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

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

jlf1961 -> For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 5:05:42 AM)
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?

thezeppo -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 6:03:02 AM)
Pretty much they look glamorous and cost money. They also bring in money through tourism and undertake diplomatic activities (with varying degrees of success!), although overall I think they cost more than they earn. Perry Anderson argued that they were one of the main factors in preventing Britain developing a working-class consciousness and throwing off the shackles of oppression. I probably wouldn't go that far, but I'm not the biggest fan to be honest. ETA: There was a bit of a fuss recently about just how much influence the royal family had in certain areas of policy-making; http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/31/secret-royal-veto-powers-exposed I can imagine that Charles would take a much more active role in this regard. I would quite like the crown to skip a generation in all honesty.

PeonForHer -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 6:27:43 AM)
I'll leave that to the Brit and Commonwealth monarchists on this forum to answer. [;)]

eulero83 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 6:47:22 AM)
I checked on wikipedia to be sure but in the uk kings or queens have more or less the same powers the president of repubblic has in Italy, it's a figure that being outside the politics can enforce the costitution, it's to the monarch that the army swear. So the list of powers are this: Domestic Powers The power to dismiss and appoint a Prime Minister The power to dismiss and appoint other ministers The power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament The power to grant or refuse Royal Assent to bills (making them valid and law) The power to commission officers in the Armed Forces The power to command the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom The power to appoint members to the Queen's Council The power to issue and withdraw passports The power to grant Prerogative of mercy (though Capital Punishment is abolished, this power is still used to remedy errors in sentence calculation) The power to grant honours The power to create corporations via Royal Charter Foreign Powers The power to ratify and make treaties The power to declare War and Peace The power to deploy the Armed Forces overseas The power to recognize states The power to credit and receive diplomats This mainly means that the monarch sould repair to mistakes of all the three political powers, the executive power comes directly from the monarch but I suppose that not enforce the people's will is considered a coup d'etat, and being the commander of the armed force prevents that a single political party can take control of the army.

thezeppo -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 6:52:33 AM)
In theory, yes, except that in the UK the monarch has symbolic powers only. They are not the executive - if they refused Royal Assent to a bill passed by the Commons and the Lords there would be a constitutional crisis. Likewise, in the most recent general election we had no overall majority from one political party, but the queen had no say in who would be prime minister. If the respective leaders of the parties had been unable to make a deal then we would have had another election.

eulero83 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 7:15:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thezeppo In theory, yes, except that in the UK the monarch has symbolic powers only. They are not the executive - if they refused Royal Assent to a bill passed by the Commons and the Lords there would be a constitutional crisis. Likewise, in the most recent general election we had no overall majority from one political party, but the queen had no say in who would be prime minister. If the respective leaders of the parties had been unable to make a deal then we would have had another election. Even if the law was in contrast to the costitution in first place? I think this is the main idea behaind the refusal, the president of the repubblic in italy has a similar power but can only refuse once and send the law back to the parlament if it comes again has to sign it. Ok but having another election means that the parlament is dissolved, and it's the queen that has this power. The prime minister needs a trust vote from the parlament or when is in charge can be dismissed only by the monarch? I ask this because in italy we change a lot prime minister and the president of the repubblic has the power to name the premier but also duty to find a person that can have the trust of the parlament, if not it's just futile, but the importance of this power is that the president can mediate between the different parties without being involved as he will be senator for life so will never need to be elected again. I suppose it's the same role in this situation that the queen should keep.

Zonie63 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 8:36:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thezeppo In theory, yes, except that in the UK the monarch has symbolic powers only. They are not the executive - if they refused Royal Assent to a bill passed by the Commons and the Lords there would be a constitutional crisis. Likewise, in the most recent general election we had no overall majority from one political party, but the queen had no say in who would be prime minister. If the respective leaders of the parties had been unable to make a deal then we would have had another election. What's the point in having symbolic powers? On paper, if the law states that the monarch has all these powers, then what happens if a monarch wants to press the point and use any or all of those powers? What if the monarch gets on TV and invents some government crisis requiring a massive shake-up, replacing all the ministers and military leaders? Would the people support that or rise up against it? On the other hand, if there really was a severe crisis in the UK government, is it possible that the people could insist that the monarch step in, take power, and clean up the government?

thezeppo -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 8:40:49 AM)
I suppose it could be argued that it has never really been tested in the UK. The electoral system means historically we have had majority governments. The UK constitution is not codified in the way that the US one is for example (I'm not sure about Italy). It is fluid at the expense of security, so there isn't really a codified constitution one would point to. The European Human Rights Act is I think the closest comparable legislation. The point is that while the Queen does have those powers, in practice she doesn't have any formal influence, her role is essentially automatic. It will be interesting to see if Charles interprets his role differently, but at the moment I would argue they play no role in Government.

thezeppo -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 9:01:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: thezeppo In theory, yes, except that in the UK the monarch has symbolic powers only. They are not the executive - if they refused Royal Assent to a bill passed by the Commons and the Lords there would be a constitutional crisis. Likewise, in the most recent general election we had no overall majority from one political party, but the queen had no say in who would be prime minister. If the respective leaders of the parties had been unable to make a deal then we would have had another election. What's the point in having symbolic powers? On paper, if the law states that the monarch has all these powers, then what happens if a monarch wants to press the point and use any or all of those powers? What if the monarch gets on TV and invents some government crisis requiring a massive shake-up, replacing all the ministers and military leaders? Would the people support that or rise up against it? On the other hand, if there really was a severe crisis in the UK government, is it possible that the people could insist that the monarch step in, take power, and clean up the government? On paper, the UK system is littered with possibilities for abuse. The executive is drawn from and essentially controls the legislature, except in very rare circumstances. There are Bishops and Judges, as well as unelected peers in the House of Lords. It's all a bit of a mess really, other countries do it a lot better. I would like to think the people would defend their right to democracy against a tyrant, but politicians and bankers are the lowest of the low recently (apart from the unemployed) so if there was ever a time...

Real0ne -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 9:12:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 exactly is the responsibilities of the Royal Family? to create plutocratic oligarch democracies, and spread, like cancer, over the entire globe, destroying all culture in their wake. ~Borg Queen [image]http://i1273.photobucket.com/albums/y410/mypbemotes/00/elite/borg_zps82935a48.jpg[/image]

eulero83 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 9:15:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thezeppo I suppose it could be argued that it has never really been tested in the UK. The electoral system means historically we have had majority governments. The UK constitution is not codified in the way that the US one is for example (I'm not sure about Italy). It is fluid at the expense of security, so there isn't really a codified constitution one would point to. The European Human Rights Act is I think the closest comparable legislation. The point is that while the Queen does have those powers, in practice she doesn't have any formal influence, her role is essentially automatic. It will be interesting to see if Charles interprets his role differently, but at the moment I would argue they play no role in Government. yes sure I understand what you mean, in italy we have civil law and not common law so every single law must be written or is worth nothing, costitution is, the actual costitution had been written mostly when we changed from monarchy to repubblic in the 1946 and then changed some times but never that changed the state shape, only about regions and provinces role. I compared the queen role to our president of repubblic's one because he has almost the roles the king had before the repubblic and is not the also prime minister like in the usa, we have many different parties that have an equal share of votes so there is always the possibility that a deal breaks and opposition wins a votation to refuse trusting the governament, in that casse the president of the rep. must investigate if there is a different person that can have the trust of a new majority, if he finds out it's not possible dissolve the parlament and there are new elections, but if he does it just because he doesn't like the new majority would be a coup d'etat. But the president of the rep. can't influence the work of the parlament, the governament or magistrature just guerantee that parties play among the costitution.

Real0ne -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 9:15:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thezeppo On paper, the UK system is littered with possibilities for abuse. The executive is drawn from and essentially controls the legislature, except in very rare circumstances. There are Bishops and Judges, as well as unelected peers in the House of Lords. It's all a bit of a mess really, other countries do it a lot better. I would like to think the people would defend their right to democracy against a tyrant, but politicians and bankers are the lowest of the low recently (apart from the unemployed) so if there was ever a time... The UK systems like all commonweal organizations is a pyramid scam. I have news for you, the poiticians and bankers are the democracy through the corporations your monarchy created!

eulero83 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 9:17:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 exactly is the responsibilities of the Royal Family? to create plutocratic oligarch democracies, and spread, like cancer, over the entire globe, destroying all culture in their wake. I remember a bald man that used to say exactly the same words about england.

Real0ne -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 9:25:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 yes sure I understand what you mean, in italy we have civil law and not common law so every single law must be written or is worth nothing, costitution is, the actual costitution had been written mostly when we changed from monarchy to repubblic in the 1946 and then changed some times but never that changed the state shape, only about regions and provinces role. I compared the queen role to our president [ and you are precisely correct though good luck getting any brit to admit it, hell they have gone through so many generations of disinformation they dont even know they are vassals.] of repubblic's one because he has almost the roles the king had before the repubblic and is not the also prime minister like in the usa, we have many different parties that have an equal share of votes so there is always the possibility that a deal breaks and opposition wins a votation to refuse trusting the governament, in that casse the president of the rep. must investigate if there is a different person that can have the trust of a new majority, if he finds out it's not possible dissolve the parlament and there are new elections, but if he does it just because he doesn't like the new majority would be a coup d'etat. But the president of the rep. can't influence the work of the parlament, the governament or magistrature just guerantee that parties play among the costitution. senates and reps are just bigger courts our government in the us was given a face lift and went from monarchial to a federal republic in 1776. The political structure can be anything anyone wants it to be in a republic, the same people still rule behind the scenes. The courts control. They were originally the monarch himself and then institutionalized by the monarch. They work for the monarch and insure its perpetuity. All law will be construed in that manner. It works the same way in america. Its convenient, the monarch can redirect attention to everyone else. what is the difference between civil law and common law btw?

eulero83 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 9:28:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: thezeppo In theory, yes, except that in the UK the monarch has symbolic powers only. They are not the executive - if they refused Royal Assent to a bill passed by the Commons and the Lords there would be a constitutional crisis. Likewise, in the most recent general election we had no overall majority from one political party, but the queen had no say in who would be prime minister. If the respective leaders of the parties had been unable to make a deal then we would have had another election. What's the point in having symbolic powers? On paper, if the law states that the monarch has all these powers, then what happens if a monarch wants to press the point and use any or all of those powers? I think it's symbolic because the electoral law guarantees a stable majority to the party winning elections, with the electoral system we have in italy this powers are not symbolic but before the 1996 when the electoral law changed where used even once every 3 months. quote: ORIGINAL: thezeppo What if the monarch gets on TV and invents some government crisis requiring a massive shake-up, replacing all the ministers and military leaders? Would the people support that or rise up against it? in theory raise, accuse the king/queen of treason and begin a civil war. quote: ORIGINAL: thezeppo On the other hand, if there really was a severe crisis in the UK government, is it possible that the people could insist that the monarch step in, take power, and clean up the government? that's what happened in italy after the last election, there was no majority and the main party was holding over so the president of repubblic (that has almost the same kind of powers) had been asked to step in by the opposition.

eulero83 -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 9:36:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 yes sure I understand what you mean, in italy we have civil law and not common law so every single law must be written or is worth nothing, costitution is, the actual costitution had been written mostly when we changed from monarchy to repubblic in the 1946 and then changed some times but never that changed the state shape, only about regions and provinces role. I compared the queen role to our president [ and you are precisely correct though good luck getting any brit to admit it, hell they have gone through so many generations of disinformation they dont even know they are vassals.] of repubblic's one because he has almost the roles the king had before the repubblic and is not the also prime minister like in the usa, we have many different parties that have an equal share of votes so there is always the possibility that a deal breaks and opposition wins a votation to refuse trusting the governament, in that casse the president of the rep. must investigate if there is a different person that can have the trust of a new majority, if he finds out it's not possible dissolve the parlament and there are new elections, but if he does it just because he doesn't like the new majority would be a coup d'etat. But the president of the rep. can't influence the work of the parlament, the governament or magistrature just guerantee that parties play among the costitution. senates and reps are just bigger courts our government in the us was given a face lift and went from monarchial to a federal republic in 1776. The political structure can be anything anyone wants it to be in a republic, the same people still rule behind the scenes. what is the difference between civil law and common law btw? 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. using the costitution as example under civil law if it's not written and specified no judge could even exist. usually civil law is used in former roman empire.

dcnovice -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 9:40:55 AM)
FR http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/HowtheMonarchyworks/HowtheMonarchyworks.aspx

Real0ne -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 9:44:35 AM)
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.

Real0ne -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 9:58:08 AM)
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.

dcnovice -> RE: For those of us who dont know, what, exactly do they do? (7/28/2013 10:14:05 AM)
quote: I suppose you believe that propaganda? Actually, I just like her hats. ETA: Even better gallery: http://www.bbcamerica.com/diamond-jubilee/photos/queens-hats/#29

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625