User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:33 am

Perhaps if you didn't carry that arrogant self important attitude in all your posts, someone might take the time to explain it to you.

As it stands, I don't think it's worth our time!

[Edited 2014-12-13 16:43:40]
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Dec 14, 2014 5:22 am

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 35):
Between 2010 and 2014, 17,424 bottles of champagne have been bought at the taxpayer's expense could give each peer 22 bottles of bubbly each.

Surprised they're not required to buy English sparkling wine given its success in recent years.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4074
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Dec 14, 2014 5:44 am

I'm happy with her as head of state. If we abolished her, the replacement is just going to be another political position for people to fight over. More politicians is worse in my book. Which is why I like the monarchy (as it stands), despite being against it in principle.

Looking to France and the US, whilst they retain 'respect for their position', at least half the population seems to permanently despise the president; their position is inherently political. Meanwhile, throughout her realm the Queen has earned a massive amount of respect which is generally enjoyed from the majority of the population. Where there is opposition to the monarchy, it is generally small and disorganised. I like that the monarch is a unifying figure.

Something i've wondered about for a while; If Britain abolished the monarchy system tomorrow, would the royal family move to Canada* to live, with the queen replacing their governor general?.

*then Australia, then NZ and to each subsequent commonwealth member who still has them as head of state in order of importance/population.


Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 3):
And anyway, these same people "wet themselves" every time they see Kim Kardashian or Justin Bieber too... so not exactly a great standard of comparison to the rest of us.

LOL.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 8):
I wish she would hurry up and fire John Key for blatently lying to the NZ public.

If only!

Thankfully though, I think that the upper echelons of National have just reached that tipping point where their intransigence has finally cost them a cordial relationship with the media. Its downhill for them from here, even if the majority of votes haven't quite cottoned on to what's been going on.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 11):
Yeah... and while your at it..... what about "The Abbott" !

Yes please.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 13):
Who would replace him?

An interesting question..... currently National is factionalised between Steven Joyce and Judith Collins (even though English and Brownlee outrank them on the list), both of whom would make truly awful leaders. My fingers would be crossed for Louise Upston with Amy Adams as her deputy. Or vice versa.

At the end of the day, the battle for the leadership of National will be a real bloodbath. I should probably start stockpiling popcorn.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 13):
I have to say Labour were smart picking Andrew Little, he's got some nouse.

I trust that the Labour caucus has already banded together to undermine him.  

The true leader of the opposition is still Winston.

Quoting wstakl (Reply 14):
It's incredible how many 'brain fades' our PM has had and then suddenly remembers again a few days later.

It truly is. He takes us all for idiots....akshully, collectively we must be, given his strong approval ratings. I thought making blatantly untrue statements on the floor of parliament (Slater texts) was supposed to be a big deal, but apparently not. The media barely even call him out on his lies and is generally unwilling to answer tough questions. (to see someone actually asking him tough questions, there is the HardTalk interview where he was completely obliterated)

http://i.imgur.com/G662xnl.jpg

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 23):
Besides, I would assume that most would want William to be king rather than Charles.

Yup. I don't think Charles is charismatic enough for the job.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 24):
it could be worse we could have had some twit like GWB running NZ.

Well, looking across the Tasman....     

But regardless, that's a pretty low bar to set.

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 25):
The Royal family doesn't cost a lot either.

At this present moment they cost £0.56 or $0.88 per year per person, which in the great scheme of things is peanuts.

   And, if you were to abolish them, wouldn't the UK Government lose the income stream from Royal lands? Quite substantial, as I understand.

Quoting md11engineer (Reply 28):
Exactly. The professional political class (party politicians) are despised by many British soldiers, no matter what party the are coming from (with very few exceptions, mainly MPs, who have been in the military themselves and have seen action and risked their lives). They are seen as to easily risk the soldier's lives for some fast publicity effects to win them another election and personal income. Especially Tony Blair ("B.Liar") is despised as an opportunistic, greedy and corrupt example, with David Cameron ("Call Me Dave") not far behind him.

  

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 41):
obs.
Name one British newspaper that could survive without reporting on the bed-linen of the Royal Family.

   This made my day!

Quoting GDB (Reply 46):
Our nearest neighbour is on it's 5th Republic.

The more constitutions, the better! Perfecting it a little more, each and every time.  
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:08 am

Quoting zkojq (Reply 52):
Yup. I don't think Charles is charismatic enough for the job.

Maybe, but that's not how the monarchy works. It's pretty much the opposite of a popularity contest.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
GDB
Posts: 13288
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:51 am

Quoting zkojq (Reply 52):
The more constitutions, the better! Perfecting it a little more, each and every time.

Though in that case, it's went from revolutionary, then had the likes of Napoleon, the 3rd Republic was a long period of political instability that culminated in the loss of the country in 1940. Many do blame that event on the political chaos which blunted the effectiveness of the military and political establishment and had a deeply divided and polarised nation.
By contrast, the political stability of the UK at the time glued the nation together, loyalty to the Monarch, who stayed in London rather than fleeing, was a major part of that.

The idea mentioned above that UK newspapers rely on the Royals might have been true of the tabloids once, now I really don't think so.
For them, the ghastly 'Reality TV' is more a staple for them.
 
57AZ
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Dec 27, 2014 2:58 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 7):
Is it true that when they call an election in the UK that they officially need the Queen to give permission to go ahead with it? Does the Crown actually have that power?

Yes. She has the legal authority and the military resources to back it up. In the UK, the members of the armed forces take an oath of allegience to the Monarch. Also, the personal troops of the monarch answer solely to the monarch as their commander in chief, not the Ministry of Defense or Parliament. The personal troops consist of the Household Cavalry, the Guards units and the King's Royal Horse Artillery-all of which are fully operational military units. Also, the monarch has the legal authority to dissolve Parliament, by force if necessary.
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Dec 27, 2014 10:22 am

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 55):
In the UK, the members of the armed forces take an oath of allegience to the Monarch.

The quote you posted was from Airstud, reply 6, not from me, 57AZ. But the situation is as you describe it; if you join any branch of the armed services you are required to pledge allegiance to the Crown, not to the government or parliament. The wording in my day was,:-

"I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me."

'Push never came to shove' in my day - but my guess is that that oath was, on occasion, only too real and relevant on numerous quite recent events, including (for example) recent events in Northern Ireland, when various political factions 'took up arms' - the Army's job was to stop/disarm them, even if it occasionally necessitated shooting at them..........
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3689
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Dec 27, 2014 2:44 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 11):
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 8):
I wish she would hurry up and fire John Key for blatently lying to the NZ publi

Yeah... and while your at it..... what about "The Abbott" !

If we are going to be firing commonweath PM's I want to throw is Abbott's twin and turf Stephen Harper.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14560
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Dec 28, 2014 3:21 am

One can argue that Royalty is unnecessary in the modern era but they do provide a critical check on the excesses and problems of modern Democracy.

The restoration of the Crown in Spain was critical in restoring democratic order there after 40 years of Franco's iron rule.
The Crown in Belgium has been critical due to the ethnic divisions and failures to seat an elected government.
Thailand has a Crown head of state, a country going under major challenges of its elected government.

And you wonder why they like having a royalty in the UK ?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Dec 28, 2014 4:02 am

Quoting fxramper (Thread starter):
Why is the Queen still in reign?

The Queen is the Head of State, not the head of government.

A number of countries (most?) have a Head of State, often will no political power,

The King of Holland is the Head of State, but not the head of government. Germany has a President who Head of State but who is not the head of government.

The idea is that it is that it is preferable to have a Head of State who is removed form party politics. I believe that.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:31 am

Quoting fxramper (Thread starter):
Why is the Queen still in reign?

because she is the Head of State

Quoting fxramper (Thread starter):
Why won't she abdicate and let Charles lead?

Prince Charles is head of dozens of organisations of which he in many cases takes personal care.
A British Monarch does NOT "lead" but simply represent --- his grandmum got 102 years old which means that he trendwise will become monarch in 20 years at age 85

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 1):
Legally she still possesses a fair bit of power over government

No, she does NOT have any real power over the government

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 1):
She has a lot of clout in the Commonwealth countries

Yes AND No. She is the Monarch of countries like New Zealand, Australia and Canada,
she is the Head of the Commonwealth of Nations,
she is the Duchess of Normandie which means Head of State of Jersey and of Guernsey,
she knew and knows dozens of country leaders and
has a decent command of German and French, and she is appreciated as a kind of intermediary diplomat
she also is nominal head of the Anglican Church
 
User avatar
fxramper
Topic Author
Posts: 5839
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:52 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 42):
Without a Queen (or King) what kind of government would the UK end up with? Bit scary IMO.

A PM and a parliament that actually do work and not cost the country millions. Look at unemployment. All the people that make the news with 12 kids and get so much assistance. The worst health care in Europe. Tourism? Yeah, okay, for the family that falls into the trap to go to a nasty weather country that is overpriced with disgusting food that creates massive health care issues? Lets charge 10 quid to see a crappy New Years fireworks display. The reign of the UK is coming to an end. The sun is setting all over the world with little controlled anymore. How silly is it to read UK news about the great aunt of some duke's cousin's sister than had a wedding and everything attends? Great news. Taxpayers pay massive funds for upkeep for a non ruling monarchy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-as-fast-as-inflation-9563293.html
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:04 am

Quoting fxramper (Reply 61):
A PM and a parliament that actually do work and not cost the country millions. Look at unemployment. All the people that make the news with 12 kids and get so much assistance. The worst health care in Europe. Tourism? Yeah, okay, for the family that falls into the trap to go to a nasty weather country that is overpriced with disgusting food that creates massive health care issues? Lets charge 10 quid to see a crappy New Years fireworks display. The reign of the UK is coming to an end. The sun is setting all over the world with little controlled anymore. How silly is it to read UK news about the great aunt of some duke's cousin's sister than had a wedding and everything attends? Great news. Taxpayers pay massive funds for upkeep for a non ruling monarchy.

Wow- that's some free-flowing hostility! I'm not sure your rant is terribly focused though; can you explain why abolition of the monarchy would improve any of these things you find so objectionable?

I'm sure the UK will be gratified to hear its "reign is coming to an end" though, since I think most people thought that reign ended about seventy years ago.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:10 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 60):
No, she does NOT have any real power over the government

Except that she can fire and replace it any time she likes, ME AVN FAN.   And is the 'Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Please see posts 7 and 56 above.
 
ElanusNotatus
Posts: 720
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:48 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:12 am

Quoting fxramper (Reply 61):
How silly is it to read UK news about the great aunt of some duke's cousin's sister than had a wedding and everything attends?

No more silly than reading about what some "starlet" is up to, whether it is going into "rehab", buying a fashion child from Africa or marrying for the umpteenth time. Every county's media like to obsess on trivia.

I am in favour of a republic along similar lines to the German model but my objection to monarchy is not based on cost. Whatever political model a country adopts, it will still have the associated cost of supporting its leading representatives. People may complain that Royal visits cost a lot of money yet these visits are not entirely private affairs, they are used to promote the interests of the state just as a presidential visit is. The benefit of sending Charles off to India is that it costs a hell of a lot less to the UK taxpayer than a similar visit by the US President would cost the US taxpayer.

What the weather and food preferences have to do with anything is beyond me.
Crawl, walk, fly into the future
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:56 am

Quoting fxramper (Reply 61):
Taxpayers pay massive funds for up

These days, the taxpayers do not pay "massive funds" for the monarchy, it is financed entirely from the profits form the Crown Estate.

The Crown Estate makes about $200 million quid a year for the UK Treasury - after the cost of the monarchy.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/.../jun/27/crown-estate-record-profit

The Crown Estate, owner of Regent Street, Windsor Great Park and manager of the UK's coastal waters, has announced a record profit of £253m.

Profits were up 5.2% on last year, a welcome boost for the public accounts, as all Crown Estate profits flow into Treasury coffers.

The Crown Estate, whose creation dates back to 1760 when George III handed over the management of the country's lands and coastal waters to Parliament, has returned more than £2bn to the Treasury over the last decade."


If the estate's profits go up, the Queen gets a bit of a pay rise.

Quoting ElanusNotatus (Reply 64):
I am in favour of a republic along similar lines to the German model but my objection to monarchy is not based on cost.

Each to their own. But at least two German Presidents have had to resign, one in 2010:

http://euobserver.com/news/30174

"German president resigns after millitary comments"

And then in 2012:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/17/wo.../europe/germany-president-scandal/

"German President Wulff resigns amid scandal"

I prefer the concept of constitutional monarchy.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
ElanusNotatus
Posts: 720
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:48 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 3:53 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 65):

Whatever model you pick, the head of state is still a human being and will sometimes be inclined to do things that may be ill-advised.

Colin Hannah, who was Governor of Queensland, found his tenancy was not extended after he had made public critiisms of the Federal Government. In 1975 the Prime Minister had advised the Queen to revoke his dormant commission, the commission that would have allowed him to act as Governor General should a vacancy arise.

Following the dismissal John Kerr remained an unpopular Governor General and ultimately resigned, nominally to take up an Ambassadorship, a post he didn't actually fill due to the continuing attacks both within and outside Parliament. Of course, appearing to be drunk at the Melbourne Cup didn't enhance the respectability of his office.

Finally, following criticism of his handling of claims of sexual abuse of children, Peter Hollingworth had his commission revoked after being advised by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer to consider his position and subsequently meeting with the Prime Minister to tender his resignation.

Of course the correctness of the resignation or revoking of a commission in each case can be debated. As I said, whichever model one chooses there is the chance that a person will be unsuitable for some reason or the other. Even being a member of the Royal family is no guarantee, as Princess Anne's criminal record shows. The best one can hope for is that the Constitution provides for sufficient checks and balances yet is capable of dealing with emergencies without resorting to tyranny.
Crawl, walk, fly into the future
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 4:43 am

Quoting ElanusNotatus (Reply 66):
Whatever model you pick, the head of state is still a human being and will sometimes be inclined to do things that may be ill-advised.

Indeed.

But - personally - I don't like the idea of the Head of State as an elected office. The moment it is elective it becomes political, open to the vagaries of politics, which can include corruption or bribery. Or political patronage, as in the case of the appointments of some Australian governors.

I don't like the situation that existed - does exist? - in the United States, where many do not believe the elected Head of State, the President, is legitimate and a fair few don't even believe he is American.

In the case of John Kerr, mentioned by you above, it was the manner of the doing, not the deed itself, that offended me. The reserve powers that he used exist in the Australian constitution, and I haven't heard anyone seriously argue that what he did was illegal. More curiously, those reserve powers still exist in the Australian constitution and I know of no moves to change them, certainly not at the time.

There is no perfect answer. In the case of constitutional monarchy, you could argue that one family and its descendants got extremely lucky.

I'm okay with that.

mariner

[Edited 2015-01-02 20:51:56]
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12273
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 4:52 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 65):
Each to their own. But at least two German Presidents have had to resign, one in 2010:

That's because they can actually resign without it being a big fuss, since they hold very little power, but are still elected to that job and thus accountable, unlike monarchs who just happen to pop out of the right orifice.

There is some talk in France about eliminating the prime minister since the job is a bit redundant with the president's one, and doesn't serve as a fuse anymore. However with the current system we have a president that is a bit like a king/queen, but with actual power (some say, more than the US president), only directly elected by the people, and whose reign has a start and an end known in advance. The prime minister on the other hand has two masters, the parliament and the president, ending up as an important interface between the executive and the legislative branches of government.

I think democracies will evolve towards more direct involvement of citizens through referendums, and that evolution will make monarchs more and more outdated. Actually a referendum would be well suited to abolish monarchy.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 4:58 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 68):
That's because they can actually resign without it being a big fuss, since they hold very little power, but are still elected to that job and thus accountable, unlike monarchs who just happen to pop out of the right orifice.

Monarchs can be held accountable.   

These days, the (UK) monarchs hold so little actual power there is very little to hold them accountable for, but in olden times, one (English) monarch lost his head.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 68):
I think democracies will evolve towards more direct involvement of citizens through referendums, and that evolution will make monarchs more and more outdated. Actually a referendum would be well suited to abolish monarchy.

They tried that in Australia. It didn't work. The Australia republicans offered all sorts of excuses for the failure, but the simple fact is that the majority voted to retain the system.

mariner

[Edited 2015-01-02 21:38:27]
aeternum nauta
 
ElanusNotatus
Posts: 720
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:48 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 5:38 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 67):

But - personally - I don't like the idea of the Head of State as an elected office.

As you say, to each his own.

Apart from signing Letters Patent and Commissions, the Queen may only exercise any of her powers when personally present in an Australian State or Territory. To all practical intent and purpose the de facto Head of State is the Governor General. Who becomes GG is up to the Prime Minister and while the PM may consult others before advising the Queen, the job is basically within the PM's gift. And yes, politics does come into the choice even if not party politics.

Howard's choice of Hollingworth is an example. In choosing an Archbishop, however capable he may have been, Howard wished to reinforce his earlier statements that Australia is a Christian country. Right or wrong, not everyone agreed with him.

Why, under a minimalist republican model, things would be radically different or dangerous I don't know. All that would really change is that the PM need no longer cloak his choice with the approval of a non-resident and that an Australian citizen could be Head of State both de facto and de jure.

[Edited 2015-01-02 21:41:20]
Crawl, walk, fly into the future
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 6:35 am

Quoting ElanusNotatus (Reply 70):
Why, under a minimalist republican model, things would be radically different or dangerous I don't know.

I don't know either, but perhaps I am more cynical about Australian politics - or Australian politicians - than you appear to be. The last few years in Canberra have been appalling to me, on both sides of the chambers, and especially in the media.

But what happens in Australia is beyond my ken - although Australian, I don't live there - and there are no serious moves for a republican New Zealand, where I do live.

Throughout my very varied life, the Queen has represented constancy to me, and perhaps, among other things, it is the essentially temporary nature of an elected presidency that I dislike.

I do know that the English system is not arbitrary, it was bought in battle and paid for in blood. The Civil War killed a greater proportion of English combatants - pro rata to the population - than any other. This led to the Commonwealth, the supposed republic, with a "president" who appointed his own son to succeed him. Generally that republic was known as the "unhappy times" - so unhappy that they invited the monarch back. For partly religious reasons, it was not finally resolved until the Glorious Revolution - with Parliament in the ascendency - and the eventual Act of Settlement, one of the great compromises. Parliament got the power - the people got the figurehead with the lineage. We've been there once, do we really need to go there again?

The monarch rules at the pleasure of the Parliament and if the Parliament so chooses it can abolish the Act of Settlement, and thus the monarchy. All it takes is a majority vote.

Maybe it will one day, I dunno. I can't predict the future, nor do I have any interest in trying to do so. I am reasonably confident that the monarchy will survive through my lifetime, and after that I won't care, one way or the other.

mariner

[Edited 2015-01-02 22:53:39]
aeternum nauta
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 5:48 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 63):
that she can fire and replace it any time she likes,


such a thing never happened since Prime Minsters ruled the United Kingdom, roughly since Queen Elizabeth I

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 63):
And is the 'Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

theoretically may be but in practice not for at least 200 years

True I expect that whomever succeeds her is to take a more active position in politics, but NOT in the way you indicate
 
ElanusNotatus
Posts: 720
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:48 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 6:18 pm

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 72):

Try the dismissal in 1975 to prove the falsity of your claim.

Whatever views one may have on the dismissal of an elected government using the Royal Prerogative it has occurred in modern history. An elected Australian government was removed from office not by popular vote but following the exercise of the Royal Prerogative by the Queen's representative.

In the final analysis, the dismissal might be justified by the subsequent loss of support at the ensuing election, but that election would not have taken place without the intervention of the Governor General.
Crawl, walk, fly into the future
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 03, 2015 9:28 pm

Quoting ElanusNotatus (Reply 73):
Whatever views one may have on the dismissal of an elected government using the Royal Prerogative it has occurred in modern history. An elected Australian government was removed from office not by popular vote but following the exercise of the Royal Prerogative by the Queen's representative.

It hasn't happened in the UK since 1834, but it was not without Australian precedent.

In 1974, the GG used Reserve Powers of the (Australian) Crown written into the Australian Constitution, as Sir Philip Game, Governor of NSW, did when he dismissed the NSW Premier Lang in 1932.

Those Reserve Powers still exist in the Australian Constitution, with no serious moves to change them. It could happen again if the Senate ever blocks Supply to the elected (representative) government. Crown or President (elected or selected) there has to be a solution to that.

If you want to change the system, perhaps start with changing the Constitution, but I dunno how you'd solve the question of Supply - without neutering the role of the Senate.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:30 am

ME AVN FAN, 1975 was a horrible mess, and the parliament was in chaos. In other countries it could very well have resulted in some sort of civil war. Personally Im very glad that the 'system' - in practice - found a quick and effective way of restoring order, within a few months.

Oddly enough, I have never been a particular fan of the Royal Family, its privileges, etc. - but I have to admit that, on that occasion, its existence led to a peaceful and pretty quick solution to what could very easily have become a virtual collapse of the whole system of government,..
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12273
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:35 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 69):
Monarchs can be held accountable.   

These days, the (UK) monarchs hold so little actual power there is very little to hold them accountable for, but in olden times, one (English) monarch lost his head.

What I'm saying is that a UK monarch wouldn't resign over the exact same relatively minor scandals the German presidents resigned over. Despite both having little power. So elected head of state do have more accountability.

Personally my main problem is not that, though, it's just that it places some people (royals) over the rest of the population, and that's contrary to my egalitarian ideals. A king lost his head in France for that exact reason, and not really for his politics.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
GDB
Posts: 13288
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:18 am

One way in which the Monarch could wield real power is via that Commander In Chief role, for most part ceremonial it's true.

However it is worth noting that a UK Prime Minister cannot, unlike say a US or French President, press the symbolic 'red button' to release nuclear weapons.
The PM can ask the Chief Of Defence staff, on rotation the most senior soldier, sailor or airman holds that post, who has the only authority to set the wheels in motion.
In the 'PM's gone off his rocker' eventuality (of which we had a degree of with Eden in the Suez Crisis in 1956), the CDS can refuse to do so.
The PM would then have to replace him with someone would do his bidding, if that were possible to do, however this new CDS has to be approved by the Monarch, who doubtless would have taken advice from both the military and political establishment.
This is where being the C in C comes in, they are her naval vessels, her air force, her regiments, those that serve have not sworn an oath to the PM.
(All this leaving plenty of time for the men in white coats to cart the hapless PM off and a replacement chosen by the governing party - as happens anyway).

It's an very unlikely event it's true, so are most potential crisis that could see a Monarch wield execute power of any kind.
One reason why most potential crisis of a political/constitutional nature sound so unlikely, even fantastical, including the sort of events more like what sometimes happens elsewhere, is due to the ingrained political stability over hundreds of years now, that the post Civil War settlement of Parliament and Crown has embedded into DNA of government.

This stability allowed Parliament to evolve into a democracy where the extent of voting rights has only ever gone in one direction, by some standards slowly but also surely.
In effect, since the last Monarch who tried to rule by divine right lost his head, after the grim theocracy of Cromwell where the great and genuine liberator morphed, with no restraint from a Monarch, into a despot, the post Cromwell Monarchy has been a sort of gatekeeper for both Parliament and the people.
Being English then British, we just went about it, arrived at it, in a rather convoluted way.

Fxramper, you would do well to consider this, not every nation, in fact only a minority of them, had the sort of clean slate start the USA did.
Hence things are different elsewhere, adapted to local conditions really.
But not right or wrong.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:21 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 76):
Personally my main problem is not that, though, it's just that it places some people (royals) over the rest of the population, and that's contrary to my egalitarian ideals. A king lost his head in France for that exact reason, and not really for his politics.

Whereas a king lost his head in England precisely because of the politics.

I'm really not sure why you keep conflating England and France, whatever your "egalitarian ideals." Both had their revolutions, but each with different outcomes.

The English parliament - representing the people - chose the system of governance it wanted. It still does. How is that not egalitarian?

mariner

[Edited 2015-01-03 17:28:25]
aeternum nauta
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:46 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 76):
it's just that it places some people (royals) over the rest of the population, and that's contrary to my egalitarian ideals

Aesma, what happened in 1975 was that the existing government proved itself incompetent to an alarming degree, and no longer had a working majority.

Its proposed solution to the problem was literally a 'half-measure' - a half-Senate election which it hoped would give it enough power to go on governing. The Queen's representative in Australia, the Governor-General, used his ('Royal') power to go further - sack the existing government and replace it with the opposition, on condition that a complete parliamentary election, covering both Houses, would be held as soon as possible.

The opposition had the numbers to form a working government, and within a very short time a full election was held, the opposition was returned with a working majority, and stable government was restored.

It was never reported, but one has to assume that the Governor-General did not act on his own initiative, that the Queen was directly involved and approved the recommended strategy. In any case, the 'remedy' worked, Australia very rapidly regained stability.

[Edited 2015-01-03 17:57:39]
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12273
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:57 am

I'm not sure why you're talking to me. What happened in Australia in 1975 happens pretty much every year in one European country or another, with or without a monarch, and certainly without a civil war. A government loses its majority or popular support (or both) and an election ensue. Take a look at Greece right now.

Quoting mariner (Reply 78):
The English parliament - representing the people - chose the system of governance it wanted. It still does. How is that not egalitarian?

Because each citizen is not equal to the other. In fact, they're not even citizens, but "subjects", the word says it all.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
ElanusNotatus
Posts: 720
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:48 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 2:07 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 79):

It was never reported, but one has to assume that the Governor-General did not act on his own initiative, that the Queen was directly involved and approved the recommended strategy.

The following link includes an article that first appeared in the West Australian. It reports Sir William Heseltine, the Queen's assistant private secretary, as saying that Kerr had not advised the Queen of his intentions, nor had he sought her advice. The Queen was not notified of the dismissal until several hours after the event .

http://whitlamdismissal.com/2011/04/...heard-about-whitlam-dismissal.html
Crawl, walk, fly into the future
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 2:22 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 80):
In fact, they're not even citizens, but "subjects", the word says it all.

Oh, gosh, that changed in 1983 (British Nationality Act) when we became "citizens."

Even previously, when "subject" was used (and a few, like you, still do) it meant subjects of the Crown - that is entitled to all the protections that the (non-political) Crown, that is the state, can offer.

It is still used in that sense in New Zealand. Crown Land is land owned by the people of New Zealand under the collective noun "Crown," irrespective of the political leanings of the government of the day.

"Wards of the Crown" (wards of state in some countries) are dispossessed children who are given the collective protection of the people of New Zealand, irrespective of whichever political party is in power.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14560
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 1:29 pm

In the early 1970's, an Australian PM was removed by the Governor General, per orders of the Queen to placate the American Government (then under the notorious Nixon as President). Apparently this PM had plans to remove Australian troops from participation in the Vietnam War as well as challenging a CIA base in Australia. Basically, the Queen supported a coup, the next PM if am correct was from another party and while Australia did remove its troops from Vietnam, the still to this day don't challenge the USA's CIA base there. This is one reason the USA declared its independence and not even be a part of any Commonwealth with the UK.

Currently, the Crown is seeking extraordinary laws from Parliament to pretty much remove any public access to their records, including family and private communications as well as hide a lot meddling of Prince Charles with Parliament and the finances of the extended Royal family. This would extend even further, beyond reasonable anti-terrorism security and privacy needs.

It will be interesting to see how the next generation of UK citizens will see their Crown leader, if they will curb more of their limited powers and reduce their wealth, or perhaps use them to curb the power of corporations and the richest in the UK who are causing great hardship to much of the population.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12554
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:24 pm

Quoting fxramper (Reply 61):

A PM and a parliament that actually do work and not cost the country millions.

56p per person is nothing, probably less than the Houses of Parliament spend on tea and coffee each year. I'm sure the US president costs the US taxpayer significantly more.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 83):
In the early 1970's, an Australian PM was removed by the Governor General, per orders of the Queen to placate the American Government (then under the notorious Nixon as President).

Where did you get this crap from.

Australian Constitutional Crisis
 
User avatar
fxramper
Topic Author
Posts: 5839
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:11 pm

 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:55 pm

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 83):
In the early 1970's, an Australian PM was removed by the Governor General, per orders of the Queen to placate the American Government (then under the notorious Nixon as President). Apparently this PM had plans to remove Australian troops from participation in the Vietnam War as well as challenging a CIA base in Australia

Quite apart from the fact that there is zero evidence to suggest the Queen was involved in the dismissal, the Australian withdrawal from Vietnam had been decided by the previous, right wing, government, and our involvement in the war was over by the time of the dismissal in 1975.

http://rslnsw.org.au/commemoration/heritage/the-vietnam-war

By late 1970 Australia had also begun to wind down its military effort in Vietnam.

Australia's participation in the war was formally declared at an end when the Governor-General issued a proclamation on 11 January 1973. The only combat troops remaining in Vietnam were a platoon guarding the Australian embassy in Saigon, which was withdrawn in June 1973."


I like a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone, but that one is just silly.

mariner

[Edited 2015-01-04 10:26:54]
aeternum nauta
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 6:35 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 65):
And then in 2012:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/17/wo.../europe/germany-president-scandal/

"German President Wulff resigns amid scandal"

After the resignation Wulff has been cleared in court from the accusations. But he was condemned by the court of public opinion and the media first.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12554
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 6:45 pm

Well if you get right down to it what's the point of fxamper? Why does he exist, what purpose does he serve? He has no power, he's not a tourist attraction.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 6:47 pm

Quoting md11engineer (Reply 87):
After the resignation Wulff has been cleared in court from the accusations. But he was condemned by the court of public opinion and the media first.

The role of the media is always suspect.

Rupert Murdoch - through his press - did his utmost to bring down the British Royal Family, particularly at the time of the death of Diana.

But he didn't understand that the Queen was playing a longer game. He thinks in headlines - she thinks in generations.

Now Murdoch's once remarkable media power in the UK has been neutered.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
GDB
Posts: 13288
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:03 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 89):
Now Murdoch's once remarkable media power in the UK has been neutered.

Though nowhere near enough and not through anything the Royal family ever did.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:20 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 90):
Though nowhere near enough and not through anything the Royal family ever did.

The Royal Family didn't need to do anything - that was the point. It was Murdoch who over-reached.

mariner

[Edited 2015-01-04 12:24:13]
aeternum nauta
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Mon Jan 05, 2015 4:38 pm

Quoting fxramper (Reply 61):
A PM and a parliament that actually do work and not cost the country millions

-
the parliament is in a prime location, and prime minister and parliament are not free of charge

Quoting fxramper (Reply 61):
Look at unemployment

.
Unemployment in Britain is NOT caused by the royal family

Quoting fxramper (Reply 61):
The worst health care in Europe

ever visited people in hospitals in Italy ?

Quoting fxramper (Reply 61):
Tourism?

Tourism to Britain enormously profit from the monarchy in many ways

Quoting fxramper (Reply 61):
How silly is it to read UK news about the great aunt of some duke's cousin's sister
than had a wedding and everything attends?
Great news. Taxpayers pay massive funds for upkeep for a non ruling monarchy.

-
Federal Presidents in Germany are NOT free of charge

When in Britain I read real papers and not the Boulevard press. To be really informed about
the wider British Royal Family you have to move to Germany

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 63):
Except that she can fire and replace it any time she likes,

-
She cannot

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 63):
And is the 'Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Please see posts 7 and 56 above.

QEII never started war action

Quoting ElanusNotatus (Reply 73):
Try the dismissal in 1975

in 75, Harold Wilson was Prime Minster and was not dismissed
 
GDB
Posts: 13288
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:24 pm

Quoting fxramper (Reply 61):
The worst health care in Europe. Tourism? Yeah, okay, for the family that falls into the trap to go to a nasty weather country that is overpriced with disgusting food that creates massive health care issues? L

Worst health care? Who told you that? Fox News or some insurance company lobbyist (which amounts to the same thing).
Nasty weather? Compared to what? Greenland? Or the Mid West of the US with all those destructive storms that get FEMA rolling? Or a city swamped? Where FEMA did not roll quite enough? Or the East Coast? (Hi Hurricane Sandy!) Or the escalating drought in CA?

Disgusting Food? Well most fast food chains are of US origin. Pink Slime is unknown over here, certainly not fed to children.
Best you don't compare average life span either, the UK is not the best by any means, still preferable to being below just about every other first world nation and still slipping.

Don't get out much do you? I doubt abroad. Best stay that way, after all, 'there be dragons'.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:53 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 89):
The role of the media is always suspect.

Rupert Murdoch - through his press - did his utmost to bring down the British Royal Family, particularly at the time of the death of Diana.

But he didn't understand that the Queen was playing a longer game. He thinks in headlines - she thinks in generations.

Now Murdoch's once remarkable media power in the UK has been neutered.
Quoting GDB (Reply 90):
Quoting mariner (Reply 89):
Now Murdoch's once remarkable media power in the UK has been neutered.

Though nowhere near enough and not through anything the Royal family ever did.

I understand that he was instrumental in bringing down John Major and his Tories by changing press support to Blair.
Murdoch always had the attitude that he didn't care what the government beneath him did. His opposition towards the EU
also came for a large part because the EU wanted to limit the an individual would have through ownership of press outlets, due to Berlusconi in Italy having virtuallytaken over all lof Italy's TV.
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
User avatar
Dano1977
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:49 pm

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:56 pm

Quoting fxramper (Reply 61):
he worst health care in Europe.

Study by Washington-based foundation

The NHS has been declared the best healthcare system by an international panel of experts who rated its care superior to countries which spend far more on health.

The same study also castigated healthcare provision in the US as the worst
The average EU official - he has the organising ability of the Italians, the flexibility of the Germans and the modesty of the French. And that's topped up by the imagination of the Belgians, the generosity of the Dutch.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Tue Jan 06, 2015 1:04 pm

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 95):

Study by Washington-based foundation

The NHS has been declared the best healthcare system by an international panel of experts who rated its care superior to countries which spend far more on health.

The same study also castigated healthcare provision in the US as the worst

Both him not with such detail or facts. He does not care for nor believe them.

[Edited 2015-01-06 05:07:48]
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3301
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Tue Jan 06, 2015 1:55 pm

I once heard the queen say that the point in the Royal family was to piss off fxramper.

But on a serious note I guess the point in the royals is the same as:
-Thanksgiving
-National Anthems
-Military ceremonial uniforms
-Prom queens
-Aircraft display teams
-Flags
the list could go on...

When you think about them they are all essentially useless but there is an element of social history and national identity behind them.

Fred
Image
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:39 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 92):
Quoting NAV30 (Reply 63):Except that she can fire and replace it any time she likes,
-
She cannot

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 63):And is the 'Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Please see posts 7 and 56 above.

QEII never started war action

Quoting ElanusNotatus (Reply 73):Try the dismissal in 1975
in 75, Harold Wilson was Prime Minster and was not dismissed

The 'dismissal ' referred to was in Australia. The Queen's representative there dismissed the prime minister on grounds of gross incompetence.

The armed forces (in all Commonwealth countries, as far as I know) are required to swear allegiance to the Queen, not to parliament. Custom demands that the Queen must be consulted by the Prime Minister prior to any proposed military action, with only urgent 'police actions' being excluded.

I haven't always been a 'fan 'of the Queen's role. But, over the years, watching the relative freedom from civil disturbances, civil wars etc. enjoyed by Britain and most other Commonwealth countries, I think that the 'Separation of Powers' is a good thing?

[Edited 2015-01-10 02:46:58]
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: What Is The Point Of The UK Royal Family?

Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:46 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 98):
The 'dismissal ' referred to was in Australia. The Queen's representative there dismissed the prime minister on grounds of gross incompetence.

No, sir.

The Prime Minister was dismissed on the grounds that he did not have - because the Senate had blocked - Supply, that is money to continue governing.

Whitlam still had the confidence of the lower house, and Kerr, however wisely or not, was trying to break an impasse caused by the Senate.

He was dismissed under the reserve powers of the Australian Constitution, which reserve powers have never been charged. It could happen again.

mariner
aeternum nauta

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, art, Bostrom, Kent350787, seb146 and 55 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos