4 ms·

If you think for a single second that the monarchy is going to do a single thing that might jeopardize their free, cushy, completely out of touch lifestyle, you

by wredue 3y ago

If you think for a single second that the monarchy is going to do a single thing that might jeopardize their free, cushy, completely out of touch lifestyle, you are horribly horribly wrong. Philip had his fair share of completely out of touch gaffes, but even he wasn’t so stupid as to believe it wouldn’t ruin everything for him to exercise their “power”.

ncallaway 3y ago
That doesn’t alter the point that he’s still responsible for the things happening in his name. Just because he’s selfish and doesn’t want to jeopardize the things his position brings him, doesn’t me he bears no responsibility or culpability. Maybe refusing royal assent wouldn’t change anything (it likely wouldn’t), he still assents and the law goes forward with his name on it.
- sgjohnson 3y ago
  > That doesn’t alter the point that he’s still responsible for the things happening in his name. There's case law on this matter actually, coming from the trial of King Charles I. > The court challenged the doctrine of sovereign immunity and proposed that "the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern 'by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise'." So no, granting the Royal Assent doesn't happen in the name of King Charles III.
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    Sure, and when Biden vetoes something it’s happening by the Office of the President. It’s still happening by the hand and pen of President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. History can figure out who held the office when. Maybe we can’t sue either of them personally for those actions (which is what sovereign immunity relates to), but history can sure as shit remember which King took which actions. You think we don’t remember which George lost the American colonies, because it was the Office that lost the colonies?
dragonwriter 3y ago
My point is that enjoying a free, cushy, completely out of touch lifestyle in exchange for acting as a PR figleaf for the government still leaves them responsible for the actions they allow themselves to be a figleaf for, even if they do nothing but go where and do what their ministers direct.

by wredue 3y ago

ncallaway 3y ago

That doesn’t alter the point that he’s still responsible for the things happening in his name. Just because he’s selfish and doesn’t want to jeopardize the things his position brings him, doesn’t me he bears no responsibility or culpability. Maybe refusing royal assent wouldn’t change anything (it likely wouldn’t), he still assents and the law goes forward with his name on it.

sgjohnson 3y ago
> That doesn’t alter the point that he’s still responsible for the things happening in his name. There's case law on this matter actually, coming from the trial of King Charles I. > The court challenged the doctrine of sovereign immunity and proposed that "the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern 'by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise'." So no, granting the Royal Assent doesn't happen in the name of King Charles III.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  Sure, and when Biden vetoes something it’s happening by the Office of the President. It’s still happening by the hand and pen of President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. History can figure out who held the office when. Maybe we can’t sue either of them personally for those actions (which is what sovereign immunity relates to), but history can sure as shit remember which King took which actions. You think we don’t remember which George lost the American colonies, because it was the Office that lost the colonies?

dragonwriter 3y ago

My point is that enjoying a free, cushy, completely out of touch lifestyle in exchange for acting as a PR figleaf for the government still leaves them responsible for the actions they allow themselves to be a figleaf for, even if they do nothing but go where and do what their ministers direct.