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

51–60 of 599 posts

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

#51

Post by Someone »

twoslide wrote: post #24
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…

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.

Probably. The same applies to other monarchies. King Baudouin of the Belgians famously asked parliament to declare him unable to govern for a day so that he didn’t have to sign a pro-abortion law (https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/world/belgian-king-unable..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudouin_of_Belgium#Religious_...)

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

#52

Post by makomk »

sleavey wrote: post #18

I wonder if private members' bills are subject to the same consent. As far as I'm aware, the first time the chamber hears of these bills is when they are submitted by the member, and presumably by that stage it's public and can't be retracted without bringing a huge spotlight on this obscure rule. A private member's bill could therefore potentially be used to bring about the abolition of this practice.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, it already has been used to prevent a Private Member's Bill from being debated relatively recently in 1999: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_parliamentary_approval_for_... Also, I don't think this rule is really any more obscure than any of the other subtle details of the UK's unwritten constitution - people who care about this sort of thing almost certainly already knew about it (I certainly did!) The Guardian is probably trying to turn it into a big scandal because they don't really like the fact that we have a monarchy.

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

#53

Post by gumby »

gruffalowboy wrote: post #36
etrevino wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're 100% right. The UK would be served just as well by a nonpartisan president.

> nonpartisan president Oxymoron. You have to vote for a president right otherwise you end up with ... well Oliver Cromwell. A Dictator by any other name.

Consider the examples given, countries like Germany, Ireland, India, etc

Where presidents have actual executive power such as USA, France, Russia, the issue you bring up can, at least in theory, occur.

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

#54

Post by Veen »

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.

The straightforward answer is that you are born the heir of someone who is already the monarch.

A better answer for the UK in line with your point about religious recognition is that you are anointed monarch. There is a coronation ceremony where the heir is anointed with holy oil (chrism) by the Archbishop of Canterbury. After that, they stop being an ordinary person and become monarch.

You can see part of the coronation of Elizabeth II (and hear the incredible Zadok the Priest coronation anthem by Handel) here [0], although not the anointing itself, because it happens under a canopy and has never been filmed.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-QvwFWTB5c

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

#55

Post by jbay808 »

detaro wrote: post #40
twoslide wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.

In practice it's mostly ceremonial. It's not ceremonial in the way that she could do it and it would happen, but is in the way that AFAIK they haven't in centuries, and starting it outside very exceptional circumstances would mean that power would be taken away quickly.

As an example of an exceptional circumstance, in a Canada a few years back there was a minority government. The opposition parties banded together and formed a coalition with a plan to take over as a majority.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_p...

The Prime minister moved to keep power by requesting the Governor General (Queen's representative) prorogue parliament.

In this circumstance, the Governor General accepted the Prime Minister's request, which ended up rescuing the Conservative minority government. But I think most people agree that if she had decided otherwise, and allowed the majority coalition to take over, that would also have been an acceptable result. So this was, indirectly, the Queen making a ruling on a power struggle between a minority government and a majority opposition.

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

#56

Post by headcanon »

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_monarchs

Pretty fascinating history overall. In England's case, the earliest monarch we'd recognize as "King of England" was Alfred the Great, who was king of what was called Wessex at the time. Wessex was the last holdout of "native" English as opposed to being ruled by Vikings and their descendants. Wessex eventually re-conquered the island a few hundred years later and became England.

As to how earlier kings gained their position, at least in England I'd say it was some combination of local warlords that were semi-legitimized during Roman rule, then later their descendents consolidated power after the Romans left, either through marriage, trade, or violence.

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

#57

Post by mattmanser »

retrac wrote: post #50
Chris2048 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a republic. That said - what would happen to all the stuff owned by the crown? I'm not sure if the postal service still is, and the prisons could probably be let go - but I think there's a lot of land, especially in the south owned by the crown.

Property owned by the Crown is not the property of Elizabeth, as a person. If QE II were to abdicate, for example, she would not get to keep all of it. It's the property of the Crown, the office of the head of state. It belongs to the state, in practice. If she's advised to abdicate, she would, and she's advised to transfer all Crown property to a republic, she would. The royal family does have many billions in perso…

Do they actually though? If they do, how come Edward VIII had to go begging after his abdication?

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

#58

Post by leighfuu »

twoslide wrote: post #24
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…

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.

David Allen Green (as usual) has a decent take on UK constitutional matters.

As for the Queen being a small c conservative, absolutely. British monarchy in this century is a badly run crime syndicate.

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/02/the-queens-consent-a-str...

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

#59

Post by mattmanser »

detaro wrote: post #40
twoslide wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.

In practice it's mostly ceremonial. It's not ceremonial in the way that she could do it and it would happen, but is in the way that AFAIK they haven't in centuries, and starting it outside very exceptional circumstances would mean that power would be taken away quickly.

This is exactly what this article is about, turns out it's not uncommon, bills have been held up or changes added before assent was granted at the request of the monarchy over a thousand times in the present Queen's rein.

That's like 150 times a year? Every 2 days? How is that 'exceptional'?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Guardian has a week of damaging headline from this.

Today's was the Prince of Wales added an exemption shafting home owners on 'his' land, causing people's homes to become worthless so that he can collect extra rent. A clear abuse of power.

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

#60

Post by jesboat »

gruffalowboy wrote: post #38
twoslide wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.

It's called 'Royal Assent'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent Certain bills (e.g. financial) are by convention not blocked by the Lords and so once these final bill has been approved it is sent to the queen for her signature to put it in law. The last time the Monarch refused to pass a law approved by Parliament was 1704 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2327561...

The article is describing a different process than Royal assent
Post reply on HN