RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do?

RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

eulero83 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 10:39:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 common law is the kind of law system used in uk and us and some other former colonies where the judge must apply the law of the land so what's common in that nation/state/county/city this means that the main source is former decisions by juries and judges, in civil law regime a judge must apply the law that was produced by the parlament and written in the books, and with the interpretation of the supreme court. Italy right? So you are solely statutory? What is the organic basis for your statutes? In america common law is presumed to be the basis for all statutes. quote: using the costitution as example under civil law if it's not written and specified no judge could even exist. yes it has to be positive law here too. in america we pay attorneys [representatives] to pass legislation based on their best paying customers [plutocratic-oligarchs] to help them set up their corporate monopolies of profit and convenience. the basis is the roman law, that was also statuatory and was very complete by the way. but maybe the main difference is we don't need a jury in a trial, for what I understood in the usa a judge decide if a proof is ammissible by what the law prescribes than a jury of common people decide if it's enough to prove the guilt, in italy the law prescribes both if it's ammissible and if it's valid to determinate guilt than a bunch of judges deliberates about it and our supreme court can overturn this judice if the law was not applied correctly or missinterpreted, that's what happened in amanda knox's trial for example.

Politesub53 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 11:47:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/HowtheMonarchyworks/HowtheMonarchyworks.aspx I suppose you believe that propaganda? That story is as good as "freedom" in america the police state. In theory, a great deal. In practice, very little. In theory, the Parliament meets at the Queen's behest, and pass all bills in her name. She can veto legislation, if she chooses, or even dismiss Parliament. But if she actually tried it, the Parliament would rebel and she'd find the unwritten Constitution of the United Kingdom written down, and she wouldn't be in it any more. [real not americanized common law] The Prime Minister reports to her, and in theory she appoints him. In practice he (or she) is named by the winning party, though on very rare occasions there is no winning party and she actually gets to pick somebody. (It actually happened in the 70s). There's a similar situation in the House of Lords. These days, most of the Lords are appointed as life peers by the Queen, though in practice they're recommended by the Prime Minister. There, too, they theoretically have great power, and they do occasionally wield it to reject bills from the House of Commons. They're like a combination of Senate and Supreme Court. But somehow, they've avoided making it a partisan mess like it is in the US. Partly, it's because the Queen has some input, and helps to keep things fair rather than letting a Prime Minister pack it with cronies. Again theoretically, the Queen owns a lot of stuff used by the government (like, say, battleships. They're not kidding when they say Her Majesty's Ship). In practice... well, if they had to disband the monarchy, there would be some very ugly accounting to do. She is extremely rich, and a good deal of land in the country really does belong to her family. So overall, she wields little power on a daily basis, but she helps to keep the country stable. If an inept monarch were to take the throne it would do very little; the Parliament basically runs the country. Unless that monarch tried to actually wield some power, and then very bad things would happen. I don't THINK anybody would get their heads chopped off this time. http://askville.amazon.com/power-British-Monarchy/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=3463341 Sources: Years of history study See that^^^^^^^^^^^^that is the only way you will ever know. Queens and kings dont like getting their heads chopped off they have both the power and resources to abolish the government they created. Of course as the above person said it would not be pretty. The most beneficial thing that could happen for the average joe in this world would be the complete abrogation of the "root" interests of the peer system but only if it also applied to their living dead perpetual creations as well, otherwise a complete waste. The problem with the UK is much of this is based in "unwritten law" and anyone embarking discovering what the op is talking about is in for a lot of hard fucking work, including those who live there. The queen also has the authority to sell her interest in lands to anyone she pleases, the same lands that UKers think belong to them because they are the "owner", same as the US is set up. No she cant, thats just more bullshit...... Didnt you read any of Zeppos posts ? Your blatherings on the topic are seriously deluded.

Politesub53 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 11:49:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I suppose you believe that propaganda? That story is as good as "freedom" in america the police state. In theory, a great deal. In practice, very little. In theory, the Parliament meets at the Queen's behest, and pass all bills in her name. She can veto legislation, if she chooses, or even dismiss Parliament. But if she actually tried it, the Parliament would rebel and she'd find the unwritten Constitution of the United Kingdom written down, and she wouldn't be in it any more. [real not americanized common law] The Prime Minister reports to her, and in theory she appoints him. In practice he (or she) is named by the winning party, though on very rare occasions there is no winning party and she actually gets to pick somebody. (It actually happened in the 70s). There's a similar situation in the House of Lords. These days, most of the Lords are appointed as life peers by the Queen, though in practice they're recommended by the Prime Minister. There, too, they theoretically have great power, and they do occasionally wield it to reject bills from the House of Commons. They're like a combination of Senate and Supreme Court. But somehow, they've avoided making it a partisan mess like it is in the US. Partly, it's because the Queen has some input, and helps to keep things fair rather than letting a Prime Minister pack it with cronies. Again theoretically, the Queen owns a lot of stuff used by the government (like, say, battleships. They're not kidding when they say Her Majesty's Ship). In practice... well, if they had to disband the monarchy, there would be some very ugly accounting to do. She is extremely rich, and a good deal of land in the country really does belong to her family. So overall, she wields little power on a daily basis, but she helps to keep the country stable. If an inept monarch were to take the throne it would do very little; the Parliament basically runs the country. Unless that monarch tried to actually wield some power, and then very bad things would happen. I don't THINK anybody would get their heads chopped off this time. http://askville.amazon.com/power-British-Monarchy/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=3463341 Sources: Years of history study See that^^^^^^^^^^^^that is the only way you will ever know. Queens and kings dont like getting their heads chopped off they have both the power and resources to abolish the government they created. Of course as the above person said it would not be pretty. The most beneficial thing that could happen for the average joe in this world would be the complete abrogation of the "root" interests of the peer system but only if it also applied to their living dead perpetual creations as well, otherwise a complete waste. The problem with the UK is much of this is based in "unwritten law" and anyone embarking discovering what the op is talking about is in for a lot of hard fucking work, including those who live there. The queen also has the authority to sell her interest in lands to anyone she pleases, the same lands that UKers think belong to them because they are the "owner", same as the US is set up. No she cant, thats just more bullshit...... Didnt you read any of Zeppos posts ? Your blatherings on the topic are seriously deluded. Edited to fix quote.

Politesub53 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 11:55:37 AM)
A view on the cost of the Royals, and from the States at that. Those who want to abolish the monarchy forget how much tourism etc is attracted to the UK due to the Royals. The also forget that the upkeep of a President doesnt come any cheaper either. opps.....edits to add the link. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/

NotTellingUAgain -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 11:55:51 AM)
She's a QUEEN and that's a pretty big deal... I'm sure she could care less about what the "common folk" are doing or laws they are passing.

Real0ne -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 12:01:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 No she cant, thats just more bullshit...... Didnt you read any of Zeppos posts ? Your blatherings on the topic are seriously deluded. yeh and I countered in spades. Didnt you notice? Feel free to quote the queens/crowns explicit relinquishing of their right. that does not mean a mob declaration, and not that I believe for a new york second that you understand the core elements of what I am talking about, basically it means an official [insert label here] divestiture of right and interest from the moarch.

Real0ne -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 12:28:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 A view on the cost of the Royals, and from the States at that. Those who want to abolish the monarchy forget how much tourism etc is attracted to the UK due to the Royals. The also forget that the upkeep of a President doesnt come any cheaper either. opps.....edits to add the link. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/ yeh like the owners of the huge banking cabal having umpteen sources of cash stashed away in private trusts that no one is privy to review they have the gall to tax people and nations into oblivion in support of their perpetual pyramid scam that is far to complicated for the average floor scrubber to unravel. If those trusts the aristocracies and banksters, were ever dispersed the whole world could go on a 10 year vacation. Last time I checked the government does not pay the people taxes! The queen in her magnificent glory [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/192-1013151635-queen_angry1.jpg[/image] The corporate structure in practice and the flow of money [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/tumblr_m5x8dvmKns1qkwdrko1_500.jpg[/image] Long story short [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/welcometothedesertofthereal1copy.jpg[/image]

tj444 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 12:31:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 what, exactly is the responsibilities of the Royal Family? to be good worldwide PR & economic stimulation for the country (& countries they visit).. I heard that the new baby was generating an amazing amount of bubbly consumption... and now that the baby's name is known.. tons of baby commemorative mugs and stuff will be sold, and all that.. oh,.. and dont forget all the money the bookies made! [;)] When Diana was alive, as much as people did love her & how she made the Royals less stuffy.. there was a lot of other shite going on with the other Royals that imo made them all go out of favor (favour).. Prince William and Kate are imo responsible for the resurgence, for bringing dignity back to the Royal reputation.. and the fact that they do really look like they are head-over-heels in love with each other.. Seriously, who can resist a fairytale that has come true???

dcnovice -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 12:41:40 PM)
quote: The queen in her magnificent glory This is more like it: [image]http://savvyseniorswork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/queen_elizabeth_ii1-212x300.jpg[/image]

Real0ne -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 12:46:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: The queen in her magnificent glory This is more like it: [image]http://savvyseniorswork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/queen_elizabeth_ii1-212x300.jpg[/image] nice fantasy This is reality ANTI UP BITCH [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/invincibleplane067.gif[/image] here is a quick history lesson: *The queen is just a figurehead* huh?** that is what they really do. The Full version of the British National Anthem 1. God save our gracious Queen, Long live our noble Queen, God save the Queen! Send her victorious, Happy and glorious, Long to reign over us; God save the Queen! 2. O Lord our God arise, Scatter her enemies And make them fall; Confound their politics, Frustrate their knavish tricks, On Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all! 3. Thy choicest gifts in store On her be pleased to pour; Long may she reign; May she defend our laws, And ever give us cause To sing with heart and voice, God save the Queen! 4. Not in this land alone, But be God's mercies known, From shore to shore! Lord make the nations see, That men should brothers be, And form one family, The wide world over. [yeh their family, other cultures notwithstanding!] 5. From every latent foe, From the assassins blow, God save the Queen! O'er her thine arm extend, For Britain's sake defend, Our mother, prince, and friend, God save the Queen! "Confound their politics" "And form one family" Did a great job of that and its all sung to the same identical medley as the star spangled banner! only "1" us president was not part of the british peerage!

Real0ne -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 2:27:50 PM)
correction the US my country tis of thee OOOPSIE brit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwtgawVyd1E us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xZTjbQpdCI same shit, whos yer mama! lizzie of course! lets not forget the illustration on mass social programming.

PeonForHer -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 2:53:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 A view on the cost of the Royals, and from the States at that. Those who want to abolish the monarchy forget how much tourism etc is attracted to the UK due to the Royals. The also forget that the upkeep of a President doesnt come any cheaper either. opps.....edits to add the link. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/ Oh gawd, PS, not the tourism argument again! The subheading of the article to which you've linked is "The monarchy appears to bring in as much in tourist revenue as they cost, at least in years with familial events like births. " So, in other words, they break even in terms of cost and benefit from tourism when there's a big royal event, like the marriage of Kate and William, but questionable otherwise. But in other news: " Even if there were a small minority who came to Britain for the monarchy - a minority no doubt outweighed by the extra tourists who would come to see a fully accessible palace - such tourism only benefits central London. The monarchy can do little for tourism in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions. As we've said, Buckingham palace doesn't make it into the top 20 of tourist destinations. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes the grade, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). It has been estimated that royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. " (http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Tourism/index.php) The Palace of Versailles gets way more visitors than does Buck House, even though it's way outside the centre of Paris and France is now a republic. If you were to say 'Having once had a monarchy is good for tourism' you might be onto something.

Politesub53 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 4:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 No she cant, thats just more bullshit...... Didnt you read any of Zeppos posts ? Your blatherings on the topic are seriously deluded. yeh and I countered in spades. Didnt you notice? Feel free to quote the queens/crowns explicit relinquishing of their right. that does not mean a mob declaration, and not that I believe for a new york second that you understand the core elements of what I am talking about, basically it means an official [insert label here] divestiture of right and interest from the moarch. No, I didnt notice anything relevant except in your own mind. Youre boring me alredy with the suggestion Parliament is mob mentality and therefore not legaly able to make laws.

Politesub53 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 4:39:20 PM)
Peon, the figures dont lie. You republicans would gain more from abolishing our EU contributions. [;)]

PeonForHer -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 4:51:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Peon, the figures dont lie. You republicans would gain more from abolishing our EU contributions. [;)] I always thought you weren't the type to buy into 'isms', PS. So why make an exception for monarchism? Jeez. Too much ideology out there, waiting to snap people up . . . .

Politesub53 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 4:55:33 PM)
You including republicanism in that too Peon ?

Politesub53 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 5:02:03 PM)
http://www.visitbritain.org/mediaroom/archive/archive2010/monarchy500million.aspx Kind of offsets the £33 million

PeonForHer -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 5:18:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 You including republicanism in that too Peon ? Indeedies. But the thing about republicans is that they generally know that they've bought into an ideology. Monarchists typically don't, from what I've seen. They tend to think they just hold to the 'normal', 'natural', 'middle of the road' . . . . Strange. But there's no more effective ideology than one whose adherents think it's normal, natural and middle of the road. Really, PS. How reasonable is it that our future titular head of state will only be in that position because he's the son of the one before? It's monumentally stupid. And embarrassing.

dcnovice -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 5:28:13 PM)
FR Obviously, it's up to our UK friends to decide whether to retire the monarchy or not. My perspective as an outsider (admittedly one besotted by grandes dames in fabulous hats) is that royalty lends the UK a mystique and cachet it might not have otherwise.

popeye1250 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 5:52:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: Confidence in British monarchy at all-time high: UK poll Confidence in the future of the British monarchy is at an all-time high, as the majority of the people in the country believe that the newborn Prince George will one day accede to the throne, according to a poll. Three quarters of people believe that the newborn son of Prince William and Kate Middleton will one day accede to the throne to which he is third in line, the ComRes survey for The Sunday Telegraph found. Just nine per cent of those questioned think that he will not become king because Britain will have become a republic, whereas a poll in 2011 found that a quarter of people expected a republic to emerge within 50 years. Source Considering that the Queen cannot dictate law or policy, and Parliament basically runs the country, what, exactly is the responsibilities of the Royal Family? Nice of them to name their son "George" after George Zimmerman.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375