Unless I’m much mistaken, there hasn’t been a reason for a negative story to come out about the royal family so any negative coverage has to be opinion, no?
Isn’t that just called free speech?
Laws require Royal assent. In practice this power is never used to block new legislation.
However, it is beyond doubt that any law negatively affecting the Royal interest would be heavily scrutinised by the Royal lawyers and pressure brought to bear to change them.
Plus the Monarch is the only person that can legally eat swans.
Overrated in my opinion.
Yeah, they taste just like badgers.
2 Likes
The monarch is ultimately in control of the army. The safety switch that us royalists cling to. PM goes nuts, king/queen can say no. Now some will argue this isn’t actually true and wouldn’t actually happen. History tells a different story.
I’d say it’s quite hard to tell now. The Elizabethan era was what, 22% of the history of the United Kingdom? 19% of the history since the Restoration?
A lot has changed, not just during her reign, but even before it. Even not too long ago, George V could still take an active role in politics. That was 1911. Now, such a thought would have a Prime Minister reaching for the playbook on republicanism.
2 Likes
You are more worried about a semi-competent PM going nuts than a King who has no competence checks to ensure they are of sound mind?
1 Like
Intangible influence can be powerful too. The existence of the monarchy symbolises the whole of the class based power structure of the UK. Even the name of the country is monarchist. It sits at the top of the pyramid of aristocracy, House of Lords, Eton and Harrow, stately home, class system that controls the country. Whether or not that is a good thing is a matter of opinion, but it does exist and it is a powerful, if subtle, influence on the lives of UK citizens.
Personally, I found it suffocating, and I was glad to escape to a country without such an overtly hierarchical system.
It has been largely successful for its beneficiaries for a very long time though.
3 Likes
More good news that the government are focusing their attention in the right areas:
1 Like
The idea that the monarch, and the royal family in general, don’t hold a certain amount of sway over public life is fanciful. They might not have their hands directly on the levers of power, but nor are they merely decorative.
There is the notion that the monarch appoints the government, give assent to laws, is the head of the armed forces etc, is in my view embarrassing and infantilises the country.
But there is also direct meddling. The Queen has a track record of using her Royal Consent to secure herself opt outs. In the 1970s she feared a backlash if her private wealth was revealed and used the consent to create a loophole in transparency laws to keep her wealth private. More recently she has managed to keep her estate exempt from climate regulations. Charles has done similar.
More here: https://inews.co.uk/opinion/the-case-for-finally-abolishing-the-monarchy-1666050
What I don’t like about the monarchy, more than anything else, is the national mood it creates. One of deference, obseqience and grovelling. The idea that some people, for no other reason than who their mum and dad was, are better than you.
The queuing to see the coffin is fucking mental. It’s a national sickness. There are people standing in the street for 30 hours to see a body, which you can’t see because it’s in a box, which you can’t see because it’s covered in flags. I saw one picture and a woman is stood in line with a pram.
People want to pay their respects. What more than is good for their own health? Or their children? And what are we paying respect to anyway? That a woman who was born into a life of unbelievable wealth an privilege that not one of us can even imagine ‘did her duty’. Duty, which as far as I can see, looks very unlike ‘work’ in any way we know it.
4 Likes
But they have no power…I would rather an unelected ruritanian incompetent or insane monarch with no power than an elected president Johnson or Corbyn.
As far as I am aware the queen did nothing to affect my life adversely in any way. Can’t say the same for the recent pms.
I do believe that the monarchy increases the political stability of the country just by being there and doing absolutely nothing political but being a figurehead and supporting good causes.
2 Likes
That’s the airbrushed public narrative of the Queen that you have been told by the establishment.
As has been shown, The Queen certainly did interfere politically, as I mentioned above, and that’s probably the tip of the iceberg.
2 Likes
That’s insulting…I am quite capable of forming my own opinion based on 70 years of living here but also traveling widely to other countries/continents.
6 Likes
You’ve never known anything other that the assertion from the deferential press that the Queen did not interfere with politics. It’s not meant as an insult.
Whether you’ve come to that conclusion yourself or absorbed from the public narrative, you’re wrong. She did in fact interfere in politics.
2 Likes
It is kind of an interesting question for Britain itself, but we have seen the transition to a Republic elsewhere - as recently as earlier this year for Barbados. Parliament passes a law, and where required amends the Constitution to remove the sovereignty of the Crown. Perversely, that requires Crown assent, but in practice that is no real barrier.
Different constitutions might have different rules for overriding Crown preference/refusal, so it might get very interesting in the UK. But even there, there is precedent - a Parliament removed Charles I, and not that much later installed William III, and both of those Parliaments reached back to even older precedent.
2 Likes
But this isn’t the fault of the monarchy, this is people, and in the event of a Republic being instituted, you’d have exactly the same situation but for former Presidents who have died:
https://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/10/reagan.main/index.html
This is a very special day," said Blanche Anderson of Virginia. “I’ve been a fan of Ronald Reagan since he became president, and this is my opportunity to say good-bye.”
The lines to pay tribute to Reagan stretched for blocks, with long waits to climb the marble steps into the Rotunda.
Parents pushed strollers or held in their arms children born well after Reagan’s time in office some saluted, or put their hands over their hearts; others wept.
‘People’ will still show deference and reverence to whichever figurehead is Head of State.
And why shouldn’t people have the right to express grief or respect in whichever way they see fit? If people want to queue up for 30 hours, how does that affect your life in any way whatsoever?
It doesn’t.
3 Likes
Does any country teach the history of the atrocities they committed?
Germany does. There is some sort of Holocaust memorial in every town.
5 Likes
Ok so technically, the government can decide to pass a law to make the monarchy redundant but of course realistically, they have to be sure overwhelmingly that most of the UK wants that or else they face a revolt. And at this point of time, its hard to see that there is a overwhelming majority who wants the monarchy out, if I am reading the overall sentiments right.