A form of Democracy?

[Damocles]

Blair won't do it. Don't know about Howard, didn't someone say there was 'something of the night about him'.

Thought no one had noticed the war in Iraq.

 

[Big_Spark]

Ignorance is bliss FWL. Not only does she have Absolute Power as given by law but she is a powerful figure in commerce. The income the Monarchy generates for this country is phenomenal. To say she is of of no consequence is very, very mis-informed

I did not say the post of monarch was of no consequence, I said she had consequence ot Politics of the 21st Century..sho is NOT a political figure, even though her position may be used by Politicians and others alike for leverage.

The Queen is constitutional, pure and simple..she signs the Royal Assent for Bills yes, and the Queen presides over the Privy council, however these are roles Given the Monarch during Victoria's time.

Under the Declaration of Breda of May 1660, Charles had promised pardons, arrears of Army pay, confirmation of land purchases during the Interregnum and 'liberty of tender consciences' in religious matters, but several issues remained unresolved. However, the Militia Act of 1661 vested control of the armed forces in the Crown, and Parliament agreed to an annual revenue of £1,200,000 (a persistent deficit of £400,000-500,000 remained, leading to difficulties for Charles in his foreign policy). The bishops were restored to their seats in the House of Lords, and the Triennial Act of 1641 was repealed - there was no mechanism for enforcing the King's obligation to call Parliament at least once every three years. Under the 1660 Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, only the lands of the Crown and the Church were automatically resumed; the lands of Royalists and other dissenters which had been confiscated and/or sold on were left for private negotiation or litigation.

Charles retook the thrown at the request of parliament, arriving in May of 1661. At this time Charles agreed to the constraints imposed on the Monarchy by the Rights of Assent Act 1661. This reduced the role of the Monarch to a figure head with only symbolic power in the Political arena. Although the Monarch was requested to appoint and dissolve Parliaments, these roles, Charles accepted, were purely symbolic and carried no actualy power in them

James agreed to the reduction of the monarchs power following the Union Act that saw England and Scotland united under a single flag and Monarch for the first time. This further reduction in the Monarchs authority gave parliament the right to dismiss the Monarch and force their abdication should the Monarch try to unduly influence the political process. The Monarchy Act of 1709 reduced the powers even more, and it was only during the reign of Queen Victoria that some of these symbolic powers were regranted to the crown. These included the right to preside over the Privy Council, the signing of Royal Assent for Bills put before Parliament and the right to appoint Knighthoods and other Honorary awards. However the the Royal Powers Bill of 1858 clearly removed any political role for the monarch once and for all, and reduced the Monarch to the role played today as national Ambassador and Figurehead. Although it is generally accepted by the public that the Monarch has real power, this is in fact false. The absolute power in the UK of the 20th century rests solely in the control of the incumbant Prime Minister and the ruling Parliament. Should Parliament choose, the Monarch can be dismissed by the Prime Minister of the Day should 75% of Commons and Lords agree to the signing of the Novus Actus Reginus. This is a relatively small act of Parliament laid down in 1715 allowing the Prime Minister, with the support of Parliament, in the form of Commons and Lords, to remove the Monarch immediately by signing the Act in the presence of 75% of serving Commons and Lords. This must then be signed by the Archbishops and the Speaker of the House on behalf of the Monarch. This remains the oldest and longest serving unsigned legislation in British legal history.

Thought you might find the above reading illuminating..

 

[Damocles]

Interesting. Where did you get that from?

 

[Big_Spark]

They are direct quotes from a book I have on my shelf called The Crown and the Commoners The History of Parliament and the Crown of England

It is about 50 years old and was left to me by my Grandfather, it is actually signed by the the late Princess Margaret, she gave him the book in the 1960's when he was SCAFE.

 

[Damocles]

So we should take it the queen has read it too? The internet does not seem to have heard about this piece of history.

It does suggest that the turnaround in Royalties fortunes happened at least by Victoria's time. The intent is clear. Remove power from parliament and by default pass it into the hands of the crown. From there it can be exercised in private by the prime minister and other ministers. Not very democratic.

I think a 75% majority of the commons might be rather difficult to achieve, and of the lords almost impossible. Though the wording might suggest that so long as they were present at gun point that would be sufficient. But if it came to that, then I suppose the wording of statutes would be irrelevant. Written words can only protect you so far before it comes to the sword.

 

[kendor]

Written words can only protect you so far before it comes to the sword.

So So True! unfortunately these days. bit like if i can't get my own way in discussions i'll bomb the hell out of you to get my way.

 

[Damocles]

It does help though if you can ensure the guys doing the talking are telling the truth to start with. Especially the ones on your side. At lest then you know why you are fighting.

 

[AdamW]

It does help though if you can ensure the guys doing the talking are telling the truth to start with

Talking of which, I never knew that accusing another MP of lying was reason to be ejected from the Commons until the other day (IIRC the MP's name is Fleet)! This would explain why politicians always use expressions such as "Yet he expects us to believe" and "Does he honestly think". I reckon all MPs should be allowed at least one Frankie Howerd-style "Ooooh, you fibber!" per term of government.

 

[david and julie]

Written words can only protect you so far before it comes to the sword.

So So True! unfortunately these days. bit like if i can't get my own way in discussions i'll bomb the hell out of you to get my way.

Just curious but what does this comment actually mean?

 

[Damocles]

Talking about royalty seemed appropriate to talk about swords.

Amazing how much space gets taken up when people keep posting quotes of quotes. I imagine he was thinking about that unfortunate mess in Iraq.

 

[david and julie]

I understood your comment Damocles, I was refering to kendors answer.

This could be about Iraq as you say or it could also be seen as a dig at Freddie being in Ireland couldn't it? or even anywhere else, which is why I asked.

 

[Damocles]

I expect acomputer screen in MI5 headquarters is already flashing a warning that the diynot gang are talking about planting bombs.

 

[david and julie]

Funny you should say that there's a guy in a trenchcoat stood outside my house

 

[Damocles]

That'll be him. All the ones who are good at blending in with a crowd have been sent off to Iraq because some fool started a war.

 

[werealldoomed]

Funny you should say that there's a guy in a trenchcoat stood outside my house

You should see what I've got on underneath!