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

171–180 of 599 posts

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

#171

Post by pkd »

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…

False dichotomy. You don't have to sign up for a contract that give them even ceremonial powers forever or behead them in grotesque violence.

It is possible to negotiate a deal where they have no power and get to keep their properties but they have to maintain it themselves.

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

#172

Post by Consultant32452 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #169
Consultant32452 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That group of elected officials is still spending your life to enrich themselves at no personal risk. By nature of the monarch owning you and the country, if the country loses the monarch loses.

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

#173

Post by type0 »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #141
type0 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's no good, in the Soviet Union corruption only lasted for 5 years until it was replaced by the new one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_nation...

What are you talking about? The USSR was ruled by the same party its whole existence.

I am talking about this thing called joke. Bureaucratic corruption (outside the party) did change somewhat for 5 years at the time.

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

#174

Post by pkd »

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?

Yes, all kinds of heritable wealth are problematic. But when it comes with heritable political power, doubly so.

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

#175

Post by dTal »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #162
jopsen wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny.

On the one hand, most of the physical tourist attractions could be maintained without monarchy actually owning or inhabiting them - indeed, the tourism value of Buckingham Palace would perhaps be improved if you could actually go inside.

On the other hand, perhaps that would ruin the mystique - and the mystique is certainly worth something too, as the wedding of William and Kate is estimated to have generated several billion pounds in tourist revenue all by itself, which is enough to pay for several decades of monarchy.

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

#176

Post by mhh__ »

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…

What? We can castrate the royals, then keep them ceremonially.

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

#177

Post by cmroanirgo »

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…

It might be interesting to some that there is some possibility that QE2 isn't the rightful monarch anyhow.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Abney-Hastings,_14th...

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

#179

Post by mhh__ »

StavrosK wrote: post #99
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…

> 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.

Because currently we have a ruling party, and the queen can interfere before that ruling party tables a bill to parliament.

Also, the Monarchy is effectively a mechanism for it's powers to be controlled by ministers, this means parliament can and has been effectively shut down temporarily to avoid debate at the whim of Government Ministers against the will of parliament itself.

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

#180

Post by mhh__ »

gruffalowboy wrote: post #38
twoslide wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.

It's called 'Royal Assent'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent Certain bills (e.g. financial) are by convention not blocked by the Lords and so once these final bill has been approved it is sent to the queen for her signature to put it in law. The last time the Monarch refused to pass a law approved by Parliament was 1704 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2327561...

Royal Consent is a murkier and more dangerous concept than Royal Assent.

The day the queen refuses to assent to a bill against the will of parliament is the day the monarchy ends.

Post reply on HN