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

391–400 of 599 posts

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

#391

Post by afarrell »

kochikame wrote: post #344
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.

This is the point that people who say "but what about tourism?" completely and spectacularly miss. Versailles is one of the most visited places in the world. Having no royal people in there makes zero difference to that. We could have the tourism without the actual royals, 100% no problem there

That is because:

1. Versailles has a boatload of art in it and is massive.

2. Some rather dramatic things happened there.

Buckingham palace has plenty of art, but so does the V&A Museum.

And you can't re-create the historical drama and preserve stability.

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

#392

Post by jiofih »

kochikame wrote: post #344
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.

This is the point that people who say "but what about tourism?" completely and spectacularly miss. Versailles is one of the most visited places in the world. Having no royal people in there makes zero difference to that. We could have the tourism without the actual royals, 100% no problem there

Actually it does - the experience of visiting Versailles, a sort of preserved museum that exist solely for tourism, is entirely different from visiting an actual royal palace. Despite the historical significance it was one of the least memorable places I’ve been to in France.

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

#393

Post by Reason077 »

joubert wrote: post #328
stqism wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Treas…

> ”The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch”

Correct.

> “nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign.”

Incorrect. Currently 25% of the Crown Estate’s profits are paid to the Monarch. This was raised from 15% in 2018, and is set to revert back to 15% in 2028.

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

#394

Post by Thorentis »

Why is The Guardian up in arms about this, but not about the very clear and well understood veto that President Biden has over every single law that goes through Congress? Yes, The Guardian is a UK/commonwealth publication, but the article is essentially making the point "this shouldn't happen in a democracy", and yet the world's arguably largest and most influential democracy has an even greater veto power for their head of state.

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

#395

Post by keiferski »

If you’re looking for an intelligent argument that justifies the British aristocracy, I recommend reading T. S. Eliot. Although American by birth, he spent most of his life in England. His book Notes Toward the Definition of Culture is a good read.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.159230

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

#396

Post by Number157 »

javagram wrote: post #331
crumbshot wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, it is quite possible to do this within the rule of law. To avoid the monarch refusing to enact this, it would need to be done in two stages: 1. A new Royal Assent Act, that makes assent automatic upon a bill passing both Houses. Assuming this in itself receives assent, it would remove the monarch's power to veto or refuse a bill (a power that hasn't been used for over 300 years anyway). 2. A Repub…

The underlying assumption of the parent commenter is that “rule of law” means something other than 50%+1 of the House of Commons voting something into effect. For instance, if parliament passed a law allowing “The Purge” to happen yearly, would murders committed on that day be “rule of law”? If you don’t think so, perhaps you agree there are some inherent principles to rule of law that aren’t simply a majority vote o…

This is the major question that liberalism tries to solve. This is why in a liberal democracy, minority protection all the way to the individual is a top priority -- the 51% are not allowed to do anything they want.

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

#397

Post by roenxi »

Closi wrote: post #377
roenxi wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might have been a mistake to use the word 'cute', monarchies are an ugly business. But countries where the powers in charge are closely balanced enough that the transition away from a monarchy to something else slowly (maybe leaving the monarchy itself intact as in the UK) are much better than the ripping off the bandaid approach seen in Germany or France. Moderate political change is generally a better idea than…

I think 'cute' is probably a good word - amongst other reasons to visit London, a portion of tourists want to take photos with the silly people with tall red hats, see Buckingham palace and then buy a mug with a photo of the queen on it. People crowd the streets to see if the silly old smiley rich lady will wave at you from her golden carriage. People listen to the queens speech not because they look at her as a tyra…

We're talking about a country where they are forced to pretend that someone can be born with an ability to rule. Hereditary monarchies a sick joke.

If people want to go and look at the English and think that it is cute they can. But that shouldn't influence the local decision making.

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

#398

Post by CodeGlitch »

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…

After watching The Crown (it's fiction I know), being royal seems to me to be incredibly tedious, boring and downright limiting. Sure you can jet off to a nice country, but you are very limited in what you can do, where you can go and who you can talk to. Mess up just once and the tabloid media will be all over you.

Honestly would much rather be poor and free than be "royal".

I do think they serve a purpose, and tradition is important to many people (I know the progressive-types want to pull all that down).

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

#399

Post by Reason077 »

jiofih wrote: post #390
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…

I don’t understand the drama. Selling the royal estate kind of defeats its purpose. The people who bought a lease knew exactly what they were paying for, it’s not something you buy to “leave for your children”...

Leasehold is extremely common in UK property. Virtually all properties in multiple-unit buildings (flats/apartments) are leasehold, so “buying a lease” is pretty normal.

If the Monarch’s exemption to the normal leasehold laws was secretive and not known to buyers at the time, then it’s a problem.

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

#400

Post by inglor_cz »

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…

I can see you really dislike the whole idea of monarchy, but "grass is always greener on the other side". Republics, including mine, have a lot of corruption woven into their political systems. Many recent presidential elections around the world were very close, with the losing side relentlessly accusing the winners of corruption and conspiracy.

There is no happier afterlife once you get rid of a monarchy. You get a quasi-monarch with an opportunity to change him/her every X years and all the vile, disgusting, hateful polarization that comes with those elections in the era of Twitter.

If you kick out Elizabeth, I would probably offer her Czech throne in my turn. Can't be worse than who sits there today after winning a slim majority.

Post reply on HN