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

351–360 of 599 posts

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

#351

Post by jonp888 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #281
henrikschroder wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the Brits already HAVE a head of state what they don't need in effect is another. There is nothing the queen does that couldn't be done by existing members of government.

So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections?

Under the Westminster system of government, I cannot see any alternative to having a seperate head of state that is not part of the government, even if they do nothing more than wake up every 5 years, appoint a prime minister and go back to sleep again.

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

#352

Post by schoen »

derefr wrote: post #299
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need a violent revolution, the people who place themselves above all other people and claim ownership of our lands and claim control of us as people could choose to denounce those positions and powers of their own will. No one is forcing them to claim sovereignty over other people, nor forcing them to claim sole right to income and assets that should belong to the nation.

Why would that result in the positions/powers being abolished, rather that succession kicking in? Monarchy isn't a hot potato, that the current power-holder has to directly pass on lest it get "dropped on the floor" and cease to exist. Monarch is a belief of the people that a position of power exists and is "open" to be taken by a person with a claim on "right to rule." It's a thing you can convince people you deserv…

I have a bit of a hard time understanding this hobby, but people have traced multiple lines of succession to the same throne out for centuries, even in cases where the throne no longer exists. In many cases pretenders identified by this activity have active supporters even when they don't promote or assert their own claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rival_successions

Like there can be some guy living in another country who says "um, that monarchy no longer even exists" or "um, my ancestors lost that war a long time ago and I don't plan to reignite it", but still has some kind of association of enthusiasts who claim to actively want him on the throne. One such example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria who insists that he doesn't actually think of himself as the King of England -- his relative who last actually exercised that position was deposed back in 1688 -- but that doesn't stop other people from thinking of him that way. :-)

Wikipedia has several dozen people listed in the official present-day line of succession to the British throne and notes that a genealogist has claimed to identify over 1,000 people in that line.

It's possible to imagine a France-like republican future for Britain in which people's elaborately detailed and extensively researched pretense claims are not very interesting news for the overwhelming majority of the population, but it probably wouldn't be something that would happen overnight in response to a couple of abdications when a huge number of British people and a substantial number of people with claims to the throne are actively enthusiastic about the monarchy.

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

#353

Post by erk__ »

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…

Last time a Danish monarch used any kind of political power it was close to end in a revolution with a general strike.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Crisis

https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/danish-workers-str...

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

#355

Post by michaelmrose »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #313
michaelmrose wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't appear to be true at any time in history for a plethora of monarchies. Do you have anything to support your argument save for your well articulated but poorly reasoned thought process?

It's axiomatic of monarchy, not a thought process or reasoned argument. If the monarch owns all the wealth in the country, then if the wealth of the country goes down, the wealth of the monarch goes down. If the laborers die, if the resources are mismanaged, etc. then the monarch's wealth and power diminishes (because the laborer's lives and the resources are the monarch's wealth). A monarch may choose to spend their…

Firstly you are pretending that people are rational actors. This isn't necessarily true of people in aggregate and its sure as hell not true of individuals who have many wildly divergent understandings of the world, the probable end results of different actions, and desired outcomes including but not limited to aggregate wealth.

Next this doesn't even work out if we replace the monarch with an automaton which faithfully executes economic theory.

A monarch of 100M people might spend 10,000 people for some end that on net increases his wealth whereas a president of 100M might find the rest of the people so appalled at the 10k corpses that they vote him out of office.

If you look at how monarchs have actually and in fact spent the blood of their people historically we wouldn't have to argue theory. Throughout history monarchies have spent their people liberally in proportion to their ability to do so. You can look at recent history at a bunch of nations that are still technically monarchies you will note that their period of moderation directly coincides with the waning power of the very actor you claim somehow serves to moderate the state.

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

#356

Post by oblio »

jonp888 wrote: post #351
michaelmrose wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the Brits already HAVE a head of state what they don't need in effect is another. There is nothing the queen does that couldn't be done by existing members of government.

So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections? Under the Westminster system of government, I cannot see any alternative to having a seperate head of state that is not part of the government, even if they do nothing more than wake up every 5 years, appoint a prime minister a…

> So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections?

We, here in the rest of the world, use a magic number to determine that. 51% (or 50% + 1).

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

#357

Post by Dylan16807 »

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…

> the monarchy should be abolished

Sure, that's a fine idea.

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

Why, for using the power they rightfully have? Or just for the crime of having money? This seems very petty.

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

#358

Post by oblio »

setr wrote: post #342
vkou wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 d…

The question really is whether the existence of the queen is what provides continued value for buckingham palace — without the monarchy, it becomes another relic of a bygone era, with no inherent quality to attract tourists beyond its history and aesthetic. Visiting a “live” structure is an altogether different thing — this is where the queen lives vs this is where a queen once lived (as opposed to all the other plac…

Counterargument: all those grandiose empty buildings. People still come to see our Place of the Parliament in Bucharest and ain't nobody bringing back Ceaușescu :-))

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

#359

Post by Dylan16807 »

barry-cotter wrote: post #199
admissionsguy wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exclude first-generation millionaires and we have a deal.

And that’s how country X ended up having every successful entrepreneur emigrate or set up their business affairs so as to have assets held offshore.

Those can still be taxed.

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

#360

Post by oblio »

cameronh90 wrote: post #234
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.

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…

The Czech Republic, Austria, Italy, Germany, France, Ireland, South Korea, etc. There are plenty of counter examples.
Post reply on HN