The Queen has more power over British law than we thought • Hacker News Board

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

#561

Post by jopsen » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 7:29 AM UTC

idclip wrote: post #329

jopsen wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 corru…

In Denmark we have a constitutional monarchy... And while the constitution mentions the "King" many places.

We now have a Queen, and the role of the monarchy is entirely ceremonial.

Back in 1849 the Danish king signed the constitution, making the role of the king ceremonial, and giving us democracy.

Sure, this was in the aftermath of the French revolution. And hadn't the Danish king signed away his power we would likely have had a revolution.

Yes, monarchy in it's original/natural form is horrific. It's essentially a dictatorship, no different. But I'd money and a ceremonial role can grease the wheels for a peaceful transition is that so bad?

In Britain they don't have a constitution the same way. But I see many events throughout british history where the crown gradually signed away power.

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

#562

Post by jopsen » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 7:40 AM UTC

knorker wrote: post #426

Closi wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In Saudi Arabia you can go to a public punishment, and see criminals (e.g. gays?) get hanged or have their hands cut off. If you're a foreigner apparently you'll be pushed to the front for a good view. Also cute!

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, no different from dictatorship.

What we have in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Britain is a ceremonial monarchy. The article is about how queens assent still granted the crown some indirect power (mostly through access to politicians).

But in practice, the crown has very little power. And is a culture institution.

If the cost of peaceful transition to democracy, is paying the crown money for generations to come, and giving the crown a ceremonial role. The might be worth it, even if the current King is a murderous lunatic.

(Future kings will learn that the monarchy needs to be popular, or people will vote it out of existence)

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

#563

Post by jopsen » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 7:46 AM UTC

pkd wrote: post #171

jopsen wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

False dichotomy. You don't have to sign up for a contract that give them even ceremonial powers forever or behead them in grotesque violence. It is possible to negotiate a deal where they have no power and get to keep their properties but they have to maintain it themselves.

> It is possible to negotiate a deal where they have no power and get to keep their properties but they have to maintain it themselves.

Sure, it might be possible to get a better deal. Or it might not, is it worth the risk?

Giving a ceremonial role is a pretty solid carrot. And compared to violent revolution it's dirt cheap to offer :)

I'm sure it wasn't easy to convince the Danish king to sign the Danish constitution in 1849. It's not a given that it could have happened peacefully.

In the end, it might not last forever anyways. It'll last so long as the monarchy remains popular, because at the end of the day the votes can change the constitution.

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

#564

Post by jopsen » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 7:53 AM UTC

psychoslave wrote: post #432

jopsen wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) You might probably buy far more and far better distributed amount of cuteness without a royal family. > A revolution like the French isn't free or without risks. Paying off the monarchy for generations to come is quite possibly cheaper. Nothing is without cost and risk. Keeping a royal family includes a cost and it rise the risk…

> First, one might be willing to destitute royal caste from its privileges without willing to shedding blood and make widespread violence arise.

How do you replace the people in power peacefully, if they don't want to go?

It generally works out best if you offer them a carrot.

My point was merely that if it avoids violent revolution, the size of the carrot your offering might not matter so much :)

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

#565

Post by jopsen » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 7:58 AM UTC

ric2b wrote: post #519

jopsen wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> My personal pocket philosophy is that the money we pay the royal family is the cost of a peaceful transformation to democracy. The transition is done, if you stopped now there would be no revolution to keep the monarchy.

> The transition is done, if you stopped now there would be no revolution to keep the monarchy.

True, now we're just paying interest on a purchase made generations ago.

Is that so bad? I assume it'll go away if the monarchy becomes unpopular.

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

#566

Post by jopsen » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:06 AM UTC

scoopertrooper wrote: post #287

jopsen wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Bribing the monarch into being a figurehead is no guarantee either. For instance, the monarchy didn't stop the rise of Mussolini or Franco.

Nope, it's no guarantee.

But it might it improve the odds?

Starting with a violent revolution tends to put violent people in charge of your democracy.

I suppose it worked reasonably for the Americans.

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

#567

Post by jopsen » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:16 AM UTC

ampdepolymerase wrote: post #386

jopsen wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You cannot divorce Syria's situation from regional geopolitics. Simplifying it to not bribing Assad enough is a complete fantasy. Ultimately most of the problems stem from the hard realpolitik fact that the Syrian state have little military power to wield against significant adversaries. Their newfound alliance with Russia may be useful against rebels and terrorists and negating the meddling of the French and US, but…

> Simplifying it to not bribing Assad enough is a complete fantasy.

True,

I don't think anyone was convinced Assad would step down if given more time or money.

Just saying, that in that calculus offering a ceremonial role is still a cheap bargain -- assuming you can get the people in power to take the offer -- that's not a given.

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

#568

Post by knorker » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:35 AM UTC

Closi wrote: post #520

knorker wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a difference in degree, not kind. Royalty in Europe has abused their power. It's inherited corrupt power, that time and time again has shown that given this power they abuse it. Is it the same? No. Just like how Anders Brevik is not as bad as Hitler. But yeah, Anders Brevik's crimes are "cute". Defending corruption and crimes because "at least it's not Saudi Arabia" is what's truly silly.

It’s a difference in structure and power balance. The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency. It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute, and probably needs to be further seperated from power, but I suspect that’s too much nuance considering we have already hit Godw…

> The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency.

Well that's a straw man.

> It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute

It is. And one of the Boston bombers was considered cute. It has no baring on whether he's a good guy, or someone who should be stopped.

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

#569

Post by knorker » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:43 AM UTC

jopsen wrote: post #560

knorker wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Cute". Defending state supported inherited power, which has already shown to be corrupted and have abused that power, by saying it's "cute" is like saying pirates murdering and stealing are romantisised to being cute. Don't confuse watching and enjoying Pirates of the Caribbean with thinking it's a good idea to murder and steal on merchant ships. Russian oligarchs and mafioso also have their charm, but don't confuse…

That's a very fair argument :) And maybe one day it will be time to do away with it.. but it does have a cuteness factor to it. And politicians are unlikely to want to burn political capital doing away with a popular cultural institution. So as long as they behave, remain popular, I doubt the monarchy will go away.

As mentioned elsewhere, they have actually not behaved.

And we've not even mentioned yet Prince Andrew's connections to Jeffrey Epstein, and how he's being allowed to get away with it because of his family.

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

#570

Post by knorker » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:47 AM UTC

jopsen wrote: post #562

knorker wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Saudi Arabia you can go to a public punishment, and see criminals (e.g. gays?) get hanged or have their hands cut off. If you're a foreigner apparently you'll be pushed to the front for a good view. Also cute!

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, no different from dictatorship. What we have in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Britain is a ceremonial monarchy. The article is about how queens assent still granted the crown some indirect power (mostly through access to politicians). But in practice, the crown has very little power. And is a culture institution. If the cost of peaceful transition to democracy, is paying the crown…

Sweden and Britain both have abuses of power. The Swedish king has used his immunity from prosecution to commit crimes. Sure, not murder, but he's done "fuck you, I can't be prosecuted for reckless driving. Luckily I didn't kill anyone, but no thanks to me".

Other parts of the royal family have claimed immunity when committing crimes (traffic violations), even though they don't actually have it.

So the king and his family have been abusing their power. It's a slap in the face of the whole country.

Look elsewhere in this thread for abuses of power from the British royal family. Also, you know, Prince Andrew…

Immunity from prosecution is hardly "some indirect ceremonial power", especially when it's has ACTUALLY been used to commit crimes and getting away with it.