The Royals
Comments
-
-
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-other-institutions/parliament-crown/Crown
This is another way of referring to the monarchy - which is the oldest part of the system of government in this country. Time has reduced the power of the monarchy, and today it is broadly ceremonial. The current UK monarch is Queen Elizabeth II.
0 -
Rick, are you aware that once a week (I think on a Tuesday afternoon) the PM of the day and the Queen have a natter about 'affairs of State'?
Many former PMs have used the Queen as a sounding board, she afterall has vastly more experience of these things than any of her PMs. She can also take a view beyond the next election. Many have also said how useful those meetings have been.
You presumably are also aware that the Queen and senior Royals don't have a vote.
As others have said, of course they have influence, but so too do many, many others.1 -
So, Mrs Queen vs Rupert Murdoch. Who carries more say over the opinions of the G.B.Public?0
-
Yes many others do, so why the OTT state taking over advertising billboards, state broadcaster going weird?Dorset_Boy said:Rick, are you aware that once a week (I think on a Tuesday afternoon) the PM of the day and the Queen have a natter about 'affairs of State'?
Many former PMs have used the Queen as a sounding board, she afterall has vastly more experience of these things than any of her PMs. She can also take a view beyond the next election. Many have also said how useful those meetings have been.
You presumably are also aware that the Queen and senior Royals don't have a vote.
As others have said, of course they have influence, but so too do many, many others.
My point is they are not consequential - they are ceremonial - and so the state response should reflect that.
I am aware of the necessity for the PM to speak to the queen. I always thought it was fairly distasteful that it was mandatory - though I think a PM can find good reason not to. No reason for the PM not to seek advice from anyone, queen included.0 -
That sounds more like dictatorship than democratic.rick_chasey said:No reason for the PM not to seek advice from anyone, queen included.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yeah this is my point. It's nuts. He was in a ceremonial role (as per the official parliamentary website literature) so why is the state behaving like this?shirley_basso said:
It's ridiculous.
Lots of great people die, why is he different?0 -
They have influence and I think we all know that.
What Rick is getting at I think is that that influence should be limited to public opinion and exercised judiciously. They shouldn't have formal powers and their access to decision makers should not be a forum to influence policy.
We read stuff about is it "royal assent" ? which suggests they do have a bit more than a ceremonial function but I don't know how far that is true.
Edit - basically what Oraloon just posted[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I don't follow? I have no beef for leaders seeking advice from anyone. Taxi cab driver, mother, the queen. Whatever.pblakeney said:
That sounds more like dictatorship than democratic.rick_chasey said:No reason for the PM not to seek advice from anyone, queen included.
0 -
People's ability to mourn in different ways isn't limited to royals.
0 -
I agree. But is not what you posted earlier. Anyway, the Queen's influence is less detrimental to democracy than party whips.rick_chasey said:
I don't follow? I have no beef for leaders seeking advice from anyone. Taxi cab driver, mother, the queen. Whatever.pblakeney said:
That sounds more like dictatorship than democratic.rick_chasey said:No reason for the PM not to seek advice from anyone, queen included.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
Here's the Prince Philip one
0 -
Sounds like one of those unwritten rules whereby it is only ceremonial because they never put anything in front of her that she would reject.rick_chasey said:
Yes but they do not exert and discretion over what gets royal ascent and what doesn't. it is purely ceremonial. If it isn't, they'd be overthrown within a matter of weeks, as it would not be a democracy at that point.elbowloh said:All acts of parliament still require royal ascent.
Maybe they could test the waters by introducing a law that nobody can own more than one castle.0 -
Says the most prolific poster in the Coronavirus thread, who hasn't made a single post there in 5 days.rick_chasey said:
Yeah this is my point. It's nuts. He was in a ceremonial role (as per the official parliamentary website literature) so why is the state behaving like this?shirley_basso said:
It's ridiculous.
Lots of great people die, why is he different?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.2 -
Well, it has been a year dominated by very old men... first we learned all about Captain Tom, who raised millions by walking around a yard (not sure that compares favourably with Robert Marchand hour record for > 100 yo) and then we got to learn more about Philip the Greek...
If I was Attenborough, I'd be rubbing my testies*
* superstitious gesture in some countriesleft the forum March 20230 -
Lucky or not, the limits of the monarch's power and the sovereignty of Parliament were agreed 300-odd years ago. That still applies until Parliament passes some other Act to the contrary. The general public clearly aren't pushing hard for a change or we'd have seen it in a manifesto at a general election.rick_chasey said:
You keep saying this, but you don't give a proper answer.rjsterry said:
You can see it how you like, but it doesn't make it so.rick_chasey said:I see it like this - they are there by the consent of the population - above and beyond any hereditary rules. They are answerable to the general public, via the HoC.
If not, they should be abolished.
How is it not like that?
They're lucky they're there at all. This is a democracy.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Sorry, I didn't realise I had to keep a certain posting level up in one thread to have an opinion in another?blazing_saddles said:
Says the most prolific poster in the Coronavirus thread, who hasn't made a single post there in 5 days.rick_chasey said:
Yeah this is my point. It's nuts. He was in a ceremonial role (as per the official parliamentary website literature) so why is the state behaving like this?shirley_basso said:
It's ridiculous.
Lots of great people die, why is he different?0 -
This gets it bang on (the article is not so one sided as the tweet or headline suggests )0
-
100,000 complaints to the BBC0
-
100,000 complaints to the BBC. That's even more than have signed the Carlton petition.1
-
Yes, less waffle more mourning.ddraver said:Whether or not it will be made official before the angels take QE2 to heaven I don't know, but I have a feeling the 'protocol' will be in for a major re-write after this...
0 -
So all this and 100,000 complaints for... a day or two of lost telly* and some slightly OTT reactions from other organisations.rick_chasey said:This gets it bang on (the article is not so one sided as the tweet or headline suggests )
*assuming that the remote was broken and you couldn't just switch to C4 or any of the other free-to-air channels.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Everyone is very pleased and self righteous with that argument but it works equally well the other way too.
If you want to watch documentaries about him, you can use the unbroken remote to switch from BBC2 to BBC1 or any other bbc radio station to radio 4.
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Depressing so many people seem so outraged about their favourite tv or radio not being on for a couple of days.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono1 -
I think I've agreed the coverage was over the top. I just question whether it is anything worth getting upset about, or that it's anything more than the national broadcaster misjudging the tone.ddraver said:Everyone is very pleased and self righteous with that argument but it works equally well the other way too.
If you want to watch documentaries about him, you can use the unbroken remote to switch from BBC2 to BBC1 or any other bbc radio station to radio 4.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Plot by the revolutionary BBC controllers to annoy particularly younger sections of the population, alienate them against the royal establishment and in so doing promote the republican cause. Innit.0
-
It's what the BBC do.
Look at the amount of Coronavirus coverage there has been.
Have any of the other mainstream channels been covering the daily updates, often cancelling programmes in the process?
I find the amount of time they spend fawning over US news and promoting certain agendas particularly annoying, but I don't lose any sleep over it."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.1 -
An over the top reaction to an over the top reaction?rjsterry said:
I think I've agreed the coverage was over the top. I just question whether it is anything worth getting upset about, or that it's anything more than the national broadcaster misjudging the tone.ddraver said:Everyone is very pleased and self righteous with that argument but it works equally well the other way too.
If you want to watch documentaries about him, you can use the unbroken remote to switch from BBC2 to BBC1 or any other bbc radio station to radio 4.
1
