Trump and Biden have done. He would be a constitutional head of state, not a law maker or law changer. Does the Queen have a veto over parliament?
We could have an official constitution then too. Something that governments had to obey and could maybe only be changed with a referendum?
No one has ever suggested we should have a USA style presidency. | |
| |
| 6th February 1952 on 17:06 - Feb 6 with 513 views | Flynnidine_Zidownes |
| 6th February 1952 on 16:45 - Feb 6 by Catullus |
No mun, the president would have whatever powers the government decided before the vote. If we only decided to give the same powers as the Queen he couldn't do what Trump and Biden have done. He would be a constitutional head of state, not a law maker or law changer. Does the Queen have a veto over parliament?
We could have an official constitution then too. Something that governments had to obey and could maybe only be changed with a referendum?
No one has ever suggested we should have a USA style presidency. |
Of course the queen has veto over parliament. She could refuse to sign any bill that hits her desk. She could dissolve parliament on a whim at any time day or night. She just doesn’t exercise her powers because it’s considered unconstitutional.
And what would be the point of an elected president who isn’t a law maker or a law changer? What would they campaign for during the election? “I pledge to do absolutely nothing except sign whatever comes across my desk with a flourish and I can do it better than my opponent. His handwriting is terrible.” | | | |
| 6th February 1952 on 20:56 - Feb 6 with 502 views | Catullus |
| 6th February 1952 on 17:06 - Feb 6 by Flynnidine_Zidownes |
Of course the queen has veto over parliament. She could refuse to sign any bill that hits her desk. She could dissolve parliament on a whim at any time day or night. She just doesn’t exercise her powers because it’s considered unconstitutional.
And what would be the point of an elected president who isn’t a law maker or a law changer? What would they campaign for during the election? “I pledge to do absolutely nothing except sign whatever comes across my desk with a flourish and I can do it better than my opponent. His handwriting is terrible.” |
The Queen cannot do what trump and Biden have done. The Queens powers are a hangover from days gone by but we could change that. Let the Royals walk away with what money they have, keep the ceremonial stuff for the tourists, we'd save tens of millions every year and lets face it, after the Queen, who else in that family do we want? | |
| |
| 6th February 1952 on 09:18 - Feb 7 with 465 views | Flynnidine_Zidownes |
| 6th February 1952 on 20:56 - Feb 6 by Catullus |
The Queen cannot do what trump and Biden have done. The Queens powers are a hangover from days gone by but we could change that. Let the Royals walk away with what money they have, keep the ceremonial stuff for the tourists, we'd save tens of millions every year and lets face it, after the Queen, who else in that family do we want? |
She can though. She has the same power the presidents do. If she wrote some legislation and signed it it would become law immediately. She’s also commander in chief and her whole family are admirals and commanders. She can even pardon criminals. Obviously it goes without saying this would cause uproar and lead to a constitutional crisis and would be challenged by the government but these powers are undoubtedly hers to use or not use at her discretion. This power is merely delegated to the ministers of her government.
Also, would we save millions a year? Is protecting a president really that much cheaper than protecting a monarch? Not sure how accurate this is but a quick Google search comes up with articles that suggests that the security for Obama alone was 1.5 billion a year. This doesn’t include travel or food etc. Don’t forget that presidents and their family get security for life too. | | | |
| 6th February 1952 on 10:06 - Feb 7 with 458 views | Catullus |
| 6th February 1952 on 09:18 - Feb 7 by Flynnidine_Zidownes |
She can though. She has the same power the presidents do. If she wrote some legislation and signed it it would become law immediately. She’s also commander in chief and her whole family are admirals and commanders. She can even pardon criminals. Obviously it goes without saying this would cause uproar and lead to a constitutional crisis and would be challenged by the government but these powers are undoubtedly hers to use or not use at her discretion. This power is merely delegated to the ministers of her government.
Also, would we save millions a year? Is protecting a president really that much cheaper than protecting a monarch? Not sure how accurate this is but a quick Google search comes up with articles that suggests that the security for Obama alone was 1.5 billion a year. This doesn’t include travel or food etc. Don’t forget that presidents and their family get security for life too. |
No Flynn, no,
https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/power-queen-elizabeth.htm#:
And again, it wouldn't be a USA style president with all that the POTUS has. POTUS is the head of government, over here it would still be the PM. Right now we protect all the major Royals AND the government, so yes, reducing to a president would save money because we wouldn't have the workforce, including security, at several venues/palaces. Our president wouldn't have a White House, just a nice house, he/she wouldn't have Airforce 1 and 2, he/she would be purely a figurehead voted in for a fixed term who does all the constitutional niceties the Monarch currently does but without the palaces, the massive staff and all that frippery.
The Palace could then be opened up for tourism and pay for themselves. The Queen could choose which one she'd like to keep, except Buck palace, I reckon she'd maybe like Sandringham or Balmoral and retire away quietly. Then we'd also lose all those Lords and ladies, do away with the honours system as it stands with hereditary heirs and have an elected upper chamber with smaller numbers and vastly smaller costs.
I just don't see, in a modern world, a place for monarchies or the continuation of an honours system that encourages class difference and snobbery. | |
| |
| 6th February 1952 on 13:51 - Feb 7 with 444 views | Flynnidine_Zidownes |
| 6th February 1952 on 10:06 - Feb 7 by Catullus |
No Flynn, no,
https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/power-queen-elizabeth.htm#:
And again, it wouldn't be a USA style president with all that the POTUS has. POTUS is the head of government, over here it would still be the PM. Right now we protect all the major Royals AND the government, so yes, reducing to a president would save money because we wouldn't have the workforce, including security, at several venues/palaces. Our president wouldn't have a White House, just a nice house, he/she wouldn't have Airforce 1 and 2, he/she would be purely a figurehead voted in for a fixed term who does all the constitutional niceties the Monarch currently does but without the palaces, the massive staff and all that frippery.
The Palace could then be opened up for tourism and pay for themselves. The Queen could choose which one she'd like to keep, except Buck palace, I reckon she'd maybe like Sandringham or Balmoral and retire away quietly. Then we'd also lose all those Lords and ladies, do away with the honours system as it stands with hereditary heirs and have an elected upper chamber with smaller numbers and vastly smaller costs.
I just don't see, in a modern world, a place for monarchies or the continuation of an honours system that encourages class difference and snobbery. |
That link pretty much confirms everything I’ve said. The powers lie with her but she chooses not to use them because convention dictates she doesn’t. They then get delegated to her ministers. The point is she could use them if she wanted to, but that would probably result in the end of the monarchy if she did. | | | |
| 6th February 1952 on 17:05 - Feb 7 with 428 views | Catullus |
| 6th February 1952 on 13:51 - Feb 7 by Flynnidine_Zidownes |
That link pretty much confirms everything I’ve said. The powers lie with her but she chooses not to use them because convention dictates she doesn’t. They then get delegated to her ministers. The point is she could use them if she wanted to, but that would probably result in the end of the monarchy if she did. |
It doesn't confirm what you said, your last line says it all. She can't use any powers because it will end the monarchy.
There would have to be a national uprising urging her to do it for them to survive and that might not be a bad thing, given the governments we get, the politicians we have! | |
| |
| 6th February 1952 on 17:57 - Feb 7 with 420 views | jack_lord |
| 6th February 1952 on 13:51 - Feb 7 by Flynnidine_Zidownes |
That link pretty much confirms everything I’ve said. The powers lie with her but she chooses not to use them because convention dictates she doesn’t. They then get delegated to her ministers. The point is she could use them if she wanted to, but that would probably result in the end of the monarchy if she did. |
If the queen exercised her historic power then there would be a constitutional crisis. The last monarch to refuse royal assent was queen Anne in the 1700's. Charles and the Queen have veto'd a number of times apparently.
This stuff is helpful on the situation.
1. Extent of Consent: As a right to veto, the Queen’s Consent or Prince’s Consent only applies to legislation that might affect the royal prerogative or the interests of the Queen or the Prince of Wales.
Prerogative here refers to the executive powers which were not legally assumed by parliament in the past. They include certain customary powers that are exercised by the sovereign, but also–importantly–powers that are exercised on behalf of the sovereign by her ministers. What ultimately falls within the royal prerogative or outside of it is determined only by the Courts.
Interests here refers to the financial interests mostly; typically the interests related to hereditary income from the Duchy of Lancaster (for the Queen’s private use) and the Duchy of Cornwall (for the Duke of Cornwall a.k.a. Prince of Wales’ private use), any private property holdings held by the Queen (e.g., Balmoral, Sandringham and their other private estates).
The Queen (or the Prince) can only exercise veto to prevent discussion and debate on bills that might reasonably affect these interests. Bills which would have a material affect of reasonable proportions directly on the above two matters must be sent by the relevant minister to the Queen/Prince with reasonable time to ensure they can seek appropriate advice and decide.
So there is no automatic, constitutional veto of all legislation in the way that the US President has according to the written US constitution.
2. Uses of the Consent Rule: The consent rule has been used by British governments for their own purposes. For example, a private member in 1999 introduced a bill titled ‘Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill’ which sought to make sure that if a British government was seriously considering military intervention in Iraq, that it could not proceed unless parliament debated and voted in support of that action. This was contrary to the desires of the British Prime Minister and the Cabinet, who would prefer to have the right to take military action swiftly (or, probably, to prevent it from becoming a political issue and a public debate). So they arranged for the Queen to veto consent to that bill on the basis that it would affect the Queen’s prerogative powers (to engage in military action–exercised obviously only by ministers in her name).
This is actually a really nice example of the way in which PM, Cabinet and the Ministry are sort of ‘at odds’ with parliament, even though they are drawn from parliament. These sorts of disagreements replicate the original issues between the sovereign and parliament, and the attempts by the parliaments variously to curtail sovereign power. As executive power is now exercised by ministers, it continues to seek to maintain it through prerogative power, while parliament continues to seek to reduce it by legislation.
3. Difference from Royal Assent: Royal assent is the final stage of a British (or commonwealth realm’s) parliament’s legislation, giving formal approval to that legislation. This is different from consent which vetos the right to debate the bill. The sovereign can only either (i) give assent, so that a bill becomes legislation; (ii) delay assent in special circumstances to prevent crisis or disaster; (iii) refuse assent, but only on the advice of her ministers. This is obviously unlikely, because most ministries will be of the same party which has a majority in parliament, so only bills which they agree with are likely to have been passed.
A backbench revolution among the party that has a majority in parliament is possible in which case the ministers may advise the Queen to withhold assent. This scenario, however, is also extremely unlikely as the unhappy backbench will less likely express their revolution through legislation that is diagreed with by the ministry; more likely they will simply vote out the PM in favour of one who represents their interests. |  |
| |
| 6th February 1952 on 18:07 - Feb 7 with 419 views | felixstowe_jack |
| 6th February 1952 on 22:01 - Feb 5 by Kilkennyjack |
We would we want to keep FPTP ?
Why keep the unelected House of Lords ?
I mean Boris Johnson has put Ian Botham in there to vote on our laws.
A joke.
Rip it all down and modernise.
No place for the royals after Brenda leaves us.
Might even stop the break up of UK ? |
Labour flooded the Lords under Blair and Brown to give themselves a large majority.
Time to make the Lords democratic with no more than 300 members and preferably 200. They could be elected under some sort of promotional representation so no party has a majority. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
