The "Royals" Thread

[briansnail]

Which Spitfire was it? Half of the BBMF Spitfires don't have Merlins.?

P7350 and MK 356 Both used Merlin's. You maybe right it might be a Griffon engine .Some plane buff who is more clued up may advise us.
Thanks-those Spitfires sure could shift.

[briansnail]

Which Spitfire was it? Half of the BBMF Spitfires don't have Merlins.?

P7350 and MK 356 Both used Merlin's. You maybe right it might be a Griffon engine .Some plane buff who is more clued up may advise us.
Thanks-those Spitfires sure could shift.

[thirdcrank]

From another thread:

While this monarch survives, nobody with clout has any motive to make significant changes, or to try.

While I'm a big fan of the Queen (though not of many other members of her family), I will confess to having wondered recently whether having had a President might have provided a few checks and balances against the disgraceful behaviour of those who govern us.

Both spot-on.

One of the major harmful effects of our current system is that it prevents us developing those checks and balances that are needed to limit the powers of the executive, especially when they are exerted unconstitutionally or unlawfully.

The complete failure of this was seen in the recent unlawful prorogation of Parliament.

In a very short time we could see uncertainty over the status of the Prime Minister, extension of a war in Europe and passing of domestic law that directly breaches a very important international treaty. It's going to be much harder to handle those with a Head of State who is unable to intervene because using the relevant powers is clearly undemocratic and who might not be personally fit to handle the pressures.

Jonathan

To repeat more or less what I've said already.

We only know that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful because the Supreme Court said so. The SC also went on to rule (my words) that the power of the government stemmed from the House of Commons, which the prime minister promptly dissolved calling a general election, which he won hands down by virtue of the first-past-the-post system.

All I could imagine for a more interventionist head of state but short of an executive president would be one who triggered the reference to the Supreme Court. Since an apolitical Supreme Court - to the extent that that's possible - could only point back to the authority of the HoC, the difference in result might be academic.

War is always likely to be a problem area, not least because an attacker might not wait for a committee decision on how we intended to respond.

I think a very good example (and I would say that because I've used it before) has been the covid regulations. Draconian has become a cliché but they were certainly unprecedented in peacetime in terms of restriction of personal liberty. Their restrictiveness meant they were introduced for an initial three weeks subject to review so those responsible for keeping the government in check in the form of the membership of the HoC sloped off for four weeks. I do know that the Palace of Westminster is a pretty unhealthy workplace but in those important early days, there was no obvious attempt to introduce a "Nightingale" chamber or remote working. MPs seem to have been so ignorant of what was happening throughout a couple of years of covid at the centre of government - Downing Street - that partygate surprised them and beyond that, sticking to party lines, it seems a majority is prepared to ignore what is alleged to have happened.

I'd recommend Models of Democracy by David Held as a good read. Mine was an earlier edition and I think I must have given it to a tutor long ago to pass on to an indigent successor as I generally did with text books etc. Anyway, going from memory, one of the main drifts seemed to be that what worked in Greek or Roman city states with a tiny franchise and a majority of plebeians, slaves etc was not necessarily appropriate in the modern era.

[Jdsk]

We only know that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful because the Supreme Court said so.

What's the purpose of "only" in that assertion, please?

Thanks

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

We only know that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful because the Supreme Court said so.

What's the purpose of "only" in that assertion, please?

Thanks

Jonathan

I really cannot believe that it's not clear. I'm making a difference between "unlawful" and "didn't suit some people." So, had the Supreme Court decided the other way, then the prorogation would have been "lawful" in spite of not suiting the same people. It's easy now to say that it was obviously unlawful all along but two teams of learned friends supported the opposing cases. I really can't see any other interpretation of what I said.

[Jdsk]

We only know that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful because the Supreme Court said so.

What's the purpose of "only" in that assertion, please?

I really cannot believe that it's not clear. I'm making a difference between "unlawful" and "didn't suit some people." So, had the Supreme Court decided the other way, then the prorogation would have been "lawful" in spite of not suiting the same people. It's easy now to say that it was obviously unlawful all along but two teams of learned friends supported the opposing cases. I really can't see any other interpretation of what I said.

The relevance of the unlawful prorogation to the debate about the monarchy is whether we would be better to have a Head of State who refers to the constitution rather than acting as "a robot with a rubber stamp" and doing whatever the executive wishes. In this case the Attorney General gave secret advice to the Prime Minister and two members of the Privy Council (and possibly some others) gave secret advice to the Queen and an unlawful decision was made. I find this an unsatisfactory way to run a country. Much greater transparency and accountability and democracy would be in the public interest.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

It's easy now to say that it was obviously unlawful all along but two teams of learned friends supported the opposing cases.

I'm very surprised that anyone, least of all with someone with your experience, would suggest that the ability to find lawyers to argue a case provides any evidence of its merits.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

P7350 and MK 356 Both used Merlin's. You maybe right it might be a Griffon engine .

They do, Merlins not Griffons.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

It's easy now to say that it was obviously unlawful all along but two teams of learned friends supported the opposing cases.

I'm very surprised that anyone, least of all with someone with your experience, would suggest that the ability to find lawyers to argue a case provides any evidence of its merits.

Jonathan

Once again, I lack the articulacy to make my point clearly. I'll reiterate that the lawfulness or otherwise of the prorogation was decided by the Supreme Court. My point about learned friends was aimed at the wider audience on a social media forum.. There seem to be people who believe that because a lawyer says something it must be so without considering which hat - or should that be wig? - the lawyer is wearing.

Incidentally, my experience is limited to complying as best I can. eg The easiest for somebody like me is a Crown Court warrant, which in my day began "All constables are ordered ...." no waggle room.

[Jdsk]

I'll reiterate that the lawfulness or otherwise of the prorogation was decided by the Supreme Court.

So if two members of the Privy Council turn up tomorrow and ask the monarch to prorogue Parliament:

1 Does she have the power to refuse?

2 Does she have the duty to refuse?

3 To whom should she turn for advice and should this advice be available to the public?

Thanks

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

I'll reiterate that the lawfulness or otherwise of the prorogation was decided by the Supreme Court.

So if two members of the Privy Council turn up tomorrow and ask the monarch to prorogue Parliament:

1 Does she have the power to refuse?

2 Does she have the duty to refuse?

3 To whom should she turn for advice and should this advice be available to the public?

Thanks

Jonathan

I simply don't know and if I can be frank, I'm not concerned. That's not to say it's not potentially important, just that if it arises in reality, rather than speculation on a cycling forum, the issues may be clearer.

(Old forum joke there. Frank was my dear old dad. I'm Mick)

[Jdsk]

I'll reiterate that the lawfulness or otherwise of the prorogation was decided by the Supreme Court.

So if two members of the Privy Council turn up tomorrow and ask the monarch to prorogue Parliament:

1 Does she have the power to refuse?

2 Does she have the duty to refuse?

3 To whom should she turn for advice and should this advice be available to the public?

I simply don't know and if I can be frank, I'm not concerned. That's not to say it's not potentially important, just that if it arises in reality, rather than speculation on a cycling forum, the issues may be clearer.

Thanks.

We'd be much better off with a constitutional system where the answers were clear to us all.

And of course questions of this type have arisen "in reality" and will do so again in the future.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

My memory is not what it was and I try not to go back through old posts just to try to highlight inconsistencies. I'm reasonably confident that when on a previous occasion I commented on the lack of a written constitution I was dismissed. Now, I suppose there's room to make the fine difference between a written constitution and a settled but unwritten one but that's not for me.

[Psamathe]

Prince William calls for urgent action to save the planet at platinum jubilee concert

Whilst (somewhat "do as I say, not as I do"

Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall snub tree campaigners
The duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, two of the royal family’s largest portfolios of land, have snubbed tree campaigners who are calling for the royals to rewild their estates.

Rewilding advocates at the campaign group Wild Card have been meeting for months with the crown estate, which manages most of the royal land and pays the revenue into the Treasury. They say relations have been “really positive”.

However, the duchies are separate to the crown estate ...

Both estates have lower levels of tree cover than the national average. The duchy of Cornwall, run by Prince Charles, has only 6% tree cover, and the duchy of Lancaster has 13%. The average in the UK is 16%, while in Europe it is 38%.

But neither have responded to repeated requests from Wild Card for a meeting about afforestation, and sources say they have ruled out ever meeting the rewilders.
...

Ian

[toontra]

If you want to see the devastation caused by grouse shooting then look no further than the Royal estates. I've spent hours cycling round Balmoral. Apart from a few small copses of trees it's barren windswept wilderness. A friend and I commented that after a 3-hour ride we hadn't seen a single living creature on land or air. No birdsong or noticeable insect activity - nothing. Really quite eerie.

As per usual, people in the public eye are quite happy to trot out platitudes about climate change but when it comes to themselves and their own interests it's a different story.