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

321–330 of 599 posts

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

#321

Post by Talanes »

krisgee wrote: post #225
voisin wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What turmoil would you genuinely believe would follow? The more absurd thing, in my mind, is that citizens of dozens of countries, including first world nations like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, consent to having the monarchy, even though it is largely ceremonial. Certainly no one believes it creates stability, nor that turmoil would ensue if they abandoned it.

Well the main source of turmoil would be in replacing the office since theoretically all the powers in the country devolve from the head of state. I gotta say that I find the rabid anti-monarchal take a lot of americans have online kinda weird. I wouldn't say I feel "ruled" in any real sense by the British crown even though it is technically true. The Prime Minister and the House of Commons are where the actual legis…

>Well the main source of turmoil would be in replacing the office since theoretically all the powers in the country devolve from the head of state.

If we just need somewhere for power to divest from, then hand it over to the royal Corgis. If you have to have the fiction of a figurehead to make your government function, better it be something that has no possibility of corruption.

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

#322

Post by etrevino »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #96
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 peer…

So, 90 of those hereditary peers are elected, just, they're elected by other hereditary peers. So, just because you're a peer does not mean you have the right to sit in the House of Lords, whereas before you could. If I recall, you didn't have to ever sit, but if you wanted to show up, you basically could come in to vote.

The other two hereditary peers are not elected. They have some ceremonial role (though they can vote) that was thought prudent to retain. I don't remember (if I ever know) what it was.

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

#323

Post by patmcc »

stqism wrote: post #315
peruvian wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the royalty went away and the UK took possession of its lands, castles, and holdings, it could make a killing off tourism to those private or semi-private residences. Other European countries that are no longer monarchies do this just fine.

A lot of this land and property is privately owned by the royal family but leased to the government, I’m not exactly versed in UK law; but a governmental attempt to seize a private citizens land seems like it wouldn’t be the smoothest thing to attempt to pull off.

I think you'll be surprised what a government can accomplish when it really tries.

Being able to make laws helps with that.

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

#324

Post by vkou »

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…

> 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.

Only because of Hollywood accounting.

Tourists don't come to England to see the Queen. Tourists can't see the Queen. Tourists come to see the Palace. The Queen doesn't own Buckingham Palace. The government does. If the Queen were to disappear tomorrow, tourists would still come to England to see Buckingham Palace.

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

#325

Post by etrevino »

csours wrote: post #114
etrevino wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Wed…

While I have your attention: Any books on the church state duality? As an American with modern freedom of religion, the question of belief is very different than it was at that time. For instance, while belief was deeply personal and spiritual it was also extremely political. I'm not necessarily asking for a discourse here on that, but maybe a reference to firm up my thinking about how it was viewed at the time.

It's another Cromwell bio, but I think I found a book that could answer your questions on church-state relationships:

God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution, by Christopher Hill.

I can't remember any exact books on this, though it was basically the theme undergirding pretty much all of the politics of the time. Sorry I don't have more. It's been awhile!

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

#326

Post by retrac »

philistine wrote: post #152
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.

Here’s my point of view: it would be extremely simple to change our system to give reduced powers of our Governor General to an unelected president named by our prime minister every five years. But because the Canadian government rammed the constitution down the throat of the Quebec government, any constitutional change is now a political impossibility. And now Indigenous groups are demanding a seat at any constituti…

You're certainly right. It's generally agreed that Canada could become a republic simply by amending the constitution to outline a new law of succession that established a de facto presidency, that would be "heir" to the monarchy, and then advising the Queen to abdicate as Queen of Canada. Then the new head of state inherits the office of the Crown, and is now the President as outlined in law. Elegant, really.

But, politically, the unanimous consent of the provinces to do so is essentially impossible to obtain, due to the history you mention. Canadians also simply don't care much about this. My impression is that most people are basically republicans by sentiment, but their level of actually caring about this is near zero. I'm in that camp myself. I'd like a republic. But the headache of opening up constitutional negotiations? Gah! That has never ended well in our history.

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

#327

Post by bedobi »

anikan_vader wrote: post #258
cameronh90 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a common sense perspective I agree with you. However I find it hard to reconcile it with the fact that many/most of the nicest countries on earth to live in are constitutional monarchies. Including Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, UK, NZ and Japan. I don't know why this is, but it gives me pause in overthrowing the monarchy. It might be the existence of a monarch unites society in some way, or it…

I would point out that Sweden is unique on that list, as although they do have a monarchy, the king hold no legal/political power, not even in a "symbolic" sense. A potential explanation for the phenomena you've observed is that it's uncommon for new monarchies to be started in the 21st century, so the countries that still have monarchies are all countries that for the most part have had stable forms of government fo…

> the king hold no legal/political power, not even in a "symbolic" sense.

That's not true. The royal family of Sweden have immunity from prosecution, fines etc.

And not just in theory - there are actual examples of royal family members escaping speeding tickets, investigation into hunting accidents, illegally using the secret service to raid the homes of people suspected of possessing potentially embarrassing photographs etc etc. (see eg https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1326783/How-King-...)

They also enjoy diplomat status while traveling abroad etc etc.

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

#328

Post by joubert »

stqism wrote: post #315
peruvian wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the royalty went away and the UK took possession of its lands, castles, and holdings, it could make a killing off tourism to those private or semi-private residences. Other European countries that are no longer monarchies do this just fine.

A lot of this land and property is privately owned by the royal family but leased to the government, I’m not exactly versed in UK law; but a governmental attempt to seize a private citizens land seems like it wouldn’t be the smoothest thing to attempt to pull off.

The Crown Estate is not the private property of the monarch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

Also see, from https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0

> The Crown Estate as a whole dates back from the time of the Norman Conquest.

In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment, which was called the Civil List. With effect from 1 April 2012, the Civil List was incorporated into a new system of funding referred to as the Sovereign Grant.

The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch, nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign.

The Crown Estate is managed by an independent organisation, headed by a Board, and any profit from the Estate is paid every year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers. The Treasury is effectively the principle Government stakeholder and is kept informed of the estate’s overall business plans and strategies.

The Estates portfolio has a value of over £7.3 billion, from beef farms in the north of Scotland to Portland stone mining in Dorset. Windsor Great Park is the only Royal Park managed by the Crown Estate. All other parks are administered by the Royal Parks Agency.

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

#329

Post by idclip »

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…

Not trying to put you down. I see the thinking behind your rationale, it is also somewhat detached from human emotional and political reality.

Being exposed to the atrocities of /most/ (im no expert) modern day monarchs and being an arab in the middle east, i find it REALLY hard to call what they do cute, or something math and money could fix. These problems, even dänmarks, evolved through strife, injustice and corruption.

Monarchies are necessary as-long as the region needs them .. i see politics more like an evolutionary process where monarchy is part of a nations dev stages.

I actually wish you were right.

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

#330

Post by jedberg »

krisgee wrote: post #225
voisin wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What turmoil would you genuinely believe would follow? The more absurd thing, in my mind, is that citizens of dozens of countries, including first world nations like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, consent to having the monarchy, even though it is largely ceremonial. Certainly no one believes it creates stability, nor that turmoil would ensue if they abandoned it.

Well the main source of turmoil would be in replacing the office since theoretically all the powers in the country devolve from the head of state. I gotta say that I find the rabid anti-monarchal take a lot of americans have online kinda weird. I wouldn't say I feel "ruled" in any real sense by the British crown even though it is technically true. The Prime Minister and the House of Commons are where the actual legis…

> The Prime Minister and the House of Commons are where the actual legislative power rests

The article disagrees with you. Or at least points out where there isn't always true.

Post reply on HN