37 ms·

The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

376 points by anonymfus 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
t-writescode 6y ago
Isn't Britain a Constitutional *Monarchy*? Did they forget that? There's still the House of Lords and the House of Commons for a reason. The monarchy and the landowners are still a thing and are still a ruling class.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  People keep assuming it's a democracy and they're often told they are in charge, then somehow things never go their way...
  - meepmorp 6y ago
    That's kind of the fault of voters, the political class, and the media, though. The Queen's practical impact on the situation is practically nil.
    - dhosek 6y ago
      Did you read the article? Apparently what is widely assumed to be a pro forma aspect of the legislative process has, in fact, been used to make substantive changes to legislature before it's even presented to parliament and this is done in a manner outside of public view.
      - thesuitonym 6y ago
        On the other hand, is this process really that different than the usual process of legislation being crafted in private by people who aren't the Queen before it's presented? It is worrying that the Queen can just say no before legislation gets off the ground, but that's true of many of the more powerful MPs, too. I'm in the US, so I'm not exactly familiar with the process on your side of the pond, but over here, we have legislation stopped before pen hits paper simply because it's clear that the current leaders will never allow a vote on it. That is a broken system, yes, but given the length of time people in those positions tend to serve (and I use that term lightly), it doesn't seem like the Queen's influence is much more. And at least her input doesn't suffer from being completely partisan. To be abundantly clear: I don't think this is right, I just don't think it's very different than any other politician impeding democracy. Kings and Queens can and have been voted out, too.
        matthewdgreen 6y ago
        I think it’s different because the MPs are specifically elected by the public to propose (or block) legislation, and the hierarchy of Parliament is in turn determined by the votes of same elected officials. The Queen isn’t elected. By the same argument you could say that it’s fine for me to have a veto over British legislation, and I assure you that it would not be.
        alasdair_ 6y ago
        >It is worrying that the Queen can just say no before legislation gets off the ground The commonly-held belief in the UK is that the Queen gets to do this exactly one time before she is abolished completely, on the assumption that millions of people would riot if she used her power in such a direct fashion without a truly extreme reason (like a nuke blowing up Westminster or something).
        spacedcowboy 6y ago
        Yep, and it's seen as a last bastion before a malevolent (even if elected) government invokes tyranny. She'd have to be so sure that the populace would be behind her, and willing to risk the very existence of the monarchy. It'd take stopping a really "bad" thing for her to take that risk.
      - notahacker 6y ago
        The article links to this which itemises what the three known instances were. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbie... So the Queen's advisers lobbied for a royal commission to not be possible to scrap by executive order (but it was scrapped anyway), for the royal estates to be exempt from road traffic regulation (all private land is) and some Queen's Estate representatives threatened to complain to a senior minister in a meeting with civil servants about the impact of a bill which the Queen gave assent to anyway. Over the space of half a century. If there are other instances where royal representatives were a roadblock rather than on of many special interests whose opinion they humour, the incentives for politicians to publicise them are strong. I think that's more consistent with the monarch's impact being "practically nil" than her being the reason things never go people's way. There's an argument that's more legislative discussion than the representatives of a ceremonial monarch should be participating in, but you don't pressure civil servants by threatening to tell the Chancellor you're gravely concerned if you're actually pulling the strings.
      - meepmorp 6y ago
        Royal powers went away in 1689. The Queen's role here is entirely pro forma, and she cannot alter legislation. The fact that governments have sought her approval on matters, despite not being required to do so, isn't remotely surprising. And if you didn't care about the state providing a privileged life for the royals before, why would you care now? The fact is, not enough people care enough to make it a political priority.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Royal powers went away in 1689. More to the point, virtually all royal powers can, by tradition which is as strong as fundamental law, if not as clear on how you might amend it, be used only on the advice of (which in practice means at the direction of) of various bodies of Government, mostly the Cabinet wearing different hats. The Crown just provides a bit of formal distance from the acts for the actual actors (but, being as it's been true for so long, that probably doesn't mean much in terms of practical accountability.)
    - toiletfuneral 6y ago
      If she’s useless and using up resources, I would suggest you get rid of her.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      Except she has been repeatedly caught using the situation to her advantage and she presides over the whole mess...
- gowld 6y ago
  This is addressed in the article.
- subsubzero 6y ago
  It seems like there are two groups of lords, one group has been heavily shown in the media(think Downton Abby or the aristocratic family having to sell or have tours of their estate). The other set of lords is not really shown in media and they are large landowners in London and other cities in Britain and are extremely wealthy and powerful, see the Grosvenor family - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_Westminster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_We...
  - willyt 6y ago
    Not really. You don’t have to be a landowner or an aristocrat to become a lord. The ‘Downtown Abbey’ style lords, called ‘hereditary peers’ are on their way out, there’s not many left. Most peers are appointed by the government of the day supposedly as a result of doing something useful for the country as a whole. I think that certain members of the clergy become peers by default, likewise top judges, ‘The Law Lords’? Otherwise the majority of appointed peers, who are given the title of “Lord” or “Baroness” when they are appointed, are politicians that have been promoted out of the way of the young crew coming up, retired senior lawyers, judges, business people, doctors that sort of thing. Once appointed you are a Lord for the rest of your life. So the House of Lords is democratic in the sense that lords are appointed by elected politicians, but its less democratic than say the European Commission, where commissioners are also appointed by elected governments but have a fixed term of office. Which is less democratic than the Houses of Parliament, which is less democratic than a proportionally elected government like the Germans have and so on, but I digress. Basically its a continuation of the idea that the British state has had the ability to create Lords for thousands of years, but now they don’t pass the title on to their children and they dont get given a bit of land to build a castle on. I think there are probably a few hereditary peers that are actually just the great great grandchildren of very successful Victorian businessman, just because they have the title ‘Lord’ does not necessarily of aristocratic lineage dating back to William the Conquerer.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      814 hereditary peers left, half barons.
- laurencerowe 6y ago
  The House of Lords has included many political appointees since 'Life Peers' were created in 1958. Hereditary peers were mostly removed from the House of Lords in 1999, though a small rump of 92 remained as a motivation to decide for the long term whether it should be appointed or elected.
- draw_down 6y ago
  Fine with me, I just think they should just stop pretending they have a democracy.
meepmorp 6y ago
Parliament is sovereign. Consequently, the Queen has exactly as much power as Parliment allows. Sure, the Queen could decide to exercise her power outside of the constrained ways she currently does, but the very likely effect of that is a vote to strip her of her power.
- gowld 6y ago
  This is exactly what the article is about.
  - meepmorp 6y ago
    I'm reacting to the central conceit of the piece, that this process of royal consent is somehow undemocratic. This is the system of government that the people of Britain have chosen, and the impact of the queen is exclusively a political problem. If there was a serious difference between the will of Parliament (Commons) and the Queen, the result is a foregone conclusion.
    - Silhouette 6y ago
      This is the system of government that the people of Britain have chosen There is surprisingly little basis for arguing that the people of the UK have ever chosen almost anything important about our current system of government. That system is largely based on historical conventions, often dating back centuries and in some cases to the outcomes of civil war, and the status quo has several built-in feedback loops that make it difficult to change even with widespread popular support. The constitution of the UK is a fascinating subject, but it can also be rather uncomfortable subject matter to study if you believe in ideas like democracy and civil liberties.
    - throwaway2245 6y ago
      > the system of government that the people of Britain have chosen As a "person of Britain", I have certainly never had any say in the system of government.
    - roelschroeven 6y ago
8note 6y ago
So where's Glenn Greenwald's complaints that the Guardian's journalists are prying into the Queen's private conversations and that she should be allowed to have these without criticism?
- BeeBoBub 6y ago
  You’re suggesting that a head of state (more, a sovereign) should have the right to rule subjects by decree in private. I think that most would agree that the citizens should have the right to know how the laws they live under came to be. You are unfair to conflate Greenwald's advocacy for everyday individual privacy with the Queen’s right to rule arbitrarily.
etrevino 6y ago
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 new people to the House of Lords, but the Lords is no longer a hereditary body and there is a mechanism for the House of Commons to override the Lords. Parliament does have power over the monarch in some senses, of course, in that there is precedent for Parliament changing the order of succession or introducing a regency. This happened without the monarch's assent, though admittedly over a hundred years ago. But the British constitution is one that replies on precedence, not a formal document. I've characterized the Queen's powers as "reserve powers" inasmuch as, if everything goes wrong and Parliament dies from a meteor strike, the government still legally operate provided there is a monarch (even if you have to reach deep into the line of succession to find that person). By law she has to call elections within a certain amount of time. Obviously there's nothing to force her to follow the laws, but that's true of any country. She (or her heirs) are the leaders of last resort.
- retrac 6y ago
  Yes, this is very true. The Crown plays a useful and vital role in the Westminster system. (I'm in Canada.) It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. But I'm not sure the monarchy offers anything not provided by a nonpartisan and mostly ceremonial presidency, similar to Ireland or Germany.
  - etrevino 6y ago
    You're 100% right. The UK would be served just as well by a nonpartisan president.
    - gruffalowboy 6y ago
      > 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.
oh_sigh 6y ago
I was hoping the Queen's consent would be about things like foreign policy, going to war, etc. But it's just about laws that could possibly affect the Queen's income. That sounds just like garden variety corruption.
- etrevino 6y ago
  Well, the article says that we don't really know, it just references a pamphlet. My understanding (and take this for what you will) is that it's interpreted very liberally. So, foreign policy and war are likely taken into account.
- MockObject 6y ago
  Corrupted implies a previous state of uncorruption.
- prewett 6y ago
  It seems fair that the monarch would have some influence over laws that affect them (especially farther back in the past). It seems reasonable for the king to be able to veto an act of Parliament that unilaterally confiscates the king's lands and/or income. How far that the veto should extend is a matter of policy, but the veto itself is not a sign of corruption.
sleavey 6y ago
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.
- makomk 6y ago
  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_military_action 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.
  - zepto 6y ago
    The guardian likes to destabilize states. Their massive US gun control agenda probably helped Trump get elected.
motohagiography 6y ago
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.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > 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. IIRC, you conquer a territory, descend (biologically or legally) from someone who did, or politically maneuver to replace an existing monarch or heir (for instance, by assassinating them).
- Tomte 6y ago
  In Sweden: you have people from several factions argue whose candidate should be King, and then you compromise on a French (Bernadotte). In the Holy See: you have people from several factions argue whose candidate should be Pope, and then you compromise on a Pole (Wojtila).
- Veen 6y ago
  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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-QvwFWTB5c
  - mattmanser 6y ago
    Actually, not true. What you're referring to is known as primogeniture succession, but there were also elective monarchies and tanistry, and probably more that I don't know about. Sometimes succession was limited to the immediate family, sometimes a 'bloodline', sometimes any eligible nobles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succession https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succession For example that article mentions the Kingdom of Italy was briefly had this as the succession law: The Kingdom of Italy was designated a secundogeniture for the second surviving son of Napoleon I Bonaparte but, failing such, provided for the emperor's stepson, Eugène de Beauharnais, to succeed, even though the latter had no blood relationship to the House of Bonaparte
User23 6y ago
The Queen is also literally above the law and the military is sworn to her personally and not the government. Of course British history has shown the effectiveness of extralegal measures for dealing with bad monarchs so those powers are still limited.
- DaedPsyker 6y ago
  The monarch isn’t above the law, it has been granted immunity from being sued but this is all entirely on the gift of parliament. Inside the robing room used just before she addresses the House of Lords is a copy of the death warrant for Charles I as a little reminder of who really is in charge.
  - User23 6y ago
    The courts are literally the Queen’s. As for Charles I that was the result of losing a civil war and in case it’s not blindingly obvious exactly the kind of extralegal remedy I was referring to.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      De jure but not de facto - It's the Crown Prosecution Service but it would be the stroke of a pen to change that, unless the Queen somehow mobilized the army any revolution would be swift and quiet.
ARandomerDude 6y ago
> The Queen pays tax Honestly, this is the most surprising part of the article to me.
- AdamGibbins 6y ago
  Since 1993 when she volunteered to do so supposedly.
jnwatson 6y ago
The most obvious difference between the American and British legislative systems is the presence of a foundational document like the Constitution. The British system is strictly about convention and precedent, whereas Americans have a little more explicit guidance from the Constitution. I think what we've learned as Americans in the last few years is that it isn't enough to have a foundational document. Convention and precedent indeed play a large role in the function of how the well government works. Congress is now terminally defective, largely because of the loss of the norms and violations of precedent, starting roughly in the mid 90's. Perhaps the idea that convention and precedent is the only thing holding the British system together makes it stronger.
- seneca 6y ago
  > Perhaps the idea that convention and precedent is the only thing holding the British system together makes it stronger. This echos the Roman senate during the late Republican period quite strongly. They, like the British, depended on precedent (their "Mos Maiorum"). Like us Americans, once the social norms were violated things quickly devolved.
- pasabagi 6y ago
  > Perhaps the idea that convention and precedent is the only thing holding the British system together makes it stronger. Coronavirus has been a pretty good litmus test for which countries have good governments, and which countries do not. The UK has consistently led the charts in terms of deaths and infections. I think it shows the fundamental defectiveness of the system itself - a defectiveness that has been pretty visible for years if you looked at the country with a critical eye, but doesn't seem to be often acknowledged, since english people have a cultural prohibition against complaining.
  - s17n 6y ago
    That's ridiculous - in the US, at least, our failure to contain the virus was clearly due more to a substantial portion of the population not wanting to contain it (and this ambivalence being correctly reflected in the government's actions) than any failure of governance. Of course, these people were a minority, but that just leads to the question of the appropriate protection of minority rights in a democracy, to which there is no obviously correct answer.
elil17 6y ago
This is probably a better article, it explains what changes the queen has actually secured using this rule: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbie...
vmception 6y ago
They should have never been in the EU with that law. Monarchies with that much control, even theoretically, are not allowed in.
- akmarinov 6y ago
  Well it wasn’t the EU back then.
markdown 6y ago
Americans on HN up in arms about a British Monarch who speaks up from time to time to try and influence the direction her country moves. Meanwhile, American billionaires own their congresspeople. What an interesting discussion to read as a citizen of neither country.
jdlyga 6y ago
If watching The Crown has taught me anything, it's this. She has a considerable amount of influence over government.
- timc3 6y ago
  I don’t think you should be using that TV show as a guide, parts of it are fictional. For examples, take a look at the wikipedia section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown_(TV_series)#Historical_accuracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown_(TV_series)#Historic...
draw_down 6y ago
No offense, but this form of government should be deeply embarrassing. I say this as a citizen of the USA, whose most-recent president was certainly no shining example of a world leader. But this state of affairs is far more embarrassing. And I mean this before whatever revelations are contained in the Guardian piece. A democracy should not have a monarch. It's literally that simple, I think. Otherwise don't call yourself a democracy, and don't act like you are one.
wooptoo 6y ago
This comes at an incredibly unfortunate time and has the potential to lead to a monarchy crisis in the UK. The royals haven't won too many favours with the public over the past few years. Prince Andrew's involvement with Epstein, Charles breaking lockdown rules, and now this.
godmode2019 6y ago
I like my queen. The problem arises what happens when she leaves. The other family members are not likeable at all.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  I have no stake in this at all, but as far as I can tell William is extremely likeable.
  - ValentineC 6y ago
    Hopefully Charles (heir apparent), who's a lot more polarising, abdicates when Elizabeth II passes.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  > I like my queen. Have you ever met her? Brenda's media team are some of the best in the business.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dan-robertson 6y ago
The prime minister goes to meet the queen once a week. Do people think they just talk about the weather, kiss the ring, and leave? Or the PM just says what laws they wish to pass while the queen silently listens?
- zepto 6y ago
  The Queen just might know something about Prime Ministers that would be helpful.
twirlock 6y ago
I've tried to tell people about this before and they're like, no I learned the term figurehead before so you're wrong somehow.
naebother 6y ago
An unelected Head of State has too much power over the state. Who would have thought...man the British weird.
bigtones 6y ago
The Queen of England is also the head of the Australian Government, and has the power to fire the Prime Minister of Australia. She actually did so in 1975.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The Queen of England is also the head of the Australian Government, No, she's not, the Prime Minister is head of government. The monarch is generally held to be the head of state, though that's not entirely clear and the Governor-General is sometimes referred to that way. > She actually did so in 1975. The Crown by the action of the Governor-General did, there's no indication that the Queen had any direct involvement.
  - oilbagz 6y ago
    >The Crown by the action of the Governor-General did, there's no indication that the Queen had any direct involvement. .. yet. And, that is precisely the problem with her powers. She can keep anything secret that she desires, including war crimes.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > .. yet Well, I mean, it's possible that the detailed information that has come out about the GG trying to get assurances that, if the PM advices that he be removed to forestall a dismissal, the monarch would disregard that advice and receiving a communique from the Queen’s private secretary that, in that event, she would be obliged to follow the PM’s advice has managed to miss another layer of secret communication directly with the monarch directing the action, with the other private communication being a cover. But, I mean, secret backchannels and influences are always possible whatever the former arrangement of power is: the conspiracy theory that the dismissal was directed by the Queen has far less support compared to the theory that it was directed by the CIA, which has no formal role in Australia’s government.
      - oilbagz 6y ago
IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
For anyone interested in exploring this topic further, i recommend "the crown" series on netflix. The series theme may come across as bland when compared gems like the wire & breaking bad... but the theme of duty, especially in these times, is uniquely powerful, and production values are worthy of any top series on tv. For a nonUK viewer, it is hugely instructional. I enjoyed the show immensely
- ridiculous_lol 6y ago
  Not exactly related but the series Victoria is also good if you enjoy this kind of stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_(British_TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_(British_TV_series)
- timc3 6y ago
  It is a great show that I agree on, but, as I pointed out in another comment is not totally accurate and some parts are likely to be just fiction (thinking in particular of certain conversations). I think the only way to get a better picture is to read a lot of different books on the subject.
lwansbrough 6y ago
As a Canadian I was curious if I could find a reference to a similar process in our procedures, and indeed we are also subject to Royal Consent. Interesting! https://lop.parl.ca/sites/ParlInfo/default/en_CA/legislation/royalConsent https://lop.parl.ca/sites/ParlInfo/default/en_CA/legislation...
john4532452 6y ago
As an outsider, i wonder what makes people accept the Queen's position in a democracy. Someone said its because in England everybody is related by blood, so the sentiment of a blood line is what makes people accept the Royal Family. How true is this ?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hyko 6y ago
Many will talk of title to a crown. What right had Caesar to the empire? Might first made kings, and laws were then most sure When like the Draco's they were writ in blood
raverbashing 6y ago
Well, I'd wager Robert Murdock still has more influence over the law than the Queen does so I'm kinda fine with her having some power.
tibbydudeza 6y ago
Where is Oliver Cromwell.
Thorentis 6y ago
Why is The Guardian up in arms about this, but not about the very clear and well understood veto that President Biden has over every single law that goes through Congress? Yes, The Guardian is a UK/commonwealth publication, but the article is essentially making the point "this shouldn't happen in a democracy", and yet the world's arguably largest and most influential democracy has an even greater veto power for their head of state.
keiferski 6y ago
If you’re looking for an intelligent argument that justifies the British aristocracy, I recommend reading T. S. Eliot. Although American by birth, he spent most of his life in England. His book Notes Toward the Definition of Culture is a good read. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.159230 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.159230
nomercy400 6y ago
It's kind of strange. 20 years ago there was the House of Commons making laws, with the House of Lords checking the laws, and the Queen who signed the votes. Now, the House of Commons has made the House of Lords something that can be ignored, and now they also want to do away with the Queen. I think it is dangerous to see the House of Commons gaining more and more power over the country, without any regulatory body being able to hold them in line. Basically, the person who leads the party that wins the general elections the moment the Queen's powers are stripped, is the person who creates, validates, appoints and signs the laws of the country. Is that the power you want to give to one single party? What if that body decides to stop holding elections? A Head of State that holds office for more than one or two periods of a House isn't such a bad idea. Continuity is also important, especially considering the whims of (less than) half the general population every fout years.
- konschubert 6y ago
  I'm confused about your objection. That's how it works in almost every modern democratic country. The check and balance to the power of the current government is the constitution, with a national constitutional court enforcing it.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    You are mistaken. Almost every modern democracy has a bicameral legislature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism
    - hansbo 6y ago
      "Almost every" is an exaggeration. While most do, there are quite a few with unicameral legislature, and they do not work worse than bicameral ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism#/media/File:Unibicameral_Map.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism#/media/File:Unib...
      - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
blackcats 6y ago
Yes she has. But a strange premise of the guardian that different is better.
undecisive 6y ago
We have a weird relationship with our royals, similarly with our House of Lords. Lots of people seem to want rid of them, and many have half-good reasons on a theoretical level, but nobody really has any solutions to the problems they solve. To take a recent example from a country that shall remain nameless, how do you stop a magalomaniac from duping half the population with a mix of nationalist rhetoric and promises of rolling back any half-uncomfortable environmental or sociological progress? If the whole government gets tainted at the same time, even if the country realises its mistake half a decade later, the money wasted in switching the laws back - the economic equality and environmental progress lost, the damage to international relations... all because the person in charge doesn't actually care about the country, and there is no ironclad process for getting them out of power (besides the collective power of a government that is either scared of his voter influence, or realises their power is contingent on his) None of the laws this article claims the Queen has "influenced" worry me in the slightest. It doesn't benefit anyone to know how much wealth she has (in fact, if something should happen and her wealth fluctuates drastically, that could cause more damage to public and international perception than good) and the law has always maintained, as far as I'm aware, that many driving laws do not apply on private property - Sandringham et al being considered private property for the purposes of this law makes logical sense to me. The national monuments one is just bizarre, smacks of a power-grab by government - albeit a petty one. I suspect it was a way of getting more tourist revenue. But either way, its not exactly earth shattering. "But what if Prince William becomes king and uses these powers for evil purposes?" I hear you cry. Well, in that case something will change. Either an uprising will happen or evil will be done. Though as long the monarchy's well-being for their whole life is entwined with the country's well-being, there is less likelihood that a sane king or queen would rock the boat significantly. I seriously doubt that this is the law that will cause the next major catastrophe. As that certain other country has proven, unbridled democracy is a more potent threat.
IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
The discussion on the value of monarchy is hotly debated around a quantitative measure of value, tourism vs maintenance costs. I do think there is a case to be made on the qualitative aspect of value. A monarch acts as a check for ambitious undesirables (politicians/hollywood types etc) from achieving the ideal elite rank in society, as no one can truly be king by definition, except the king. As such, they act as "power inhibitors" on the rest of elite society. Inhibiting cult of personality, the monarch instead reflect opposite values like devotion to duty, and restraint, instilled from birth. In summary, this seems like catastrophic insurance. Even if the probability is very low, the price to insure against a despot , would seem to be reasonable.
yawaworht1978 6y ago
The royals everywhere are clinging to their titles inherited and stolen from their mass murderer ancestors.All this based on a ridiculous(pretend or not, end justifies the means) right to rule religious doctrine. And the politicians do not pass legislature to end this travesty because it might not be popular. The days of such power structures and its cronies should be numbered, it is not sustainable and we have better alternatives. Prince Andrew is funded by taxpayer money. Think about that.
Layke1123 6y ago
How are rich families still having a significantly larger influence over our societies in the 21st Century? This is inexcusable. It's like we traded lords and nobles for politicians bought and sold by lords and nobles.

376 points by anonymfus 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Isn't Britain a Constitutional *Monarchy*? Did they forget that? There's still the House of Lords and the House of Commons for a reason. The monarchy and the landowners are still a thing and are still a ruling class.

LatteLazy 6y ago
People keep assuming it's a democracy and they're often told they are in charge, then somehow things never go their way...
- meepmorp 6y ago
  That's kind of the fault of voters, the political class, and the media, though. The Queen's practical impact on the situation is practically nil.
  - dhosek 6y ago
    Did you read the article? Apparently what is widely assumed to be a pro forma aspect of the legislative process has, in fact, been used to make substantive changes to legislature before it's even presented to parliament and this is done in a manner outside of public view.
    - thesuitonym 6y ago
      On the other hand, is this process really that different than the usual process of legislation being crafted in private by people who aren't the Queen before it's presented? It is worrying that the Queen can just say no before legislation gets off the ground, but that's true of many of the more powerful MPs, too. I'm in the US, so I'm not exactly familiar with the process on your side of the pond, but over here, we have legislation stopped before pen hits paper simply because it's clear that the current leaders will never allow a vote on it. That is a broken system, yes, but given the length of time people in those positions tend to serve (and I use that term lightly), it doesn't seem like the Queen's influence is much more. And at least her input doesn't suffer from being completely partisan. To be abundantly clear: I don't think this is right, I just don't think it's very different than any other politician impeding democracy. Kings and Queens can and have been voted out, too.
      - matthewdgreen 6y ago
        I think it’s different because the MPs are specifically elected by the public to propose (or block) legislation, and the hierarchy of Parliament is in turn determined by the votes of same elected officials. The Queen isn’t elected. By the same argument you could say that it’s fine for me to have a veto over British legislation, and I assure you that it would not be.
      - alasdair_ 6y ago
        >It is worrying that the Queen can just say no before legislation gets off the ground The commonly-held belief in the UK is that the Queen gets to do this exactly one time before she is abolished completely, on the assumption that millions of people would riot if she used her power in such a direct fashion without a truly extreme reason (like a nuke blowing up Westminster or something).
        spacedcowboy 6y ago
        Yep, and it's seen as a last bastion before a malevolent (even if elected) government invokes tyranny. She'd have to be so sure that the populace would be behind her, and willing to risk the very existence of the monarchy. It'd take stopping a really "bad" thing for her to take that risk.
    - notahacker 6y ago
      The article links to this which itemises what the three known instances were. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbie... So the Queen's advisers lobbied for a royal commission to not be possible to scrap by executive order (but it was scrapped anyway), for the royal estates to be exempt from road traffic regulation (all private land is) and some Queen's Estate representatives threatened to complain to a senior minister in a meeting with civil servants about the impact of a bill which the Queen gave assent to anyway. Over the space of half a century. If there are other instances where royal representatives were a roadblock rather than on of many special interests whose opinion they humour, the incentives for politicians to publicise them are strong. I think that's more consistent with the monarch's impact being "practically nil" than her being the reason things never go people's way. There's an argument that's more legislative discussion than the representatives of a ceremonial monarch should be participating in, but you don't pressure civil servants by threatening to tell the Chancellor you're gravely concerned if you're actually pulling the strings.
    - meepmorp 6y ago
      Royal powers went away in 1689. The Queen's role here is entirely pro forma, and she cannot alter legislation. The fact that governments have sought her approval on matters, despite not being required to do so, isn't remotely surprising. And if you didn't care about the state providing a privileged life for the royals before, why would you care now? The fact is, not enough people care enough to make it a political priority.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Royal powers went away in 1689. More to the point, virtually all royal powers can, by tradition which is as strong as fundamental law, if not as clear on how you might amend it, be used only on the advice of (which in practice means at the direction of) of various bodies of Government, mostly the Cabinet wearing different hats. The Crown just provides a bit of formal distance from the acts for the actual actors (but, being as it's been true for so long, that probably doesn't mean much in terms of practical accountability.)
  - toiletfuneral 6y ago
    If she’s useless and using up resources, I would suggest you get rid of her.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Except she has been repeatedly caught using the situation to her advantage and she presides over the whole mess...
gowld 6y ago
This is addressed in the article.
subsubzero 6y ago
It seems like there are two groups of lords, one group has been heavily shown in the media(think Downton Abby or the aristocratic family having to sell or have tours of their estate). The other set of lords is not really shown in media and they are large landowners in London and other cities in Britain and are extremely wealthy and powerful, see the Grosvenor family - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_Westminster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_We...
- willyt 6y ago
  Not really. You don’t have to be a landowner or an aristocrat to become a lord. The ‘Downtown Abbey’ style lords, called ‘hereditary peers’ are on their way out, there’s not many left. Most peers are appointed by the government of the day supposedly as a result of doing something useful for the country as a whole. I think that certain members of the clergy become peers by default, likewise top judges, ‘The Law Lords’? Otherwise the majority of appointed peers, who are given the title of “Lord” or “Baroness” when they are appointed, are politicians that have been promoted out of the way of the young crew coming up, retired senior lawyers, judges, business people, doctors that sort of thing. Once appointed you are a Lord for the rest of your life. So the House of Lords is democratic in the sense that lords are appointed by elected politicians, but its less democratic than say the European Commission, where commissioners are also appointed by elected governments but have a fixed term of office. Which is less democratic than the Houses of Parliament, which is less democratic than a proportionally elected government like the Germans have and so on, but I digress. Basically its a continuation of the idea that the British state has had the ability to create Lords for thousands of years, but now they don’t pass the title on to their children and they dont get given a bit of land to build a castle on. I think there are probably a few hereditary peers that are actually just the great great grandchildren of very successful Victorian businessman, just because they have the title ‘Lord’ does not necessarily of aristocratic lineage dating back to William the Conquerer.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    814 hereditary peers left, half barons.
laurencerowe 6y ago
The House of Lords has included many political appointees since 'Life Peers' were created in 1958. Hereditary peers were mostly removed from the House of Lords in 1999, though a small rump of 92 remained as a motivation to decide for the long term whether it should be appointed or elected.
draw_down 6y ago
Fine with me, I just think they should just stop pretending they have a democracy.

meepmorp 6y ago

Parliament is sovereign. Consequently, the Queen has exactly as much power as Parliment allows. Sure, the Queen could decide to exercise her power outside of the constrained ways she currently does, but the very likely effect of that is a vote to strip her of her power.

gowld 6y ago
This is exactly what the article is about.
- meepmorp 6y ago
  I'm reacting to the central conceit of the piece, that this process of royal consent is somehow undemocratic. This is the system of government that the people of Britain have chosen, and the impact of the queen is exclusively a political problem. If there was a serious difference between the will of Parliament (Commons) and the Queen, the result is a foregone conclusion.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    This is the system of government that the people of Britain have chosen There is surprisingly little basis for arguing that the people of the UK have ever chosen almost anything important about our current system of government. That system is largely based on historical conventions, often dating back centuries and in some cases to the outcomes of civil war, and the status quo has several built-in feedback loops that make it difficult to change even with widespread popular support. The constitution of the UK is a fascinating subject, but it can also be rather uncomfortable subject matter to study if you believe in ideas like democracy and civil liberties.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    > the system of government that the people of Britain have chosen As a "person of Britain", I have certainly never had any say in the system of government.
  - roelschroeven 6y ago

8note 6y ago

So where's Glenn Greenwald's complaints that the Guardian's journalists are prying into the Queen's private conversations and that she should be allowed to have these without criticism?

BeeBoBub 6y ago
You’re suggesting that a head of state (more, a sovereign) should have the right to rule subjects by decree in private. I think that most would agree that the citizens should have the right to know how the laws they live under came to be. You are unfair to conflate Greenwald's advocacy for everyday individual privacy with the Queen’s right to rule arbitrarily.

etrevino 6y ago

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 new people to the House of Lords, but the Lords is no longer a hereditary body and there is a mechanism for the House of Commons to override the Lords. Parliament does have power over the monarch in some senses, of course, in that there is precedent for Parliament changing the order of succession or introducing a regency. This happened without the monarch's assent, though admittedly over a hundred years ago. But the British constitution is one that replies on precedence, not a formal document. I've characterized the Queen's powers as "reserve powers" inasmuch as, if everything goes wrong and Parliament dies from a meteor strike, the government still legally operate provided there is a monarch (even if you have to reach deep into the line of succession to find that person). By law she has to call elections within a certain amount of time. Obviously there's nothing to force her to follow the laws, but that's true of any country. She (or her heirs) are the leaders of last resort.

retrac 6y ago
Yes, this is very true. The Crown plays a useful and vital role in the Westminster system. (I'm in Canada.) It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. But I'm not sure the monarchy offers anything not provided by a nonpartisan and mostly ceremonial presidency, similar to Ireland or Germany.
- etrevino 6y ago
  You're 100% right. The UK would be served just as well by a nonpartisan president.
  - gruffalowboy 6y ago
    > 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.

oh_sigh 6y ago

I was hoping the Queen's consent would be about things like foreign policy, going to war, etc. But it's just about laws that could possibly affect the Queen's income. That sounds just like garden variety corruption.

etrevino 6y ago
Well, the article says that we don't really know, it just references a pamphlet. My understanding (and take this for what you will) is that it's interpreted very liberally. So, foreign policy and war are likely taken into account.
MockObject 6y ago
Corrupted implies a previous state of uncorruption.
prewett 6y ago
It seems fair that the monarch would have some influence over laws that affect them (especially farther back in the past). It seems reasonable for the king to be able to veto an act of Parliament that unilaterally confiscates the king's lands and/or income. How far that the veto should extend is a matter of policy, but the veto itself is not a sign of corruption.

sleavey 6y ago

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.

makomk 6y ago
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_military_action 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.
- zepto 6y ago
  The guardian likes to destabilize states. Their massive US gun control agenda probably helped Trump get elected.

motohagiography 6y ago

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.

ardy42 6y ago
> 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. IIRC, you conquer a territory, descend (biologically or legally) from someone who did, or politically maneuver to replace an existing monarch or heir (for instance, by assassinating them).
Tomte 6y ago
In Sweden: you have people from several factions argue whose candidate should be King, and then you compromise on a French (Bernadotte). In the Holy See: you have people from several factions argue whose candidate should be Pope, and then you compromise on a Pole (Wojtila).
Veen 6y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-QvwFWTB5c
- mattmanser 6y ago
  Actually, not true. What you're referring to is known as primogeniture succession, but there were also elective monarchies and tanistry, and probably more that I don't know about. Sometimes succession was limited to the immediate family, sometimes a 'bloodline', sometimes any eligible nobles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succession https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succession For example that article mentions the Kingdom of Italy was briefly had this as the succession law: The Kingdom of Italy was designated a secundogeniture for the second surviving son of Napoleon I Bonaparte but, failing such, provided for the emperor's stepson, Eugène de Beauharnais, to succeed, even though the latter had no blood relationship to the House of Bonaparte

User23 6y ago

The Queen is also literally above the law and the military is sworn to her personally and not the government. Of course British history has shown the effectiveness of extralegal measures for dealing with bad monarchs so those powers are still limited.

DaedPsyker 6y ago
The monarch isn’t above the law, it has been granted immunity from being sued but this is all entirely on the gift of parliament. Inside the robing room used just before she addresses the House of Lords is a copy of the death warrant for Charles I as a little reminder of who really is in charge.
- User23 6y ago
  The courts are literally the Queen’s. As for Charles I that was the result of losing a civil war and in case it’s not blindingly obvious exactly the kind of extralegal remedy I was referring to.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    De jure but not de facto - It's the Crown Prosecution Service but it would be the stroke of a pen to change that, unless the Queen somehow mobilized the army any revolution would be swift and quiet.

ARandomerDude 6y ago

> The Queen pays tax Honestly, this is the most surprising part of the article to me.

AdamGibbins 6y ago
Since 1993 when she volunteered to do so supposedly.

jnwatson 6y ago

The most obvious difference between the American and British legislative systems is the presence of a foundational document like the Constitution. The British system is strictly about convention and precedent, whereas Americans have a little more explicit guidance from the Constitution. I think what we've learned as Americans in the last few years is that it isn't enough to have a foundational document. Convention and precedent indeed play a large role in the function of how the well government works. Congress is now terminally defective, largely because of the loss of the norms and violations of precedent, starting roughly in the mid 90's. Perhaps the idea that convention and precedent is the only thing holding the British system together makes it stronger.

seneca 6y ago
> Perhaps the idea that convention and precedent is the only thing holding the British system together makes it stronger. This echos the Roman senate during the late Republican period quite strongly. They, like the British, depended on precedent (their "Mos Maiorum"). Like us Americans, once the social norms were violated things quickly devolved.
pasabagi 6y ago
> Perhaps the idea that convention and precedent is the only thing holding the British system together makes it stronger. Coronavirus has been a pretty good litmus test for which countries have good governments, and which countries do not. The UK has consistently led the charts in terms of deaths and infections. I think it shows the fundamental defectiveness of the system itself - a defectiveness that has been pretty visible for years if you looked at the country with a critical eye, but doesn't seem to be often acknowledged, since english people have a cultural prohibition against complaining.
- s17n 6y ago
  That's ridiculous - in the US, at least, our failure to contain the virus was clearly due more to a substantial portion of the population not wanting to contain it (and this ambivalence being correctly reflected in the government's actions) than any failure of governance. Of course, these people were a minority, but that just leads to the question of the appropriate protection of minority rights in a democracy, to which there is no obviously correct answer.

elil17 6y ago

This is probably a better article, it explains what changes the queen has actually secured using this rule: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbie...

vmception 6y ago

They should have never been in the EU with that law. Monarchies with that much control, even theoretically, are not allowed in.

akmarinov 6y ago
Well it wasn’t the EU back then.

markdown 6y ago

Americans on HN up in arms about a British Monarch who speaks up from time to time to try and influence the direction her country moves. Meanwhile, American billionaires own their congresspeople. What an interesting discussion to read as a citizen of neither country.

jdlyga 6y ago

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

timc3 6y ago
I don’t think you should be using that TV show as a guide, parts of it are fictional. For examples, take a look at the wikipedia section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown_(TV_series)#Historical_accuracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown_(TV_series)#Historic...

draw_down 6y ago

No offense, but this form of government should be deeply embarrassing. I say this as a citizen of the USA, whose most-recent president was certainly no shining example of a world leader. But this state of affairs is far more embarrassing. And I mean this before whatever revelations are contained in the Guardian piece. A democracy should not have a monarch. It's literally that simple, I think. Otherwise don't call yourself a democracy, and don't act like you are one.

wooptoo 6y ago

This comes at an incredibly unfortunate time and has the potential to lead to a monarchy crisis in the UK. The royals haven't won too many favours with the public over the past few years. Prince Andrew's involvement with Epstein, Charles breaking lockdown rules, and now this.

godmode2019 6y ago

I like my queen. The problem arises what happens when she leaves. The other family members are not likeable at all.

bpodgursky 6y ago
I have no stake in this at all, but as far as I can tell William is extremely likeable.
- ValentineC 6y ago
  Hopefully Charles (heir apparent), who's a lot more polarising, abdicates when Elizabeth II passes.
mhh__ 6y ago
> I like my queen. Have you ever met her? Brenda's media team are some of the best in the business.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dan-robertson 6y ago

The prime minister goes to meet the queen once a week. Do people think they just talk about the weather, kiss the ring, and leave? Or the PM just says what laws they wish to pass while the queen silently listens?

zepto 6y ago
The Queen just might know something about Prime Ministers that would be helpful.

twirlock 6y ago

I've tried to tell people about this before and they're like, no I learned the term figurehead before so you're wrong somehow.

naebother 6y ago

An unelected Head of State has too much power over the state. Who would have thought...man the British weird.

bigtones 6y ago

The Queen of England is also the head of the Australian Government, and has the power to fire the Prime Minister of Australia. She actually did so in 1975.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The Queen of England is also the head of the Australian Government, No, she's not, the Prime Minister is head of government. The monarch is generally held to be the head of state, though that's not entirely clear and the Governor-General is sometimes referred to that way. > She actually did so in 1975. The Crown by the action of the Governor-General did, there's no indication that the Queen had any direct involvement.
- oilbagz 6y ago
  >The Crown by the action of the Governor-General did, there's no indication that the Queen had any direct involvement. .. yet. And, that is precisely the problem with her powers. She can keep anything secret that she desires, including war crimes.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > .. yet Well, I mean, it's possible that the detailed information that has come out about the GG trying to get assurances that, if the PM advices that he be removed to forestall a dismissal, the monarch would disregard that advice and receiving a communique from the Queen’s private secretary that, in that event, she would be obliged to follow the PM’s advice has managed to miss another layer of secret communication directly with the monarch directing the action, with the other private communication being a cover. But, I mean, secret backchannels and influences are always possible whatever the former arrangement of power is: the conspiracy theory that the dismissal was directed by the Queen has far less support compared to the theory that it was directed by the CIA, which has no formal role in Australia’s government.
    - oilbagz 6y ago

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago

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

ridiculous_lol 6y ago
Not exactly related but the series Victoria is also good if you enjoy this kind of stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_(British_TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_(British_TV_series)
timc3 6y ago
It is a great show that I agree on, but, as I pointed out in another comment is not totally accurate and some parts are likely to be just fiction (thinking in particular of certain conversations). I think the only way to get a better picture is to read a lot of different books on the subject.

lwansbrough 6y ago

As a Canadian I was curious if I could find a reference to a similar process in our procedures, and indeed we are also subject to Royal Consent. Interesting! https://lop.parl.ca/sites/ParlInfo/default/en_CA/legislation/royalConsent https://lop.parl.ca/sites/ParlInfo/default/en_CA/legislation...

john4532452 6y ago

As an outsider, i wonder what makes people accept the Queen's position in a democracy. Someone said its because in England everybody is related by blood, so the sentiment of a blood line is what makes people accept the Royal Family. How true is this ?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

hyko 6y ago

Many will talk of title to a crown. What right had Caesar to the empire? Might first made kings, and laws were then most sure When like the Draco's they were writ in blood

raverbashing 6y ago

Well, I'd wager Robert Murdock still has more influence over the law than the Queen does so I'm kinda fine with her having some power.

tibbydudeza 6y ago

Where is Oliver Cromwell.

Thorentis 6y ago

Why is The Guardian up in arms about this, but not about the very clear and well understood veto that President Biden has over every single law that goes through Congress? Yes, The Guardian is a UK/commonwealth publication, but the article is essentially making the point "this shouldn't happen in a democracy", and yet the world's arguably largest and most influential democracy has an even greater veto power for their head of state.

keiferski 6y ago

If you’re looking for an intelligent argument that justifies the British aristocracy, I recommend reading T. S. Eliot. Although American by birth, he spent most of his life in England. His book Notes Toward the Definition of Culture is a good read. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.159230 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.159230

nomercy400 6y ago

It's kind of strange. 20 years ago there was the House of Commons making laws, with the House of Lords checking the laws, and the Queen who signed the votes. Now, the House of Commons has made the House of Lords something that can be ignored, and now they also want to do away with the Queen. I think it is dangerous to see the House of Commons gaining more and more power over the country, without any regulatory body being able to hold them in line. Basically, the person who leads the party that wins the general elections the moment the Queen's powers are stripped, is the person who creates, validates, appoints and signs the laws of the country. Is that the power you want to give to one single party? What if that body decides to stop holding elections? A Head of State that holds office for more than one or two periods of a House isn't such a bad idea. Continuity is also important, especially considering the whims of (less than) half the general population every fout years.

konschubert 6y ago
I'm confused about your objection. That's how it works in almost every modern democratic country. The check and balance to the power of the current government is the constitution, with a national constitutional court enforcing it.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  You are mistaken. Almost every modern democracy has a bicameral legislature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism
  - hansbo 6y ago
    "Almost every" is an exaggeration. While most do, there are quite a few with unicameral legislature, and they do not work worse than bicameral ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism#/media/File:Unibicameral_Map.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism#/media/File:Unib...
    - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago

blackcats 6y ago

Yes she has. But a strange premise of the guardian that different is better.

undecisive 6y ago

We have a weird relationship with our royals, similarly with our House of Lords. Lots of people seem to want rid of them, and many have half-good reasons on a theoretical level, but nobody really has any solutions to the problems they solve. To take a recent example from a country that shall remain nameless, how do you stop a magalomaniac from duping half the population with a mix of nationalist rhetoric and promises of rolling back any half-uncomfortable environmental or sociological progress? If the whole government gets tainted at the same time, even if the country realises its mistake half a decade later, the money wasted in switching the laws back - the economic equality and environmental progress lost, the damage to international relations... all because the person in charge doesn't actually care about the country, and there is no ironclad process for getting them out of power (besides the collective power of a government that is either scared of his voter influence, or realises their power is contingent on his) None of the laws this article claims the Queen has "influenced" worry me in the slightest. It doesn't benefit anyone to know how much wealth she has (in fact, if something should happen and her wealth fluctuates drastically, that could cause more damage to public and international perception than good) and the law has always maintained, as far as I'm aware, that many driving laws do not apply on private property - Sandringham et al being considered private property for the purposes of this law makes logical sense to me. The national monuments one is just bizarre, smacks of a power-grab by government - albeit a petty one. I suspect it was a way of getting more tourist revenue. But either way, its not exactly earth shattering. "But what if Prince William becomes king and uses these powers for evil purposes?" I hear you cry. Well, in that case something will change. Either an uprising will happen or evil will be done. Though as long the monarchy's well-being for their whole life is entwined with the country's well-being, there is less likelihood that a sane king or queen would rock the boat significantly. I seriously doubt that this is the law that will cause the next major catastrophe. As that certain other country has proven, unbridled democracy is a more potent threat.

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago

The discussion on the value of monarchy is hotly debated around a quantitative measure of value, tourism vs maintenance costs. I do think there is a case to be made on the qualitative aspect of value. A monarch acts as a check for ambitious undesirables (politicians/hollywood types etc) from achieving the ideal elite rank in society, as no one can truly be king by definition, except the king. As such, they act as "power inhibitors" on the rest of elite society. Inhibiting cult of personality, the monarch instead reflect opposite values like devotion to duty, and restraint, instilled from birth. In summary, this seems like catastrophic insurance. Even if the probability is very low, the price to insure against a despot , would seem to be reasonable.

yawaworht1978 6y ago

The royals everywhere are clinging to their titles inherited and stolen from their mass murderer ancestors.All this based on a ridiculous(pretend or not, end justifies the means) right to rule religious doctrine. And the politicians do not pass legislature to end this travesty because it might not be popular. The days of such power structures and its cronies should be numbered, it is not sustainable and we have better alternatives. Prince Andrew is funded by taxpayer money. Think about that.

Layke1123 6y ago

How are rich families still having a significantly larger influence over our societies in the 21st Century? This is inexcusable. It's like we traded lords and nobles for politicians bought and sold by lords and nobles.