Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 599 posts

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#91

Post by crumbshot »

etrevino wrote: post #13

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…

> I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing.

She used her powers to get an exemption from transparency laws with regards to her personal wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que..., and Charles did the same to ban his tenants from purchasing freeholds: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charl....

This constitutional corruption of our laws by the most privileged family in Britain is indeed a bad thing, and one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished.

Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#92

Post by HenryKissinger »

lacker wrote: post #73
etrevino wrote: post #13

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…

The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. This isn't really guaranteed to be a "moderating" influence except in the most technical sense. The current queen does not seem very eager to grab more power, but one could easily imagine a more devious and power-hungry monarch parlaying the ability to interfere with some laws into greater political power. Ima…

I view the monarchy as Britain's system32. A backup in case the OS fails, or something like that.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#93

Post by flukus »

jbay808 wrote: post #55
detaro wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice it's mostly ceremonial. It's not ceremonial in the way that she could do it and it would happen, but is in the way that AFAIK they haven't in centuries, and starting it outside very exceptional circumstances would mean that power would be taken away quickly.

As an example of an exceptional circumstance, in a Canada a few years back there was a minority government. The opposition parties banded together and formed a coalition with a plan to take over as a majority. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_p... The Prime minister moved to keep power by requesting the Governor General (Queen's representative) prorogue parliament. In this circumstance, the…

The Queen/GG were probably taking into account a very similar situation in Australia known as "The Dismissal" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

Considering how controversial this is 50 years later I'd say they did a good job in Canada to be as apolitical as possible, because sacking a sitting Prime Minister is definitely picking a side.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#94

Post by kergonath »

mattmanser wrote: post #59
detaro wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice it's mostly ceremonial. It's not ceremonial in the way that she could do it and it would happen, but is in the way that AFAIK they haven't in centuries, and starting it outside very exceptional circumstances would mean that power would be taken away quickly.

This is exactly what this article is about, turns out it's not uncommon, bills have been held up or changes added before assent was granted at the request of the monarchy over a thousand times in the present Queen's rein. That's like 150 times a year? Every 2 days? How is that 'exceptional'? I wouldn't be surprised if the Guardian has a week of damaging headline from this. Today's was the Prince of Wales added an exe…

> I wouldn't be surprised if the Guardian has a week of damaging headline from this.

Indeed. Apparently they are releasing this as a series. I am very curious to see what they have next. Though I have no idea about how actually damaging this would be for the royal family.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#95

Post by wizzwizz4 »

pasabagi wrote: post #81
jnwatson wrote: post #74

The most obvious difference between the American and British legislative systems is the presence of a foundational document like the Constitution. The British system is strictly about convention and precedent, whereas Americans have a little more explicit guidance from the Constitution. I think what we've learned as Americans in the last few years is that it isn't enough to have a foundational document. Convention an…

> Perhaps the idea that convention and precedent is the only thing holding the British system together makes it stronger. Coronavirus has been a pretty good litmus test for which countries have good governments, and which countries do not. The UK has consistently led the charts in terms of deaths and infections. I think it shows the fundamental defectiveness of the system itself - a defectiveness that has been pretty…

> since english people have a cultural prohibition against complaining.

Complaining about the status quo.

If you ever visited Britain, you'd see how much Brits complain. See: whenever it's raining. Or sunny. Or just grey. Or drizzling. Or foggy.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#96

Post by thaumasiotes »

etrevino wrote: post #13

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…

> but the Lords is no longer a hereditary body

Wait, what? What's the alternative?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords says this:

> Membership is granted by appointment or by heredity or official function.

> Membership was once an entitlement of all hereditary peers, other than those in the peerage of Ireland, but under the House of Lords Act 1999, the right to membership was restricted to 92 hereditary peers.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#97

Post by etrevino »

csours wrote: post #83
etrevino wrote: post #13

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…

I just watched Cromwell (1970) the other day and if you know of a decent but approachable popular history of the civil war and protectorate I'd love a recommendation. I don't know much about it, but the anachronisms in terminology were pretty hilarious.

It doesn't go very far into the protectorate-- that's nearly always a separate book-- but I think that Christopher Hibbert's Cavaliers and Roundheads: The English Civil War, 1642-1649 does a really good job. More in depth but I think interesting to a lot of HN readers would be The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution by Christopher Hill.

If you have the time, I think that Veronica Wedgwood's (she published as CV Wedgwood) history of the era is pretty great. The writing is fun and engaging. The problem is, it's contained in four books:

The King's Peace The King's War The Trial of Charles I Oliver Cromwell

I don't think that Dame Wedgwood is really someone that academics read anymore (she's definitely old school history), but her scholarship is good and she wrote wonderfully.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#98

Post by etrevino »

HenryKissinger wrote: post #92
lacker wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. This isn't really guaranteed to be a "moderating" influence except in the most technical sense. The current queen does not seem very eager to grab more power, but one could easily imagine a more devious and power-hungry monarch parlaying the ability to interfere with some laws into greater political power. Ima…

I view the monarchy as Britain's system32. A backup in case the OS fails, or something like that.

That's exactly it.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#99

Post by StavrosK »

crumbshot wrote: post #91
etrevino wrote: post #13

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…

> I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. She used her powers to get an exemption from transparency laws with regards to her personal wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que... , and Charles did the same to ban his tenants from purchasing freeholds: https://www.theguardian.com…

> one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished.

Doesn't that just shift corruption to the next party? I don't see why logically switching the ruling party would abolish corruption. It might even increase it.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#100

Post by crumbshot »

Chris2048 wrote: post #49
etrevino wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're 100% right. The UK would be served just as well by a nonpartisan president.

And a republic. That said - what would happen to all the stuff owned by the crown? I'm not sure if the postal service still is, and the prisons could probably be let go - but I think there's a lot of land, especially in the south owned by the crown.

Abolishing the monarchy would also obsolete the Sovereign Grant, so all the surplus income from the Crown Estate would go to the state without the royal family leeching their cut.

That said, there are some Duchies that are privately owned. In my opinion, these should be seized by the state during the establishment of a republic - if we're going to abolish the monarchy, we need to go the whole way and strip each member of all their inherited wealth too.

It's the very least they deserve, and would provide a much needed clean slate for New Britain.

Post reply on HN