31 ms·

She always struck me as a person with extraordinary character and integrity. RIP

protomyth 4y ago
The driving the Saudi King story is my favorite https://www.businessinsider.com/queen-england-terrified-saudi-king-driving-2017-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/queen-england-terrified-saud...
- pmontra 4y ago
  Spoiler: "Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t even have a driver’s license. As Queen, she doesn’t need one." but "as an Army driver during a war, she knew how to roll along Scotland’s winding roads."
  - Aperocky 4y ago
    I AM THE LICENSE.
- 0xcafecafe 4y ago
  Nice read! >>Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t even have a driver’s license. As Queen, she doesn’t need one Didn't know that either.
  - Phrodo_00 4y ago
    The king/queen's passport situation is also weird. British passports ask for passage "in the name of Her Majesty", but she theoretically doesn't need one since she can ask herself.
    - OJFord 4y ago
      Not to disagree, just to say the phrasing IIRC is that HM 'requests and requires' (that the bearer of the passport be allowed to pass 'without let or hindrance', and so on).
    - anticensor 4y ago
      Well he could have issued himself a Royal Certificate.
  - dijit 4y ago
    Same as passports; they're issued in her name, thus she doesn't need one. It's also true that she cannot be prosecuted for any crime except that of treason against the British people, but that's contestable. Since crimes are prosecuted in her name.
    - mhh__ 4y ago
      "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - SEMW 4y ago
      Charles I tried that argument, it didn't go well for him.
      - dijit 4y ago
        Sure, but that was overturned 4 years later and caused many people to die. I wouldn't assume anyone to be as bold as Mr Cromwell was.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - confidantlake 4y ago
      Ah she is legally above the law. Not that I am criticizing the monarchy. Just curiously pointing it out.
      - SEMW 4y ago
        The monarch is theoretically above the law, yes. But theory is not practice. In practice, if King Charles shivved someone in Trafalgar Square tomorrow, crowing about how he can't be prosecuted, what would happen would probably be something like: - parliament would try to pass a law saying that we were a republic now (or that harry becomes king or whatever) - charles would refuse royal assent - parliament would amend the bill to remove the requirement for royal assent for primary legislation and then claim they'd pass it using itself - people would point out that this is clearly invalid and self-referential - it would go to the UK supreme court, who would twist themselves into knots to conclude that it's actually fine, because they know as well as anyone else that that's the only conclusion that wouldn't result in riots and the collapse of the state as a liberal democracy - all the institutions who matter would agree that we're a republic now
torbTurret 4y ago

The driving the Saudi King story is my favorite https://www.businessinsider.com/queen-england-terrified-saudi-king-driving-2017-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/queen-england-terrified-saud...

pmontra 4y ago
Spoiler: "Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t even have a driver’s license. As Queen, she doesn’t need one." but "as an Army driver during a war, she knew how to roll along Scotland’s winding roads."
- Aperocky 4y ago
  I AM THE LICENSE.
0xcafecafe 4y ago
Nice read! >>Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t even have a driver’s license. As Queen, she doesn’t need one Didn't know that either.
- Phrodo_00 4y ago
  The king/queen's passport situation is also weird. British passports ask for passage "in the name of Her Majesty", but she theoretically doesn't need one since she can ask herself.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    Not to disagree, just to say the phrasing IIRC is that HM 'requests and requires' (that the bearer of the passport be allowed to pass 'without let or hindrance', and so on).
  - anticensor 4y ago
    Well he could have issued himself a Royal Certificate.
- dijit 4y ago
  Same as passports; they're issued in her name, thus she doesn't need one. It's also true that she cannot be prosecuted for any crime except that of treason against the British people, but that's contestable. Since crimes are prosecuted in her name.
  - mhh__ 4y ago
    "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - SEMW 4y ago
    Charles I tried that argument, it didn't go well for him.
    - dijit 4y ago
      Sure, but that was overturned 4 years later and caused many people to die. I wouldn't assume anyone to be as bold as Mr Cromwell was.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - confidantlake 4y ago
    Ah she is legally above the law. Not that I am criticizing the monarchy. Just curiously pointing it out.
    - SEMW 4y ago
      The monarch is theoretically above the law, yes. But theory is not practice. In practice, if King Charles shivved someone in Trafalgar Square tomorrow, crowing about how he can't be prosecuted, what would happen would probably be something like: - parliament would try to pass a law saying that we were a republic now (or that harry becomes king or whatever) - charles would refuse royal assent - parliament would amend the bill to remove the requirement for royal assent for primary legislation and then claim they'd pass it using itself - people would point out that this is clearly invalid and self-referential - it would go to the UK supreme court, who would twist themselves into knots to conclude that it's actually fine, because they know as well as anyone else that that's the only conclusion that wouldn't result in riots and the collapse of the state as a liberal democracy - all the institutions who matter would agree that we're a republic now

torbTurret 4y ago