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

201–210 of 599 posts

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

#201

Post by prewett »

motohagiography wrote: post #19

How does one even become a monarch? They weren't always hereditary, and it would be interesting to see what they were based on. Seems like you need some kind of divine recognition, as otherwise you're just a dictator.

I think the difference between a king and a dictator is that a king is the top feudal lord and a dictator is the top guy in a nation state.

I think the options for becoming a monarch are:

1) the birth heir of a current hereditary monarch

2) the designated heir of the current monarch (e.g. some Roman emperors were appointed by their predecessor. Although the August didn't call himself "king" because of the historical political animosity to a king, he did intend for the position to be hereditary, but the first few emperors had trouble having sons. Whether the emperors were monarchs is arguably semantic, although Rome was more of an empire [extracting resources from the periphery] than a feudal state, which would argue that they are not monarchs by my definition above. On the other hand, Roman administration of provinces wasn't as strong as a nation-state.)

3) get elected as monarch [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy]

4) conqueror somewhere and establish a feudal state. It might be necessary for you to have a successful succession in order for history to call you king, though.

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

#203

Post by JumpCrisscross »

flukus wrote: post #123
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…

> The British system is strictly about convention and precedent, whereas Americans have a little more explicit guidance from the Constitution. This is complicated by the supreme court which is far more political in the US than the rest of the anglosphere, to the point where it's arguably a third chamber of legislature. They have a lot more latitude to reinterpret the constitution as they wish than anywhere else and t…

> if you asked a random citizen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the UK to name a single supreme court judge they'd probably be unable to

Don't each of these countries feature sovereign Parliaments [1]?

Congress is not sovereign. It is one of three co-equal branches of government. This, the separation of powers, was a deliberate decision by America's founders.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty

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

#204

Post by henrikschroder »

cmroanirgo wrote: post #177
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…

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...

Possession is 9/10th of the law...

Every single now living monarch sits on their throne because an ancestor of theirs took it from someone else. In this case, might makes right.

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

#205

Post by zepto »

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…

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

On what grounds exactly?

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

#206

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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 to populists leaders.

In practice, all of the powers of the Crown must be exercised, and must only be exercised, by the Monarch as directed by various configurations of notionally-subordinate officials (whether the Parliamentary majority or the Cabinet as executive committee of the Privy Council or...). Simply investing those powers formally in the institutions which direct them in practice would have no noticeable effect. Or investing them, with the same practical constraints, whether together or separately in, like, any random person chosen off the street. The advantage of a ceremonial Presidency in place of a monarch is that they could continue to do the ceremonial functions as well as signing where directed by the Cabinet, etc., without occupying the time of people with real and substantive responsibilities in government.

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

#207

Post by henrikschroder »

dTal wrote: post #175
lotsofpulp wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

Getting rid of the monarch as the head of state also means your nation has to pick a new head of state, somehow. Regular elections and an office and bureaucracy around that isn't free either.

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

#208

Post by zepto »

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.

Erm, abolishing the monarchy doesn’t mean nobody is ruling over you.

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

#209

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

The British monarch, as the saying goes, reigns but does not rule.

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

#210

Post by zepto »

woodruffw wrote: post #183
lotsofpulp wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not going to try to answer the first, but as to the second question: Britain is exactly the example of this. The Queen (or King) is a symbol of national pride and unity. The British people regularly give her an approval rating of over 90%[1], which is astounding for someone who lives off of the public welfare. I happen to agree with the GP that monarchies should be abolished outright, but it is clear that people…

Given that the article claims she had reviewed more than 1000 laws, it’s hardly fair to call it public welfare.
Post reply on HN