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

361–370 of 599 posts

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

#361

Post by akiselev »

lmm wrote: post #259
Barrin92 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's never a guarantee that anyone isn't corrupt, but switching from an opaque, land-owning monarchy to something like the German presidency which has the same function (mostly symbolic, but has some emergency powers), at least gives clear transparent procedures, is accountable to the public in formal ways, draws a regular salary, and isn't living off inherited wealth. What exactly is the justification for having…

> What exactly is the justification for having those tasks, if they're deemed necessary, executed by some hereditary, secretive, uber-wealthy family rather than by someone who is actually a civil servant? The easiest ways to corrupt someone are offering them wealth, opportunities for their children, or a popular reputation; the royals are relatively immune to all of those.

> offering them wealth, opportunities for their children, or a popular reputation

The government literally pays them and promotes them as a symbol of the nation - how is that not offering them "wealth, opportunities for their children, or a popular reputation"?

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

#362

Post by jonp888 »

oblio wrote: post #356
jonp888 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Sure, that works fine when one party has 50%. But what happens when no-one does?

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

#363

Post by jonp888 »

roelschroeven wrote: post #64
retrac wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is very true. The Crown plays a useful and vital role in the Westminster system. (I'm in Canada.) It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. But I'm not sure the monarchy offers anything not provided by a nonpartisan and mostly ceremonial presidency, similar to Ireland or Germany.

> It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. Why not? I admit I'm more familiar with the Belgian situation than the British Crown, but to me it always seems not very difficult to replace the monarch with almost nothing. I don't see why we need any kind of president, even though that's what people always talk when there's talk of doing away with the monarchy. The real leader of the country is the prime m…

So if after an election there are two different coalitions with different Prime-ministerial candidates 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?

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

#365

Post by timc3 »

jdlyga wrote: post #122

If watching The Crown has taught me anything, it's this. She has a considerable amount of influence over government.

I don’t think you should be using that TV show as a guide, parts of it are fictional. For examples, take a look at the wikipedia section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown_(TV_series)#Historic...

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

#367

Post by raverbashing »

henrikschroder wrote: post #204
cmroanirgo wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be interesting to some that there is some possibility that QE2 isn't the rightful monarch anyhow. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Abney-Hastings,_14th...

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.

Or, as CGP Grey puts it "bigger army diplomacy"

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

#368

Post by marcus_holmes »

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.

I'm dual-national English/Australian.

As an Australian, wtf are we doing with a monarchy? Makes no sense, it's just a holdover from the colonial past, bring on the republic immediately. (Anecdotally, the general consensus amongst my peers is that the Queen's death will be the trigger for this - no-one wants King Charles again).

As an Englishman - it's too deeply part of our culture to remove just like that. What would we replace it with? A President? How would that be different from the Prime Minister? It's not obvious how it would work, and it's not clear what we'd gain from that (except not having King Charles again). Who would the military swear loyalty to? How do we transfer hundreds of years of strong tradition into a new structure without breaking things? I know that smart people have thought of good answers to all these questions, but they're not part of the public awareness, they haven't had time to steep into the public conciousness (unlike republican ideas in Australia, which are pretty well-formed and accepted).

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

#369

Post by setr »

oblio wrote: post #358
setr wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :-))

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

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

#370

Post by timc3 »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #301

For anyone interested in exploring this topic further, i recommend "the crown" series on netflix. The series theme may come across as bland when compared gems like the wire & breaking bad... but the theme of duty, especially in these times, is uniquely powerful, and production values are worthy of any top series on tv. For a nonUK viewer, it is hugely instructional. I enjoyed the show immensely

It is a great show that I agree on, but, as I pointed out in another comment is not totally accurate and some parts are likely to be just fiction (thinking in particular of certain conversations).

I think the only way to get a better picture is to read a lot of different books on the subject.

Post reply on HN