The "Royals" Thread

[Psamathe]

How have they adjusted legislation in the way you mention?

The queen’s gambit — new evidence shows how Her Majesty wields influence on legislation
...

Ian

[Bonefishblues]

How have they adjusted legislation in the way you mention?

The queen’s gambit — new evidence shows how Her Majesty wields influence on legislation
...

Ian

In 1973, the queen’s personal solicitor met with public servants to ask them to change a proposed companies bill to ensure the queen’s shareholdings were not exposed.

[Jdsk]

A couple of obvious negatives in the way we do it are that it both legitimates the antics of our political head of state and bequeaths on them the considerable patronage once the prerogative of our kings and queens.

Yes.

It prolongs and protects the enormous powers of Ministers. All of these should be accountable to the elected representatives.

And the massive system of patronage and appointment and *soft corruption. Including the entire system of one of our Houses of Parliament.

Jonathan

* Hard corruption needs to be handled rather differently.

[Jdsk]

Of course, a great deal depends on the constitution of the country, the exact role/powers of the head of state, and the qualifying criteria for candidates. The USA has a fairly powerful executive role for their head of state (not unlimited power by any means though), likewise France, but not all republics do, Ireland’s is I think similar in role to ours, ditto Germany.

It does. And on that precise combination of executive power and constitutional protection and figurehead status.

We've just seen an extremely serious unlawful attempt by the executive to overthrow Parliament. Our head of state failed completely in that constitutional protection. Smart people and organisations and countries learn from failures.

Jonathan

[Nearholmer]

Yep.

Despite my half-hearted acceptance that appointment of the HoS by accident of birth has the odd advantage, I agree with all that.

It does feel as if it’s high time to amend the constitution to make the government (PM and Ministers of State) more effectively accountable to parliament …… I rate the Standing Committee system, with MPs of all parties on each, as being one of the better things about our system and would love to see the Government held properly accountable through it, rather than able to wave two fingers.

Likewise, the duty of the HoS to protect the constitution, notably to protect the sovereignty of parliament, needs to be beefed-up …… the slight ambiguity over the scope/extent of parliamentary sovereignty really rests is a loophole through which proto-autocrats can sneak.

[Jdsk]

…… I rate the Standing Committee system, whither MPs of all parties on each, as being one of the better things about our system and would love to see the Government held properly accountable through it, rather than able to wave two fingers.

Yes.

The new(ish) Select Committee system has been an enormous improvement and gives a glimpse of how the separation of powers should work. Mostly cross-party, mostly working out in the open, and some excellent reports.

It also shows how politicians can behave like responsible adults, and this could be built on further by greater separation in careers (as well as powers) between the legislature and the executive... the required skills are very different.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

By coincidence, today's random selection of images in the Leodis photographic archive is of the then Princess Elizabeth at Leeds Children's Day in July 1949 receiving a bouquet from Joan Thompson - the Queen of Children's Day. (Note the Recorder of Leeds Charles Paley Scott KC in the wig.) I believe I was one of the huge crowd of cheering onlookers although I was only four.

Over 70+ years, there will have been perhaps millions of people who were pleased to be presented to the queen, a smaller number like Joan Thompson who did the presenting and a lot of learned friends happy to be designated QC, even though they don't really believe in that sort of thing. And all the committees up and down nominating each other for gongs that they don't agree with either.

As I think I posted above, I used to think all this would die with the queen but the Cambridges look to be preparing to take over where she left off and that may delay a republic for at least another generation.

[VinceLedge]

I wouldn't mind keeping a minimum level of royalty for those who like the pomp and ceremony as long as the amount of money spent on them is massively reduced and they are not allowed to keep their massive estates as personal property.

[Nearholmer]

Another thought that has occurred to me (this is the danger of loafing around trying to shake-off covid):

Might appointment of the head of state by accident of birth be a violation of the human rights of the baby concerned, child abuse in effect?

It does seem a form of cruelty to randomly select the odd newborn and dump on it the huge future-responsibility of being HoS, thereby blighting its entire childhood with a looming shadow, depriving it of life-choices, and possibly choking-off some huge talent unrelated to state-heading that it’s genes might have bestowed upon it, condemning it to a life of inexpressible frustration.

I’ll try to stop thinking for a while now.

[Jdsk]

I wouldn't mind keeping a minimum level of royalty for those who like the pomp and ceremony as long as the amount of money spent on them is massively reduced and they are not allowed to keep their massive estates as personal property.

I think that everyone should be free to dress up and hold ceremonies. And that others should be free to go and watch. In general it would be better without involuntary subsidy from those who are less well-off.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

... and they are not allowed to keep their massive estates as personal property.

And the knock-on effect of that would be a very different way of thinking about all inherited land and all inherited wealth. Which would be a Very Good Thing.

As so often the effect of even a small monarchy provides a vast umbrella for the rich and powerful.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

…… I rate the Standing Committee system, whither MPs of all parties on each, as being one of the better things about our system and would love to see the Government held properly accountable through it, rather than able to wave two fingers.

Yes.

The new(ish) Select Committee system has been an enormous improvement and gives a glimpse of how the separation of powers should work. Mostly cross-party, mostly working out in the open, and some excellent reports.

It also shows how politicians can behave like responsible adults, and this could be built on further by greater separation in careers (as well as powers) between the legislature and the executive... the required skills are very different.

"Boris Johnson has suffered a fresh humiliation after Tory rebels joined with Labour to force the publication of security advice relating to Evgeny Lebedev’s peerage.
Labour launched a bid to reveal information about Johnson’s appointment of his friend to the House of Lords, following the revelation that the intelligence services had concerns about the Russian-born businessman and son of a former KGB officer.
The opposition had been expected to fail in its attempt to force the disclosure through a humble address, but Tory rebels made clear they were not prepared to block the publication, forcing the government to allow its MPs to abstain."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... son-labour

A special case in special times, and a small step. But better than it not happening.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

Andrew looks like a creep with a taste for sex-trafficked teenage girls and I rejoice that he will now spend the rest of his life hidden from view, knowing that he is despised by the public.

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

Andrew looks like a creep with a taste for sex-trafficked teenage girls and I rejoice that he will now spend the rest of his life hidden from view, knowing that he is despised by the public.

Jonathan

Just like Royal assurances Camilla would never be a Queen; assurances made when it suited the Royal Family when Charles was discarding Diana and public sympathy was with Diana. Promises they just discard when it suits them.

But we need to remember we are their subjects, subject to their rule, their wishes (and without any say who "they" are or if we wish to accept their rule).

Ian

[toontra]

It took many years of hard work by the RF's PR department to get Camilla accepted by the public - like the Chinese, they plan for the long term. I suspect the same wheels are in motion on behalf of Andrew.

Today's performance actually sickened me and my opinion of Brenda and the whole sorry bunch is further diminished. My previous ambivalence is now leaning firmly towards abolition (not that it matters).