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

211–220 of 599 posts

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

#211

Post by ericd »

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.

I’m a fan of the “Revolutions” podcast.

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

#212

Post by dragonwriter »

zepto wrote: post #208
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.

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

At best, it means the person a tally ruling over you loses the fig leaf (minor, at this point, because everyone recognizes it such) of doing it in someone else's name who has no real substantial role.

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

#213

Post by wizzwizz4 »

pasabagi wrote: post #102
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I am English. I have also lived in Germany for several years. I can tell you that there is absolutely no comparison. Germans expect things to work, and write letters if they don't. English people expect things to be broken, and just want to go on with their day. Perhaps complaining is the wrong term - but for example, where my parents live, the train service has the trick of closing one out of two toilets on the trai…

I'll need to think about that. My first thought was “but they wouldn't do that; they're trying their best”.

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

#214

Post by lvturner »

zepto wrote: post #205
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. On what grounds exactly?

Not advocating OPs approach, but I"m pretty sure you could find them guilty of at least one act of treason.

"For unknown reasons, Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home was not advised of Anthony Blunt's spying, although the Queen and Home Secretary Henry Brooke had been fully informed. In November 1979, then PM Margaret Thatcher formally advised Parliament of Blunt's treachery and the immunity deal that had been arranged"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Blunt

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

#215

Post by diegoholiveira »

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.

Everyone want someone to rule over them, except, perhaps, the libertarians.

Any bureaucrat of any government have more power in your life than you think. And over time, we're giving them more and more power to regulate our lifes. (I'm not even talking about politicians here, they're more powerful than any absolutist king of the history).

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

#216

Post by zepto »

crumbshot wrote: post #108
StavrosK wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Corruption amongst other members of the upper and ruling classes is not a good reason to avoid dealing with the most undemocratic of them all. Also, the wider principle is that there shouldn't be an untouchable hereditary ruling class at all. It's an absolute nonsense.

Most countries have a hereditary ruling class. At least with the Royal Family, you know who they are.

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

#217

Post by mvc »

chillwaves wrote: post #109
markdown wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Can you even make a case that monarchs earned their wealth?

They "earned" it the same way billionaires earned it. By getting wealthy competitors to fight each other and consolidating their monopoly position whenever possible.

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

#219

Post by crumbshot »

zepto wrote: post #216
crumbshot wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corruption amongst other members of the upper and ruling classes is not a good reason to avoid dealing with the most undemocratic of them all. Also, the wider principle is that there shouldn't be an untouchable hereditary ruling class at all. It's an absolute nonsense.

Most countries have a hereditary ruling class. At least with the Royal Family, you know who they are.

Indeed, and they should all be targeted for removal.

One of the key problems in many human societies is that most of the wealth and power ends up concentrated in the hands of the undeserving few, who use it to further enrich themselves and their families, at the expense of everyone else.

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

#220

Post by quicklime »

dragonwriter wrote: post #209
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.

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

Yes, that's the saying. But here's an article that says that they do more ruling than people say...
Post reply on HN