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

161–170 of 599 posts

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

#161

Post by analog31 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #129
crumbshot wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"the monarchy should be abolished" This is such a no-brainer, and I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them.

I still remember, all the way back in the Nixon era, my dad grumbling: "Most people just want to be ruled by a king."

But I think a symbolic monarchy could serve a useful purpose by giving those people a ceremonial role in return for promising that they will never attempt to actually govern.

Edit: Deleted first sentence per comment below.

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

#162

Post by lotsofpulp »

jopsen wrote: post #149
crumbshot wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. From a democratic/ideological perspective you might be right. On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) I live in Denmark where we also pay the royal family some money, few privileges, etc.. My personal pocket philosophy is that the money we pay the royal family is the cost of a peacef…

> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :)

Emphatic no from me on that one.

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

#163

Post by dmatech »

Pulcinella wrote: post #118
retrac wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is very true. The Crown plays a useful and vital role in the Westminster system. (I'm in Canada.) It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. But I'm not sure the monarchy offers anything not provided by a nonpartisan and mostly ceremonial presidency, similar to Ireland or Germany.

Monarchy is inherently undemocratic and has no place in a modern democracy. I am quite certain Canada would continue to function just fine (or even better) without someone pretending they were divinely appointed at the top.

You'd have to be prepared to get rid of the entire concept of the "head of state". The USA has proven quite well that having the head of government and head of state combined has substantial problems. A head of government needs to be somewhat competent and deliver results, but a head of state needs to project "gravitas", "dignitas", and other virtues. In the case of the UK, the prime minister has been relieved of the need to project these qualities and be a "mascot", but a US president has not.

In theory, the people themselves are the source of legitimacy for modern governments. But the media and some of the population demands a figurehead that provides centralized moral leadership.

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

#165

Post by osrec »

pmoriarty wrote: post #128
osrec wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but let's sort the problem at hand first? The monarchy in the UK only seems to benefit themselves and tabloid newspapers. While the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect), the rest of her family seem pretty terrible with their crazy shenanigans.

"the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect)" What work does the Queen actually do?

I don't know exactly what she does, but she always turns up and doesn't mess around or offend people, unlike the rest of her family.

She's like a grandma the nation respects, even though you suspect there might be a sinister side to her.

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

#166

Post by lotsofpulp »

randallsquared wrote: post #145
pmoriarty wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the monarchy should be abolished" This is such a no-brainer, and I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them.

> I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them. Almost everyone wants someone to rule over them, or at least over their neighbors.

I don’t know anyone that wants management that can never be replaced.

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

#167

Post by lotsofpulp »

analog31 wrote: post #161
pmoriarty wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the monarchy should be abolished" This is such a no-brainer, and I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them.

I still remember, all the way back in the Nixon era, my dad grumbling: "Most people just want to be ruled by a king." But I think a symbolic monarchy could serve a useful purpose by giving those people a ceremonial role in return for promising that they will never attempt to actually govern. Edit: Deleted first sentence per comment below.

What does a monarchy have to do with Jan 6? And how does a ceremonial role impact operations or anyone’s life?

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

#168

Post by LocalH »

markdown wrote: post #101
crumbshot wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. What about billionaires? You know, millionaires don't need all their money either. How about we take all their money and exile millionaires, billionaires, and the monarchy?

For billionaires, I agree with that.

For high-end millionaires (say $100 million or more), I can still get behind that.

For low-level millionaires who legitimately worked for their money and built their business, absolutely not. A million dollars is not a lot in 2021.

I say this as a not-millionaire.

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

#169

Post by lotsofpulp »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #157
Barrin92 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's never a guarantee that anyone isn't corrupt, but switching from an opaque, land-owning monarchy to something like the German presidency which has the same function (mostly symbolic, but has some emergency powers), at least gives clear transparent procedures, is accountable to the public in formal ways, draws a regular salary, and isn't living off inherited wealth. What exactly is the justification for having…

Monarchy is superior to democracy in a very important way. When a monarch sends you off to die in war, the monarch is spending their own resources: you. And therefore the monarch's own wealth and power is at stake. In a democracy the president sends you off to die at no cost to themselves and only really strands to gain from the kickbacks.

In a proper democracy, a group of elected officials convene and then give permission to the president to send you off to die.

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

#170

Post by ameister14 »

flukus wrote: post #151
pmoriarty wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the monarchy should be abolished" This is such a no-brainer, and I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them.

Because the powers they hold have to be given to someone else. Replacing them with an elected president or parliamentary appointed one potentially create there own issues and sacrifice the long term stability of a monarch. If the crown was directly replaced with an elected president for instance, that would be an enormous amount of power for a populist leader to wield and the lack of policy responsibility would lead…

What powers would need to be replaced, exactly?
Post reply on HN