The "Royals" Thread

[Tangled Metal]

The OED does. As in my direct quote above, emboldening added. Screen dump below.

What version of "The Oxford dictionary online" are you using, please?

Thanks

Jonathan


Screenshot 2021-09-16 at 13.39.00.png

It was not OED but then that didn't come up anyway. Cambridge did, Wikipedia, politics dot co dot UK, etc all defined monarchy as system with a monarch with no mention of offspring or hangers on. I think OED is confusing Royal Family with monarchy. Monarchy is a system of governance with a monarch or single ruler. Prince Edward has no official and for some time no role at all in the monarchy, political / government/ambassadorial or other public function. It's not often one dictionary seems to define something at odds with other dictionaries and sources.

Out of curiosity, the words I responded to was monarchy n not office of the monarch, what OED give for the word monarchy?

I still maintain his reputation also damage does not affect the queen's standing around the world. IIRC she's got pretty high approval ratings and widely respected as a head of state with an unrivalled experience. I do think she'll end up being the last full term monarch, or perhaps not if she keeps on going and Charlie boy died early.

The way she went along with Johnson's unlawful prorogation of parliament shows she is not a good head of state.

But most people didn't care much and held her responsible. Didn't harm her reputation. Possibly because she's not a head of state with real power. She's just a rubber stamping head of state.

[Mike Sales]

A GB News presenter is absolutely fuming about anti-monarchy billboards in Wales.

In a techy monologue, Colin Brazier hit out at posters by the Republic group, which have been spotted in Aberdare, Cardiff and Swansea, and claimed that abolitionists “smell blue blood in the water”.

The billboards feature a picture of Prince Charles, who was given the title of the Prince of Wales by his mother Queen Elizabeth, and the slogan “Wales doesn’t need a prince”.

The group, which wants to end the monarchy, argues that a hereditary public office such as the Royal Family “goes against every democratic principle”.

https://nation.cymru/news/gb-news-prese ... -in-wales/

[JohnW]

.....................
.............The way she went along with Johnson's unlawful prorogation of parliament shows she is not a good head of state.

But what would you have done pete? - and what would you have done in her position?
Please don't misunderstand pete - this isn't a malicious or mischievous question.

[Psamathe]

.....................
.............The way she went along with Johnson's unlawful prorogation of parliament shows she is not a good head of state.

But what would you have done pete? - and what would you have done in her position?
Please don't misunderstand pete - this isn't a malicious or mischievous question.

(not pete but) I'd have had some backbone and told Johnson go ... Whatever "tradition" she should not be supporting or part of illegal acts. And if she was uncertain she should have waited for the court case/Judicial Review to confirm the legality.

Even without the legal/court process it was always blindingly obvious it was to stifle democratic process and she thought that was fine and went along with it!

If she believes Johnson then she is more worthless than the whole system appears - most people who think even briefly recognise Johnson as a compulsive liar so why can't the Queen see it as well? Speaks about her judgement of character?

Ian

[thirdcrank]

More reports about Andrew trying to deny anything has been "served" and I increasingly feel he is being daft. Court papers are going to be served at some point and his continual worming is just keeping the issue in the press. And the more reports the more it's in the public eye and the greater the repetitional damage.

He is going to get served (court cases don't disappear because the defendant hides behind Police and security). So damage from the outcome will be the same if he manages to delay it a few weeks or not but those few weeks delay are creating lots of press reports about him about and underage sex accusations, etc. (My bold)

I wonder if that was some sort of typo for "reputational." Whether or no, in the absence of any action, we are seeing the drip, drip of pretty much the same tale being recycled and explained, doing HRH no benefit at all. Repetitional damage indeed.

Post, courier, e-mail - the saga to serve papers on Prince Andrew

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58604620

[Oldjohnw]

My view is that the queen had no choice: it would have been seen as a political act. This is the view shared by most constitutional historians and lawyers. Be free, of course, to disagree with them.

https://theconversation.com/why-the-que ... ent-122597

The liar Johnson and his corrupt party are to blame.

[pete75]

.....................
.............The way she went along with Johnson's unlawful prorogation of parliament shows she is not a good head of state.

But what would you have done pete? - and what would you have done in her position?
Please don't misunderstand pete - this isn't a malicious or mischievous question.

(not pete but) I'd have had some backbone and told Johnson go ... Whatever "tradition" she should not be supporting or part of illegal acts. And if she was uncertain she should have waited for the court case/Judicial Review to confirm the legality.

Even without the legal/court process it was always blindingly obvious it was to stifle democratic process and she thought that was fine and went along with it!

If she believes Johnson then she is more worthless than the whole system appears - most people who think even briefly recognise Johnson as a compulsive liar so why can't the Queen see it as well? Speaks about her judgement of character?

Ian

+1

[pete75]

.....................
.............The way she went along with Johnson's unlawful prorogation of parliament shows she is not a good head of state.

But what would you have done pete? - and what would you have done in her position?
Please don't misunderstand pete - this isn't a malicious or mischievous question.

See above

[pete75]

My view is that the queen had no choice: it would have been seen as a political act. This is the view shared by most constitutional historians and lawyers. Be free, of course, to disagree with them.

https://theconversation.com/why-the-que ... ent-122597

The liar Johnson and his corrupt party are to blame.

Preventing an unlawful prorogation of parliament is much less of a political act than what she actually did - approve an unlawful prorogation being called for party political purposes.

[Oldjohnw]

My view is that the queen had no choice: it would have been seen as a political act. This is the view shared by most constitutional historians and lawyers. Be free, of course, to disagree with them.

https://theconversation.com/why-the-que ... ent-122597

The liar Johnson and his corrupt party are to blame.

Preventing an unlawful prorogation of parliament is much less of a political act than what she actually did - approve an unlawful prorogation being called for party political purposes.

Touche! Stalemate, I guess. I have the constitutional lawyers on my side though

[thirdcrank]

If we wind back the clock, Boris Johnson could have called a general election but originally chose not to do so, presumably for tactical reasons eg big risk of backlash for yet another poll. He chose instead to go down the prorogation route, essentially suspend Parliament to break the Brexit logjam. Following the Supreme Court judgment he had reason for calling an election and could blame the Supreme Court. Had the queen refused to prorogue parliament it would have led to a constitutional crisis, leaving the prime minister no option other than to go for a general election, blamed on the queen rather than the Supreme Court.

I cannot see how any of this can be blamed on the queen

[sjs]

If the only role of the monarch is to tick whatever box is put in front of her, she can't be blamed for doing that. But a big rubber stamp would be a lot simpler and cheaper.

[pete75]

My view is that the queen had no choice: it would have been seen as a political act. This is the view shared by most constitutional historians and lawyers. Be free, of course, to disagree with them.

https://theconversation.com/why-the-que ... ent-122597

The liar Johnson and his corrupt party are to blame.

Preventing an unlawful prorogation of parliament is much less of a political act than what she actually did - approve an unlawful prorogation being called for party political purposes.

Touche! Stalemate, I guess. I have the constitutional lawyers on my side though

Yep and I have the judges who declared it unlawful on my side. A judgement checkmates a lawyer's opinion any day.

[Oldjohnw]

Preventing an unlawful prorogation of parliament is much less of a political act than what she actually did - approve an unlawful prorogation being called for party political purposes.

Touche! Stalemate, I guess. I have the constitutional lawyers on my side though

Yep and I have the judges who declared it unlawful on my side. A judgement checkmates a lawyer's opinion any day.

The judges never said HMQ acted unlawfully. They said that Johnson and his government did. The advice given to her was unlawful. The difference matters. In the same way that the content of the Queens speech is not her approval.

Having said that, the system is absolutely absurd.

[pwa]

The struggle to shift power from the monarch to Parliament took centuries and now we have a situation where the monarch either does as instructed by the elected government, or presses the nuclear button of dissolving Parliament. There is very little in between, other than gentle persuasion over a cup of tea when the PM visits the Queen. And that, surely, is the way we want it. We don't want the monarch interfering in government, even if government is being done badly. The monarch ought only to act if the Government threatens to abandon elections, because it is at election time that the people get to pass judgement.