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

261–270 of 599 posts

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

#261

Post by crumbshot »

zepto wrote: post #256
crumbshot wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a model of monarchical disposal that has been successfully used by Germany, Greece and Romania. Letting them stay and keep all their vast wealth would risk allowing them continued influence. Also, the birth of the United Republic should involve a peaceful transfer of power, so doing this in the French style is completely out of the question.

I didn’t ask how it would work. I asked what the grounds for removal would be?

Removal in what sense? Are you seeking clarification on why the monarchy should be abolished, or the benefits of imposing exile?

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

#262

Post by pbhjpbhj »

pjmorris wrote: post #232
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.

The way I read the GP's comment was that the meat of the argument wasn't the 'cute' part, it was the 'avoid a violent revolution' part. Wars are usually more expensive than peace.

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.

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

#263

Post by smoyer »

peruvian wrote: post #224
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…

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.

What does a week at Buckingham palace cost on AirBnB?

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

#264

Post by krisgee »

motohagiography wrote: post #19

How does one even become a monarch? They weren't always hereditary, and it would be interesting to see what they were based on. Seems like you need some kind of divine recognition, as otherwise you're just a dictator.

>Seems like you need some kind of divine recognition, as otherwise you're just a dictator.

I'd argue you have it backwards there. You start as a dictator (you and a bunch of people who agree with you take over some part of land, congrats you're the King) then the legitimacy comes from you and your family holding on to it till everyone's used to it.

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

#265

Post by smnrchrds »

smoyer wrote: post #263
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.

What does a week at Buckingham palace cost on AirBnB?

£350m

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

#266

Post by heavyset_go »

pmoriarty wrote: post #129
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…

"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.

About 40% of the public expresses authoritarian personality traits. From Wikipedia[1]:

> The authoritarian personality is a personality type characterized by extreme obedience and unquestioning respect for and submission to the authority of a person external to the self, which is realized through the oppression of subordinate people

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality

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

#267

Post by pbhjpbhj »

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…

Maybe because all the insurrectionists were murdered, removing them from the gene pool, by our monarchs ancestors.

If conformity and deference are a necessary trait for survival that has to have some effect, even if it's a societal effect rather than a genetic one.

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

#268

Post by sneak »

s17n wrote: post #89
pasabagi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps the idea that convention and precedent is the only thing holding the British system together makes it stronger. Coronavirus has been a pretty good litmus test for which countries have good governments, and which countries do not. The UK has consistently led the charts in terms of deaths and infections. I think it shows the fundamental defectiveness of the system itself - a defectiveness that has been pretty…

That's ridiculous - in the US, at least, our failure to contain the virus was clearly due more to a substantial portion of the population not wanting to contain it (and this ambivalence being correctly reflected in the government's actions) than any failure of governance. Of course, these people were a minority, but that just leads to the question of the appropriate protection of minority rights in a democracy, to wh…

Governance is accurately summarized as getting people to stop doing things they would have otherwise done, or to start doing things they wouldn't have otherwise.

In that sense, it is absolutely a failure of governance. People not wanting to contain it didn't happen in a vacuum... except perhaps a leadership vacuum.

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

#269

Post by henrikschroder »

im3w1l wrote: post #230
henrikschroder wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possession is 9/10th of the law... Every single now living monarch sits on their throne because an ancestor of theirs took it from someone else. In this case, might makes right.

Sweden's current monarch is king because his ancestor was adopted. His adoptive father's father was elected king (after Russian pressure). Edit: The election happened as the king before him had no heirs.

> Sweden's current monarch is king because his ancestor was adopted.

Well, Karl XIV became king because he was elected by parliament, and then Karl XIII formally adopted him to make him and his family royal, not the other way around.

Either way, his son and grandson both married women that were descendants of Gustav Vasa in an attempt to bolster their claims, and that guy definitely took the throne by force.

So yes, you're right in that not every current reigning monarch has their position due to conquest, but most of them. And then that doesn't really matter, because the point I was making is that "rightful" is actually bullshit, it's 100% made up. It's political theater created to make it harder for presumptive conquerors to keep a throne, even if they have the might necessary to take it.

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

#270

Post by tacostakohashi »

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…

If you're suggesting some kind of causal link between monarchs and nice places, it seems a bit unfair to count "Canada, Australia, UK, NZ" individually, it kinds of pads the numbers a bit since it's all the same monarch.

Also, you haven't mentioned Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. Are they not nice places, despite sharing the very same monarch?

Post reply on HN