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

521–530 of 599 posts

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

#521

Post by subsubzero »

willyt wrote: post #63
subsubzero wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like there are two groups of lords, one group has been heavily shown in the media(think Downton Abby or the aristocratic family having to sell or have tours of their estate). The other set of lords is not really shown in media and they are large landowners in London and other cities in Britain and are extremely wealthy and powerful, see the Grosvenor family - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th…

Not really. You don’t have to be a landowner or an aristocrat to become a lord. The ‘Downtown Abbey’ style lords, called ‘hereditary peers’ are on their way out, there’s not many left. Most peers are appointed by the government of the day supposedly as a result of doing something useful for the country as a whole. I think that certain members of the clergy become peers by default, likewise top judges, ‘The Law Lords’…

Hereditary peers seem to be doing quite well according to this article,

https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/aristocrat-uk-britain-fa...

> Separate research last year confirmed that just under a third of all land in England and Wales is owned by members of the aristocracy

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

#522

Post by setr »

oblio wrote: post #470
setr wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question isn’t whether people would visit, but rather do they visit more because of the queen’s existence. That is, would be worth a billion rather than billions

That's probably impossible to quantify. The example next door, Versailles, kind of says you don't need a living monarch.

>That's probably impossible to quantify

Sure, but that's the metric you need to go by if you want to evaluate the tourism value of a "living" monarchy.

That tourists would continue to exist with or without the queen doesn't really tell us anything useful. It's a question of how many.

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

#523

Post by jhbadger »

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…

The late author JG Ballard once suggested that the monarchy should be abolished, but that the British government should work with Disney to have lifelike robotic replicas made. Cheaper in the long run, and Disney World is quite popular after all.

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

#524

Post by pvaldes »

jazzyk wrote: post #506
calgoo wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Spain the royal family is also paid in a similar way as Denmark and Sweden. However, they are corrupt and make deals with SA and other nations. They go on elephant hunts and are above the law as the Spanish secret service / police will try to defend them as much as possible. When something actually does come to light, they are allowed to leave the country without limit and live in SA with their millions of ta…

It was just the previous King, Juan Carlos, his son (the current King) seems to conduct himself much better (no corruption, no elephant hunts, no tawdry extra-marital affairs). But I do agree with you that the concept of monarchy (hereditary power/wealth at taxpayers' expense) has run its course.

Hunting elephants is legal and can help protection for the species. The real problem is in the context. Is going to an african tax heaven with some questionable people, suffering the second strange accident to the royal family in a short time, and justify the travel later claiming that he wanted to shoot an elephant.

EU project is only partially compatible with monarchy, you either have the power or don't and monarchs can only slowly lose more and more power to bankers with time. Thus, the current anti monarchy trend in many countries of Europe would be expectable. British probably see it coming and jumped of the train.

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

#525

Post by ycombigator »

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…

Exile is a bit of a silly suggestion.

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

#526

Post by dane-pgp »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #501
dodobirdlord wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To which I normally say the US isn’t a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. I don’t know why I do that, it only causes people to dig in deeper to their position. Perhaps because this is both pedantic and wrong? A state can be both a democracy and a republic, and many are, such as the United States.

Explain how the US is a democracy without providing the definition of a Republic and renaming that form of government as a democracy to suit your arguement.

Explain how the US isn't a democracy without providing the definition of "direct democracy" and renaming that form of government as democracy to suit your argument.

In theory, I think it's possible for an anarchist republic to exist, where there are no elections or rulers, and also no monarchy or "private" interests owning the state.

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

#527

Post by posterboy »

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…

erm, the crown pays you, the currency was even named the crown?!?

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

#528

Post by konschubert »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #423
konschubert wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused about your objection. That's how it works in almost every modern democratic country. The check and balance to the power of the current government is the constitution, with a national constitutional court enforcing it.

You are mistaken. Almost every modern democracy has a bicameral legislature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism

That's a fair point, but I don't think the house of lords really represents a second chamber? Usually that second chamber consists of representatives of federate states, such as the senate or the Bundesrat.

How do the lords get elected?

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

#529

Post by dane-pgp »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #500
dane-pgp wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A state can be both a democracy and a republic, and many are, such as the United States. Always has been: "But a representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable." -- A…

An Alexander Hamilton quote is reaching pretty deep. Ever stop and wonder why you would quote that and not the Constitution directly? It’s because democracy doesn’t appear anywhere in the constitution. The law of the land, the very document that establishes our form of government doesn’t mention democracy, do you think it’s an accident or oversight of the founding fathers? Article 4. Section 4: The United States shal…

I don't know if the 17th Amendment is also reaching too deeply for you, but it does say:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

You could make the case that the constitution originally didn't create a country that perfectly implemented the ideals of a representative democracy, but that's trivially true due to slaves and women not having the right to vote.

It may also be fair to say that the Electoral College is still a compromise between representative democracy and representation of the individual states, but it does nevertheless approximate a representative democracy, especially when the winner of the popular vote happens to become president.

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

#530

Post by posterboy »

henrikschroder wrote: post #207
dTal wrote: post #175

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. 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.

No it doesn't. You may have Barack Trump the friendly Clown as a costume and post different silent actors each week.
Post reply on HN