[SolarCross]

, that's interesting and all, but do you think the monarchy has the same powers today as it did prior to 1651? Now ask yourself why?

for which realm? Back in 1651 the monarchy did not have very many of the following: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Jamaica, Solomon Islands, Barbados, Belize, Saint Lucia, etc. How many of those does the UK's parliament have now?

The barons have been a pain in the arse for the monarchs of Britain since 1066, the ECW and the Glorious Revolution were just the most recent outrages, since then they have all been very quiet, docile and well behaved. You seem to imagine the opposite.

Who serves whom? The Armed Forces, the (Her Majesty's) Revenue Collection, the majority of the important civil services including parliament serve the monarchy, take oaths to serve the monarchy. The monarchy does not care very much on the minutia of how the country is governed (this is in part because the UK is not their only kingdom), so the governed are invited to choose representatives to sit in parliament and decide who among them will pay what towards the upkeep of government. They can all be replaced if they misbehave though. They don't do anything that important.

[ingliz]

for which...

Before you opine on the English monarchy, I suggest you read Bagehot's The English Constitution. Perhaps then you will recognise that what you have written above is complete shite.

The popular theory of the English Constitution as to the sovereign is a comforting fiction.

In its oldest form at least, it considers him as an "Estate of the Realm," a separate co-ordinate authority with the House of Lords and the House of Commons. This and much else the sovereign once was, but this he is no longer. That authority could only be exercised by a monarch with a legislative veto. He should be able to reject bills, if not as the House of Commons rejects them, at least as the House of Peers rejects them. But the Queen has no such veto. She must sign her own death-warrant if the two Houses unanimously send it up to her. It is a fiction of the past to ascribe to her legislative power. She has long ceased to have any.

[...]

Constitutional royalty has [a] function. It acts as a DISGUISE. It enables our real rulers to change without heedless people knowing it.

[B0ycey]

for which realm? Back in 1651 the monarchy did not have very many of the following: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Jamaica, Solomon Islands, Barbados, Belize, Saint Lucia, etc. How many of those does the UK's parliament have now?

Does it embarrass you that a Maltese resident has had to explain to you how powerless the monarchy is?

At best, the Queen is nothing more than a 'head of state' for these nations. She certainly doesn't hold any power over them. The Commonwealth is just a club that gives poorer nations some economic benefits or larger nations a global platform away from the US shitshow to give them a small amount of influence to the world that they otherwise wouldn't have. If it wasn't for this, I expect there wouldn't even be a Commonwealth today. The four yearly games are a joke. We are not living in a bygone era. The age of inherited power is over. The Queen is a puppet for Westminister. Her name might be on everything, but she no longer runs the show. So no, the Commonwealth might have grown during the reign of the British Empire, but the Queen's power since 1651 has gone to Westminster.

[Rich]

I wish my Like button was working. For @ingliz last post. When it works I try to be most diligent about liking those that I most ideological disagree with. There is however an unfortunate bias towards shorter posts. Immortal Goon will often write posts I really like but then will slip something in at the end that, I can't condone.

And you shouldn't call it the "English" Civil War either. It actually started in Scotland, and involved all four nations of the British Isles.

So England and Scotland, who were the other two Manx and Cornish?

No seriously you are absolutely right it was not just an English affair. There was also significant English and Scottish national consciousness. However we should not presume that there was a similar Welsh or Irish nationalism and even in Scotland and England, religion trumped nationalism.

[Victoribus Spolia]

What? Some fucker ( probably Muslim the way this thread is going) kills the royals and declares himself King, and everyone, including Trump, would approve?
I can't even boggle at that.

who said the king was muslim? We are talking about william.

[Decky]

If the Saxe-Corburg and Gotha benefits family want to go and rule something maybe they could go home to Germany and rule there? The British people tend to stand against idle swine like them.

[snapdragon]

who said the king was muslim? We are talking about william.

How will he manage that after the Muslim hordes have taken over the country?

[SolarCross]

@ingliz & @B0ycey

google governor-general Sir John Kerr and the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis

[ingliz]

@SolarCross

The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution.

Sir Martin Charteris, Queen's Private Secretary, dated 17 November 1975

[SolarCross]

The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution.

Sir Martin Charteris, Queen's Private Secretary, dated 17 November 1975

The governor-generals act with her authority. Since she lives in the UK she is the governor-general for the UK. In Australia she may not have been involved at all in the decision leaving that to her agent Sir John Kerr to do what was best.

The problem you are having is like that of the tenant who conflates the power of the landlord with that of the letting agent, because that is who he interacts with more. The letting agent's "power" comes from the landlord though. The landlord might leave all sorts of decisions in the hands of the agents from what price to set the rent, to how well the property is fixed up and on the terms of the any tenancy agreements but that doesn't mean the letting agents are the landlords or are higher than the landlord. Indeed it remains that while the landlord can sack the agent but the agent cannot sack the landlord and that all the powers and responsibilities vested in the agent are delegated from the landlord that the landlord is higher than the agent.

Mark Zuckerberg is in some sense the king of facebook, if facebook had a king it would be him. However as practical matter of fact he doesn't personally decide when the paper towels are topped up in the lavatories of a regional customer support centre, some agent makes that decision for him but that doesn't make the regional manager of hygiene or the line supervisor of the cleaning crew the true masters of facebook, although they might imagine they are from time to time.

[ingliz]

@SolarCross

The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the [Australian] Constitution.

Sir Martin Charteris, Queen's Private Secretary, dated 17 November 1975

[Victoribus Spolia]

@SolarCross, @ingliz, @B0ycey,

I thought on this over the weekend and did some more research and there does seem to be a good case to make for what @SolarCross is saying regarding the Monarchy actually retaining its power, even if delegating it and not practicing for PR reasons.

In 2003 the British Government released documents about what powers the monarchy actually retained that were merely executed by Parliament on her behalf. The documents revealed that:

1. The Monarchy retains the right to declare war (without the consent of Parliament).

2. Retains legal control of the Armed Forces as commander-in-chief.

3. Is beyond the information act and cannot be prosecuted in the UK, as well as retains diplomatic immunity in all nations.

4. Retains the power to charge and detain people in the UK as well as seize their property because they are not citizens but subjects of the Crown.

5. The Monarchy also has authority over the seas of the domain and can, unilaterally, recruit ships and (arguably) restrict any coming in or out of the nation.

6. The monarchy also retains the right to dissolve Parliament, and can call a new election for parliament if He/She does not like the ones that were voted in, and the monarch can appoint a new prime minister without subjecting the matter to a vote at all.

7. The Monarchy also retains the right to declare peace with any nation, not to mention war, as mentioned above.

8. The Monarchy cannot legislate laws, but Royal assent is required for the passage of any legislation and the Monarch could theoretically appoint new ministers until He/She got the legislation He/She wanted.

9. Likewise, the Monarch must first give consent to any law that affects the monarchy specifically before it can be discussed at all in Parliament. (this was done in 1999 when the Queen refused to allow discussion of a bill that would give parliament independent authority to approve air strikes in Iraq).

10. This is also besides the monarch's authority over the church of England and the Crown could unilaterally initiate reform of that body away from its decadent, and dare I say "secular" character.

The following PDF has the whole deal:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N03861.pdf

Here is a quotation of the summarized powers from this article: http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight ... wers-22069

UK PARLIAMENT (CC)
The Royal Prerogative are a set number of powers and privileges held by The Queen as part of the British constitution. Nowadays, a lot of these powers are exercised on Her Majesty’s behalf by ministers – things such as issuing or withdrawing passports that, without the Royal Prerogative, would require an act of parliament each time.

Over time, the prerogative powers have been used less and less though the important thing in our Constitutional Monarchy is that they still exist, they remain a means of protecting democracy in this country ensuring that no one can simply seize power.

Victorian constitutionalist Walter Bagehot defined The Queen’s rights as, the right ‘to be consulted, to encourage and to warn’ – but these rights are not the same as her powers, as we will now see.

The Queen’s prerogative powers vary and fall into different categories…

POLITICAL POWERS

The Queen’s political powers nowadays are largely ceremonial, though some are actively used by The Queen such as at General Elections or are available in times of crisis and some are used by Ministers for expediency when needed.

Summoning/Proroguing Parliament – The Queen has the power to prorogue (suspend) and to summon (call back) Parliament – prorogation typically happens at the end of a parliamentary session, and the summoning occurs shortly after, when The Queen attends the State Opening of Parliament.

Royal Assent – It is The Queen’s right and responsibility to grant assent to bills from Parliament, signing them into law.Whilst, in theory, she could decide to refuse assent, the last Monarch to do this was Queen Anne in 1708.

Secondary Legislation – The Queen can create Orders-in-Council and Letters Patent, that regulate parts to do with the Crown, such as precedence, titles. Orders in Council are often used by Ministers nowadays to bring Acts of Parliament into law.

Appoint/Remove Ministers –Her Majesty also has the power to appoint and remove Ministers of the Crown.

Appointing the Prime Minister – The Queen is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister after a general election or a resignation, in a General Election The Queen will appoint the candidate who is likely to have the most support of the House of Commons. In the event of a resignation, The Queen listens to advice on who should be appointed as their successor.

Declaration of War – The Sovereign retains the power to declare war against other nations, though in practice this is done by the Prime Minister and Parliament of the day.

Freedom From Prosecution – Under British law, The Queen is above the law and cannot be prosecuted – she is also free from civil action.

JUDICIAL POWERS

The Queen’s judicial powers are now very minimal, and there is only really one which is used on a regular basis, with others having been delegated to judges and parliament through time.

Royal Pardon – The Royal Pardon was originally used to retract death sentences against those wrongly convicted. It is now used to correct errors in sentencing and was recently used to give a posthumous pardon to WW2 codebreaker, Alan Turing.

ARMED FORCES

The Queen’s powers in the Armed Forces are usually used on the advice of Generals and Parliament though some functions are retained by The Queen herself nowadays.

Commander-in-Chief –The Queen is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and all members swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join; they are Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

Commissioning of Officers – The Queen’s powers include the commissioning of officers into the Armed Forces and also removing commissions(when members of the Armed Forces salute and officers, they are saluting The Queen’s commission).

Disposition of the Forces – The organisation and disposition of the Armed Forces are part of the Royal Prerogative; the crown technically controls how the Armed Forces are used.

HONOURS

One of the main prerogative powers that are still used personally by The Queen these days is the power to grant honours. As all honours derive from the Crown, The Queen has the final say on knighthoods, peerages and the like.

Creation of Peerages – The Queen may create a peerage for any person – whether a life peerage or hereditary one, though hereditary peerages haven’t been issued for decades outside of the Royal Family.
Font of Honour – It is The Queen’s prerogative power to create orders of knighthood and to grant any citizen honours. From the Royal Victorian Order to the Order of the Garter.

MISCELLANEOUS POWERS

Other powers Her Majesty holds include:

Control of Passports – The issuing and withdrawal of passports are within the Royal Prerogative– this is often used by ministers on behalf of The Queen. All British passports are issued in The Queen’s name.

Requisitioning of Ships – This power allows a ship to be commandeered in Her Majesty’s name for service to the realm. This power was used on the QE2 to take troops to the Falklands after the Argentine invasion in 1982.

NOW BACK TO MY HYPOTHETICAL:

Given that these powers are the prerogative of the Crown, the argument made by the document released in 2003 and the article I quoted, were that these powers were delegated to Parliament for the convenience and aid to Her Majesty, but were retained by the monarch primarily for the possible need of Her executing them in time of national crisis.

Thus, going back to my hypothetical, if the Crown wanted to reactivate or execute the powers it legally retains in contradistinction to an unpopular parliament in order to garner back British independence and stop Islamic extremism....could they pull it off?

Likewise, how hypothetical is this really given the current state of affairs in the world right now and that we could very soon see a set of testicles upon the throne for the first time in most of our lifetimes ( a dynamic that no one should discount as a real factor).

[SolarCross]

NOW BACK TO MY HYPOTHETICAL:

Given that these powers are the prerogative of the Crown, the argument made by the document released in 2003 and the article I quoted, were that these powers were delegated to Parliament for the convenience and aid to Her Majesty, but were retained by the monarch primarily for the possible need of Her executing them in time of national crisis.

Thus, going back to my hypothetical, if the Crown wanted to reactivate or execute the powers it legally retains in contradistinction to an unpopular parliament in order to garner back British independence and stop Islamic extremism....could they pull it off?

Likewise, how hypothetical is this really given the current state of affairs in the world right now and that we could very soon see a set of testicles upon the throne for the first time in most of our lifetimes ( a dynamic that no one should discount as a real factor).

They could pull it off but they don't need to, Islamic extremism isn't that big a threat really. Also the major challenge to the monarch's sovereignty came from the EU but brexit is solving that.

The next monarch barring a cascade of premature deaths will very likely be a man, Charles most likely, and I dare say he will be less aloof and behind the scenes than his mother was. If you want to see a naked display of royal power the most likely occurrence will be if Corbyn becomes PM and tries to do anything wacky with the armed forces like give our nukes to China or Hezbollah. He'll be lucky if they just sack him and dissolve parliament, they could just kill him.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@SolarCross,

But that argument is under consideration of current events as they are, not in light of a terrorist attack against the current royal family and a stalling of the brexit process as my hypothetical states. Under those possibilities, and under a young and , under my scenario, "Angry," King William, could we see a crisis-scenario of re-executing Royal powers?

Even without my current scenarios, if we see a near future of crisis in the UK, whether Islamic, economic, or a combination, could we see a return of Royal Power en masse?

Like I said, I am of the opinion that there will be a Caesarian move in the west, what are the chances that it will come from the English throne as opposed to a polish version of Mussolini? That is really the heart of my hypothetical and my questions.

What are the chances that a far-right strong man will not be an elected politician like Le Pen, but a member of the royal family? Given that the Royal Prerogatives have been retained like a sleeping bear for a time of crisis, that the monarchy is very popular and conscientious of its popularity, and that the west is moving to the Right and also more towards a general favor-ability towards strong men, what are the chances of Royal Revolution?

[SolarCross]

But that argument is under consideration of current events as they are, not in light of a terrorist attack against the current royal family and a stalling of the brexit process as my hypothetical states. Under those possibilities, and under a young and , under my scenario, "Angry," King William, could we see a crisis-scenario of re-executing Royal powers?

Even without my current scenarios, if we see a near future of crisis in the UK, whether Islamic, economic, or a combination, could we see a return of Royal Power en masse?

Like I said, I am of the opinion that there will be a Caesarian move in the west, what are the chances that it will come from the English throne as opposed to a polish version of Mussolini? That is really the heart of my hypothetical and my questions.

What are the chances that a far-right strong man will not be an elected politician like Le Pen, but a member of the royal family? Given that the Royal Prerogatives have been retained like a sleeping bear for a time of crisis, that the monarchy is very popular and conscientious of its popularity, and that the west is moving to the Right and also more towards a general favor-ability towards strong men, what are the chances of Royal Revolution?

Ok well I don't think we will see a Caesarian move out of the Royals even a young royal. Caesar attempted to dramatically rise up the power pyramid from somewhere in the middle ranks to the very apex: aggression, daring, even recklessness were called for to do that. The royals are at the apex though and have been there for just about forever, what they need to be is shrewd, watchful and to let pawns tank their hits for them. When tax is levied on some little luxury who do the plebs blame? The royals or the parliament? Right they blame parliament, just like the tenant blames the letting agent not the property owner. It is entirely in accordance with the interests of the monarchy to have a democratically elected parliament do the dirty work for them, same as it is entirely in the interests of a landlord to delegate the dirty work of property management to a letting agent.

You are looking for a flashy strong man but such people are bumbling amateurs whereas the royals are slick professionals.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I think @Victoribus Spolia is trying to slip past us a conflation of policies and attitudes, that may be the real reason for writing this OP as a shite novel with unrealistic premises of " first this amazing thing happens", "then this incredible thing happens right next", and "then we get another unbelievable event" ...

VS starts with an "assassinated conservative prime minister (from a radical leftist)". He then completely switches tack to "a scenario where the parliament was looking to ratify a “remain” vote for the EU". These are completely unconnected events. For reasons not explained, he imagines a parliament, despite being "evenly divided", wanting to vote to remain in the EU although there is, in the scenario, only a tiny amount of support for that in the populace.

VS, here's something basic about politics: politicians, when they don't have secure control, try and do popular things, to increase their support, not unpopular ones. I can't imagine how you've lived so many years without knowing this. Were you in a monastery or something?

But here's the real non sequitur: "We also have this planned vote becoming unpopular in the polls due to an uptick in domestic Islamic terrorism". Why the fuck would more domestic Islamic terrorism turn people against a Remain vote? Are you saying that the average person is saying the reason to Leave is to fight terrorism better? This makes no sense at all. I think you are just trying to conflate the idea of "leaving the EU" and "fighting terrorism" because they are both things you believe in. And you want everyone to have all of your opinions.

Then you have Elizabeth and Charles killed by Islam terrorists. And you think William's response would be to refuse to open parliament? WTF? How would that help him - he might want revenge, he might want stability, he might want to say "Keep Calm and Carry On", but all of these need the country to function, not to be thrown into another constitutional crisis on top of the 2 you've already induced with assassinations. It's as if you see William as some power-crazed despot who will do anything to say "look at me!" The only 2 people I can think of who'd are like that are Kim and Trump. Have some respect for the British royal family, for God's sake.

"The head of Labour, leading the majority of parliament along with many from the opposition parties, declares that Parliament shall meet irrespective of the King’s approval" - hang on, a moment ago the Tories led parliament, when their PM was assassinated. Was there an election that you forgot to tell us about? If so, then the policies and results would have just a little bearing on all this.

Face it, you are incapable of constructing the plot of a crap novel, let alone a coherent question about the influence exerted by the British monarchy. The most important things in this thread so far have been the pedantic remarks about the names of civil wars and grammar.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You are looking for a flashy strong man but such people are bumbling amateurs whereas the royals are slick professionals.

So you would argue they are merely content with the current state-of-affairs and not waiting for an opportunity to reassert themselves?

It seems you can argue that their "going dormant" was pragmatic given the period of world wars, shrinking empire, and cultural revolution during most of the 20th century; however, for that reason, its seems more reasonable to assume that this dormancy was something they had to do, not so much what they wanted to do.

See what I mean?

Do you really think the Monarchy wanted to give the world the impression that it was merely a ceremonial relic rather than the real power that is actually is? This does not seem like something any monarchy would do if it did not think it had to in order to guarantee its survival during a time when its existence would have been more tenable than continental monarchies during the Napoleonic wars.

However, times are changing, and there is a popular movement rising up in the younger generations that is almost opposite of those which would have been perceived as threatening to the monarchy in, lets say, the 1960s. Generation Z in Europe and America is increasing disposed towards nationalism and are skeptical ,even cynical, towards representative government.

Are these conditions, along with the potential for crisis, not the perfect conditions for a glorious reassertion of power?

Therefore, if such conditions are present, are you saying the monarchy would refrain from such a "return" so-to-speak? I guess I would need more reasoning as to why you would think that....

Why would you think that the monarchy would continue the status-quo, if it had the opportunity to return to the stage of power-politics given conditions that would favor such a move?

[Rich]

I thought the monarchy was restored in 1660 or there abouts. Wasn't Scottish independence (as a realm) restored at the same time? Mayne I'm just getting confused. I don't think it was ever restored in France, maybe they just forgot.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I think @Victoribus Spolia is trying to slip past us a conflation of policies and attitudes, that may be the real reason for writing this OP as a shite novel with unrealistic premises of " first this amazing thing happens", "then this incredible thing happens right next", and "then we get another unbelievable event" ...

VS starts with an "assassinated conservative prime minister (from a radical leftist)". He then completely switches tack to "a scenario where the parliament was looking to ratify a “remain” vote for the EU". These are completely unconnected events. For reasons not explained, he imagines a parliament, despite being "evenly divided", wanting to vote to remain in the EU although there is, in the scenario, only a tiny amount of support for that in the populace.

VS, here's something basic about politics: politicians, when they don't have secure control, try and do popular things, to increase their support, not unpopular ones. I can't imagine how you've lived so many years without knowing this. Were you in a monastery or something?

But here's the real non sequitur: "We also have this planned vote becoming unpopular in the polls due to an uptick in domestic Islamic terrorism". Why the fuck would more domestic Islamic terrorism turn people against a Remain vote? Are you saying that the average person is saying the reason to Leave is to fight terrorism better? This makes no sense at all. I think you are just trying to conflate the idea of "leaving the EU" and "fighting terrorism" because they are both things you believe in. And you want everyone to have all of your opinions.

Then you have Elizabeth and Charles killed by Islam terrorists. And you think William's response would be to refuse to open parliament? WTF? How would that help him - he might want revenge, he might want stability, he might want to say "Keep Calm and Carry On", but all of these need the country to function, not to be thrown into another constitutional crisis on top of the 2 you've already induced with assassinations. It's as if you see William as some power-crazed despot who will do anything to say "look at me!" The only 2 people I can think of who'd are like that are Kim and Trump. Have some respect for the British royal family, for God's sake.

"The head of Labour, leading the majority of parliament along with many from the opposition parties, declares that Parliament shall meet irrespective of the King’s approval" - hang on, a moment ago the Tories led parliament, when their PM was assassinated. Was there an election that you forgot to tell us about? If so, then the policies and results would have just a little bearing on all this.

Face it, you are incapable of constructing the plot of a crap novel, let alone a coherent question about the influence exerted by the British monarchy. The most important things in this thread so far have been the pedantic remarks about the names of civil wars and grammar.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

If this thread is so uninteresting to you, no one will object to you not participating. At the same time, no one here claimed to be a Tom Clancy or a Michael Crichton. Hypotheticals are hypotheticals and if you like, I'll admit that I could've just said: "Given conditions that would be appealing for a reassertion of monarchal power, would the monarchy pursue such," but that seemed less interesting to read.

That being said, lets not get our panties in a twist over a mere hypothetical. If you just abhor the idea of Royalist reassertion of power than just say so and move on instead of writing a sophomoric plot analysis of a hypothetical scenario that was written in a whole five minutes to set-up a discussion on royal power and future forms of nationalism....

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Rich,

We are talking about the current monarchy reasserting itself as the dominant political force in UK under a hypothetical scenario. That is what we are referring to with a "restoration."