4 ms·

I don't get this, it's not like the king of england has any real power. I know it's a waste of tax money but the US governments wastes tax money all day long to

I don't get this, it's not like the king of england has any real power. I know it's a waste of tax money but the US governments wastes tax money all day long too, as do all governments on pork projects and subsidies.

chasil 4y ago
Au contraire. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/queens-consent-and-a-royal-abuse-of-power https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/queens-conse... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-power-british-law-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-... "Queen’s consent is a procedural rule, internal to the workings of parliament and of unclear origins, which requires the monarch’s consent to be obtained for certain types of legislation – before they can be presented for final approval by either house of parliament." Also note that the Crown appoints new members to the House of Lords. This includes the supreme court of Great Britain, all members of which trace their seat to a Crown appointment at some past time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords "Prime Minister Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey advised the King to overwhelm opposition to the bill in the House of Lords by creating about 80 new pro-Reform peers."
- cpleppert 4y ago
  Kings/Queens consent is for legislation affecting the royal household. Parliament is not bound by the monarch's consent in any case. Every appointed member of the house of lords and the supreme court is appointed on the advice of the prime minister and cabinet.
  - chasil 4y ago
    I daresay you are a royalist. "We now know there has been a persistent practice of applying those criteria so broadly that significant amounts of legislation regulating otherwise quite ordinary activities have required consent. The Queen pays tax, so (for example) finance laws require consent. The Queen is an employer, so (for example) child support and pensions laws require consent. And so on. Quite superficial connections to the interests of the crown are sufficient to trigger the Queen’s involvement. "Even less information has been available on the substance of the process once triggered. All correspondence containing requests for consent, replies and the documentation of any related discussions have always been shrouded in absolute privacy. The only clue to their existence is the routine formulaic confirmation in parliament whenever consent has been given, which reveals nothing about the process through which that consent was secured. So it has been impossible to ascertain whether this is an essentially symbolic process, comparable with royal assent and perhaps justifiable as symbolically acknowledging the Queen as a formal part of the legislature; or whether it provided (or had the potential to be used as) a genuine opportunity for the Queen to veto legislation or influence policy. "But it is now clear this process is far from merely symbolic. The documents uncovered by the Guardian provide remarkable evidence that this process accords the Queen’s advisers a genuine opportunity to negotiate with the government over changes in proposed laws, that they do sometimes secure such changes before giving consent, and that they are even prepared to threaten to withhold consent to secure their policy preferences."
    - mrcsd 4y ago
      All of the crown's powers can be changed or removed by parliament, the recent Prorogation of Parliament [0] case saw the supreme court of the UK reaffirm the "sovereignty of Parliament". So the (valid) issues with consent you are raising should be taken up with your local MP, since the power of conset is based upon the power of the UK's democratically elected body. By the by, I daresay I'm not a royalist. [0]: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/decision-of-the-supreme-court-on-the-prorogation-of-parliament/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/decision-of-the-supreme...
      - chasil 4y ago
        I work in Iowa. I am not a British citizen. "Since 1999, however, no further reform has taken place. The Wakeham Commission proposed introducing a 20% elected element to the Lords, but this plan was widely criticised. A parliamentary Joint Committee was established in 2001 to resolve the issue, but it reached no conclusion and instead gave Parliament seven options to choose from (fully appointed, 20% elected, 40% elected, 50% elected, 60% elected, 80% elected, and fully elected). In a confusing series of votes in February 2003, all of these options were defeated, although the 80% elected option fell by just three votes in the Commons. Socialist MPs favouring outright abolition voted against all the options." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
    - cpleppert 4y ago
      I would think that a head of state with substantial assets administered by the government and a massive public subsidy for the royal family would be in a position to lobby the government. The ruling party in the UK at the moment is pretty favorable to the monarchy so it isn't surprising they would provide the monarch with some ability to lobby the government. I'm not a royalist or British but I would be more concerned about the financial subsidy and the ruling party's deference to the monarchy than the theoretical possibility of them witholding consent. It isn't much of a negotiation if one side can immediately win though right? The prime minister can just threaten to go public that he can't obtain consent and the monarch has to back down immediately.
- nly 4y ago
  The Wikipedia page mentions that Kings Consent is a matter of parliamentary procedure and can be abolished with the stroke of a pen. It's just a courtesy to save face for the Monarchy.
  - MagnumOpus 4y ago
    Sure, and the monarchy could be abolished by a simple parliamentary vote, and the weekly meetings where the PM briefs the monarch on anything that could hurt the latters financial interests could be abolished even more easily. Except the monarch is a billionaire with power over even more money and public opinion and elected representatives are rightfully afraid of the monarchy's well funded and well oiled propaganda machine being turned against them.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    The monarchy never tried to help me save face, why build entire government processes which do nothing but that for them?
xani_ 4y ago
The whole monarch clowfest does bring tourism in so it might be not complete waste of tax money
- quibono 4y ago
  I've heard that many times but I've always wondered whether is is a net positive given all the tax spending that goes towards the royal family. I guess we'll never know since it's impossible to tell exactly how much tourism is in part based on the queen/king/monarchy sentiment.
  - opportune 4y ago
    It ignores the fact that the royal family owns a tremendous amount of assets that are not directly used in tourism or used by the state. And that they live off those taxes and spending. If the UK abolished the monarchy, tourism attractions like Westminster and the Crown Jewels would still exist
    - toomanybeersies 4y ago
      Imagine the money they'd make if they turned Buckingham Palace into a hotel.
    - nly 4y ago
      Is 20 odd billion £ really a tremendous amount of assets when the government can magic up 150 billion on a whim to cap energy bills? It's peanuts in the scheme of things. The royal family aren't even that rich amongst the billion class in the US.
      - MagnumOpus 4y ago
        > 20 odd billion £ really a tremendous amount of assets yes > government can magic up 150 billion that is also a tremendous amount which the next British generations will labour decades to pay off, just so today's pensioners can heat their homes to the 25C they are used to, and still have their ski outings in Zermatt.
13of40 4y ago
The king of England can't be arrested or sued, so that puts a huge amount of asymmetry into this situation. You get arrested for shouting during his parade, but he could (and please anyone, correct me if I'm wrong) shoot you in Trafalgar Square and get away with it.
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  Many people believe Princess Diana was murdered. If she was, there’s literally jack squat that could be done about it. What are they gonna do? Arrest the Queen?
- illiac786 4y ago
  Define “get away with it”. I sincerely doubt there wouldn’t be dire consequences for him and I am convinced he would have to subsequently abdicate. But prison might not be in it for him, that I agree. Or some very special prison.

chasil 4y ago

Au contraire. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/queens-consent-and-a-royal-abuse-of-power https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/queens-conse... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-power-british-law-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-... "Queen’s consent is a procedural rule, internal to the workings of parliament and of unclear origins, which requires the monarch’s consent to be obtained for certain types of legislation – before they can be presented for final approval by either house of parliament." Also note that the Crown appoints new members to the House of Lords. This includes the supreme court of Great Britain, all members of which trace their seat to a Crown appointment at some past time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords "Prime Minister Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey advised the King to overwhelm opposition to the bill in the House of Lords by creating about 80 new pro-Reform peers."

cpleppert 4y ago
Kings/Queens consent is for legislation affecting the royal household. Parliament is not bound by the monarch's consent in any case. Every appointed member of the house of lords and the supreme court is appointed on the advice of the prime minister and cabinet.
- chasil 4y ago
  I daresay you are a royalist. "We now know there has been a persistent practice of applying those criteria so broadly that significant amounts of legislation regulating otherwise quite ordinary activities have required consent. The Queen pays tax, so (for example) finance laws require consent. The Queen is an employer, so (for example) child support and pensions laws require consent. And so on. Quite superficial connections to the interests of the crown are sufficient to trigger the Queen’s involvement. "Even less information has been available on the substance of the process once triggered. All correspondence containing requests for consent, replies and the documentation of any related discussions have always been shrouded in absolute privacy. The only clue to their existence is the routine formulaic confirmation in parliament whenever consent has been given, which reveals nothing about the process through which that consent was secured. So it has been impossible to ascertain whether this is an essentially symbolic process, comparable with royal assent and perhaps justifiable as symbolically acknowledging the Queen as a formal part of the legislature; or whether it provided (or had the potential to be used as) a genuine opportunity for the Queen to veto legislation or influence policy. "But it is now clear this process is far from merely symbolic. The documents uncovered by the Guardian provide remarkable evidence that this process accords the Queen’s advisers a genuine opportunity to negotiate with the government over changes in proposed laws, that they do sometimes secure such changes before giving consent, and that they are even prepared to threaten to withhold consent to secure their policy preferences."
  - mrcsd 4y ago
    All of the crown's powers can be changed or removed by parliament, the recent Prorogation of Parliament [0] case saw the supreme court of the UK reaffirm the "sovereignty of Parliament". So the (valid) issues with consent you are raising should be taken up with your local MP, since the power of conset is based upon the power of the UK's democratically elected body. By the by, I daresay I'm not a royalist. [0]: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/decision-of-the-supreme-court-on-the-prorogation-of-parliament/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/decision-of-the-supreme...
    - chasil 4y ago
      I work in Iowa. I am not a British citizen. "Since 1999, however, no further reform has taken place. The Wakeham Commission proposed introducing a 20% elected element to the Lords, but this plan was widely criticised. A parliamentary Joint Committee was established in 2001 to resolve the issue, but it reached no conclusion and instead gave Parliament seven options to choose from (fully appointed, 20% elected, 40% elected, 50% elected, 60% elected, 80% elected, and fully elected). In a confusing series of votes in February 2003, all of these options were defeated, although the 80% elected option fell by just three votes in the Commons. Socialist MPs favouring outright abolition voted against all the options." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
  - cpleppert 4y ago
    I would think that a head of state with substantial assets administered by the government and a massive public subsidy for the royal family would be in a position to lobby the government. The ruling party in the UK at the moment is pretty favorable to the monarchy so it isn't surprising they would provide the monarch with some ability to lobby the government. I'm not a royalist or British but I would be more concerned about the financial subsidy and the ruling party's deference to the monarchy than the theoretical possibility of them witholding consent. It isn't much of a negotiation if one side can immediately win though right? The prime minister can just threaten to go public that he can't obtain consent and the monarch has to back down immediately.
nly 4y ago
The Wikipedia page mentions that Kings Consent is a matter of parliamentary procedure and can be abolished with the stroke of a pen. It's just a courtesy to save face for the Monarchy.
- MagnumOpus 4y ago
  Sure, and the monarchy could be abolished by a simple parliamentary vote, and the weekly meetings where the PM briefs the monarch on anything that could hurt the latters financial interests could be abolished even more easily. Except the monarch is a billionaire with power over even more money and public opinion and elected representatives are rightfully afraid of the monarchy's well funded and well oiled propaganda machine being turned against them.
- morelisp 4y ago
  The monarchy never tried to help me save face, why build entire government processes which do nothing but that for them?

xani_ 4y ago

The whole monarch clowfest does bring tourism in so it might be not complete waste of tax money

quibono 4y ago
I've heard that many times but I've always wondered whether is is a net positive given all the tax spending that goes towards the royal family. I guess we'll never know since it's impossible to tell exactly how much tourism is in part based on the queen/king/monarchy sentiment.
- opportune 4y ago
  It ignores the fact that the royal family owns a tremendous amount of assets that are not directly used in tourism or used by the state. And that they live off those taxes and spending. If the UK abolished the monarchy, tourism attractions like Westminster and the Crown Jewels would still exist
  - toomanybeersies 4y ago
    Imagine the money they'd make if they turned Buckingham Palace into a hotel.
  - nly 4y ago
    Is 20 odd billion £ really a tremendous amount of assets when the government can magic up 150 billion on a whim to cap energy bills? It's peanuts in the scheme of things. The royal family aren't even that rich amongst the billion class in the US.
    - MagnumOpus 4y ago
      > 20 odd billion £ really a tremendous amount of assets yes > government can magic up 150 billion that is also a tremendous amount which the next British generations will labour decades to pay off, just so today's pensioners can heat their homes to the 25C they are used to, and still have their ski outings in Zermatt.

13of40 4y ago

The king of England can't be arrested or sued, so that puts a huge amount of asymmetry into this situation. You get arrested for shouting during his parade, but he could (and please anyone, correct me if I'm wrong) shoot you in Trafalgar Square and get away with it.

colejohnson66 4y ago
Many people believe Princess Diana was murdered. If she was, there’s literally jack squat that could be done about it. What are they gonna do? Arrest the Queen?
illiac786 4y ago
Define “get away with it”. I sincerely doubt there wouldn’t be dire consequences for him and I am convinced he would have to subsequently abdicate. But prison might not be in it for him, that I agree. Or some very special prison.