4 ms·

Parliament, under the same theories, cannot alter any laws - parliament suggests laws to the monarch who grants them according to their caprices ... Of course

Parliament, under the same theories, cannot alter any laws - parliament suggests laws to the monarch who grants them according to their caprices ... Of course the monarchs rather like their position of power and the money they rob (it's only a threat of violence) from the taxpayer and so they don't rock the boat, even when they should (eg when a corrupt, lying PM asks them to please prorogue parliament in order to subvert democracy -- extraordinary prorogation being one of the few reserved powers). The monarch is perfectly entitled to take a seat in the public gallery of HoC, just as they are entitled to vote, no court would ever deny them such rights as they really derive from shared freedoms given to all UK nationals. When the Tories take us out of ECHR they might lose those rights. About the only good Mr Alexander Boris de Pfeffle Johnson was to demonstrate how we can no longer trust politicians to be honourable, and must reform our parliamentary system with an assumption that MPs are lying, cheating, thieving beings with utmost contempt for the electorate, the rule of law, and even the institutions of Westminster (buying silence with peerages and stuffing HoL with cronies, for example). That we cannot, even now, have a general election is a despicable endorsement of the lack of actual democracy afforded to the British people.

samus 3y ago
Royal assent has not been unilaterally withheld by the monarch for more than 300 years. The role of the Monarch has been a ceremonial over for a very long time. Even if they wanted to rock on the boat now, the result would be uncertain. Of course the Monarch can enter the visitor gallery, but, as you say, they would enter it as a citizen of the UK, not in their function as monarch. I'd attribute the deficiencies of the UK's democratic system more to the first-past-the-post voting system, which causes government to be answerable to the winning coalition, not to the whole Parliament. Integrity in Parliament has been going downhill everywhere, not just in the UK.
- fmajid 3y ago
  It's less ceremonial than you think: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent The king is exempted from racial discrimination laws, for instance, and well into the 1970s it was their official and open policy that black and brown people were unfit for any position more exalted than cleaning the toilets: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-p... Everything you think you know about the monarchy in the UK is a carefully crafted fiction by expensive PR consultants, paid by the taxpayers to lobby against their interests.
  - samus 3y ago
    How can you know what I think I know about the monarchy in the UK?
    - fmajid 3y ago
      To quote you verbatim: "The role of the Monarch has been a ceremonial over for a very long time." (sic) This is clearly not true, even if they go to great lengths to hide this from the public, in collusion with both UK and Scottish governments. That's before even discussing reserve powers.
      - samus 3y ago
        The incident you quoted was an instance of a threatened use of withholding the Queen's Consent. In this case, even most of Parliament might have been unaware of the implication of the bill that was presented before them. More evidence of shady backoffice bill crafting (yes, I'm aware that the Monarch has regularly tea with the Prime Minister) than actual abuse of powers. All of this is rather shameful, but not surprising. Especially since this happened in the 60s where the attitude of many people was still quite... old-fashioned. Personally, I think actively refusing the Queen's Consent would have caused a scandal not because of the actual discrimination, but because of special rules for the royal household being created, as well as direct interference with Parliament. This rather demonstrates that the Monarch is aware that they would likely lose out and find their powers further restricted should such meddling turn into an actual confrontation between Parliament and Monarch. The Monarchy exists as long as the public can turn a blind eye to their faults. Yes, that requires that they sweep things under the rug. And this is indeed one of the strongest arguments against the continued existence of the Monarchy.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Parliament, under the same theories, cannot alter any laws - parliament suggests laws to the monarch who grants them according to their caprices ... Wrong, under those theories, Parliament can absolutely alter laws (this requires, of course, royal assent, but the monarch is a component of Parliament not separate from it in theory, even aside from the fact that this function is now essentially ministerial in terms of its performance by the monarch in both practice and constitutional theory.)
versteegen 3y ago
> The monarch is ... entitled to vote, no court would ever deny them such rights as they really derive from shared freedoms given to all UK nationals. You seem to be correct that the monarch is technically not barred from voting (although they don't and shouldn't), but the Lords are not entitled to vote, so I don't think the reason you give is correct.

samus 3y ago

Royal assent has not been unilaterally withheld by the monarch for more than 300 years. The role of the Monarch has been a ceremonial over for a very long time. Even if they wanted to rock on the boat now, the result would be uncertain. Of course the Monarch can enter the visitor gallery, but, as you say, they would enter it as a citizen of the UK, not in their function as monarch. I'd attribute the deficiencies of the UK's democratic system more to the first-past-the-post voting system, which causes government to be answerable to the winning coalition, not to the whole Parliament. Integrity in Parliament has been going downhill everywhere, not just in the UK.

fmajid 3y ago
It's less ceremonial than you think: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent The king is exempted from racial discrimination laws, for instance, and well into the 1970s it was their official and open policy that black and brown people were unfit for any position more exalted than cleaning the toilets: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-p... Everything you think you know about the monarchy in the UK is a carefully crafted fiction by expensive PR consultants, paid by the taxpayers to lobby against their interests.
- samus 3y ago
  How can you know what I think I know about the monarchy in the UK?
  - fmajid 3y ago
    To quote you verbatim: "The role of the Monarch has been a ceremonial over for a very long time." (sic) This is clearly not true, even if they go to great lengths to hide this from the public, in collusion with both UK and Scottish governments. That's before even discussing reserve powers.
    - samus 3y ago
      The incident you quoted was an instance of a threatened use of withholding the Queen's Consent. In this case, even most of Parliament might have been unaware of the implication of the bill that was presented before them. More evidence of shady backoffice bill crafting (yes, I'm aware that the Monarch has regularly tea with the Prime Minister) than actual abuse of powers. All of this is rather shameful, but not surprising. Especially since this happened in the 60s where the attitude of many people was still quite... old-fashioned. Personally, I think actively refusing the Queen's Consent would have caused a scandal not because of the actual discrimination, but because of special rules for the royal household being created, as well as direct interference with Parliament. This rather demonstrates that the Monarch is aware that they would likely lose out and find their powers further restricted should such meddling turn into an actual confrontation between Parliament and Monarch. The Monarchy exists as long as the public can turn a blind eye to their faults. Yes, that requires that they sweep things under the rug. And this is indeed one of the strongest arguments against the continued existence of the Monarchy.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Parliament, under the same theories, cannot alter any laws - parliament suggests laws to the monarch who grants them according to their caprices ... Wrong, under those theories, Parliament can absolutely alter laws (this requires, of course, royal assent, but the monarch is a component of Parliament not separate from it in theory, even aside from the fact that this function is now essentially ministerial in terms of its performance by the monarch in both practice and constitutional theory.)

versteegen 3y ago

> The monarch is ... entitled to vote, no court would ever deny them such rights as they really derive from shared freedoms given to all UK nationals. You seem to be correct that the monarch is technically not barred from voting (although they don't and shouldn't), but the Lords are not entitled to vote, so I don't think the reason you give is correct.