The British Monarchy | Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested for misconduct in public office

Several PMs have 'wreaked havoc' on the country in various ways, and the monarchy has done SFA to stop or moderate them. Indeed, it would be concerning for democracy if the monarch had the power to intervene. The monarch is not some disinterested god. He/she is a fallible human whose main concern is for his/her own family.

I am quite sure that if Adolf had landed here and established a government, the monarchy would have been happy to be a puppet above it, as long as its own privileges were protected. I really cannot understand why some people regard the royals as a sort of King Arthur when they are clearly just humans, with human desires for self-preservation.
 
Heartofoakes64 said:
I always thought the constitution prevented a Farage or Corbyn type of a President to do what they wanted. If there was no monarchy they would have no accountability for their actions. I was of the understanding the constitution prevented that. I will happily stand corrected if that no longer is the case.
Click to expand...
We don't have presidents, at least not since Cromwell. The Monarch is head of state but the Prime Minister has executive powers.

But it's an interesting question as to what would happen if a PM and party went "rogue" and decided to assume dictatorial powers, like Hitler did in 1933. He forced Enabling Acts through the Reichstag to give himself those powers. And you only have to look across the Atlantic to see just how easily the so-called 'checks and balances' on the executive can be ignored or subverted.
 
Last edited:
BrianW said:
Several PMs have 'wreaked havoc' on the country in various ways, and the monarchy has done SFA to stop or moderate them. Indeed, it would be concerning for democracy if the monarch had the power to intervene. The monarch is not some disinterested god. He/she is a fallible human whose main concern is for his/her own family.

I am quite sure that if Adolf had landed here and established a government, the monarchy would have been happy to be a puppet above it, as long as its own privileges were protected. I really cannot understand why some people regard the royals as a sort of King Arthur when they are clearly just humans, with human desires for self-preservation.
Click to expand...
Who has wrought havoc? I do recall the old Queen Mum getting twitchy about the possibility Harold Wilson was in the pay of the Kremlin. The Chiefs of Staff got a plan together for her but it proved a false alarm. Nothing like that could possibly happen now could it?
Prestwich_Blue said:
We don't have presidents, at least not since Cromwell. The Monarch is head of state but the Prime Minister has executive powers.

But it's an interesting question as to what would happen if a PM and party went "rogue" and decided to assume dictatorial powers, like Hitler did in 1933. He forced Enabling Acts through the Reichstag to give himself those powers. And you only have to look cross the Atlantic to see just how easily the so-called 'checks and balances' on the executive can be ignored or subverted.
Click to expand...
The US Supreme Court does seem to be helping that republic to follow the same path as the Weimar one. God Save The King.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
We don't have presidents, at least not since Cromwell. The Monarch is head of state but the Prime Minister has executive powers.

But it's an interesting question as to what would happen if a PM and party went "rogue" and decided to assume dictatorial powers, like Hitler did in 1933. He forced Enabling Acts through the Reichstag to give himself those powers. And you only have to look across the Atlantic to see just how easily the so-called 'checks and balances' on the executive can be ignored or subverted.
Click to expand...

The idea of Monarch being head of State has merit in theory, but in practice, because the Monarch can’t actually use any of their executive powers for fear of upsetting norms, all it does is put all of the executive powers in the hands of the Prime Minister and leaves parliament the only thing holding the PM accountable. Charles couldnt actually use his powers because to do so would make everyone reconsider why he has them.

A comparison with the US doesn’t make sense, as it’s a fully presidential system.

Ireland, Germany, India would be better examples of a semi-presidential state we’d become without a Monarchy, depending on how the new head of state was elected.

I would imagine most people have never heard of Droupadi Murmu, despite the fact she controls the second biggest military in the world.
 
Last edited:
Taking money off his staff like that sums the **** up.

Rather than wanting the people you interact with daily to be fortunate like you, and enjoy free accommodation and live a nice life, creating a positive atmosphere around you, instead you take rent off them in the house that you live in for free, you horrible fucking ****.

Absolute fucking lowlife.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Taking money off his staff like that sums the **** up.

Rather than wanting the people you interact with daily to be fortunate like you, and enjoy free accommodation and live a nice life, creating a positive atmosphere around you, instead you take rent off them in the house that you live in for free, you horrible fucking ****.

Absolute fucking lowlife.
Click to expand...
Takes a special kind of **** that.
The nonce twat.
 
domalino said:
The idea of Monarch being head of State has merit in theory, but in practice, because the Monarch can’t actually use any of their executive powers for fear of upsetting norms, all it does is put all of the executive powers in the hands of the Prime Minister and leaves parliament the only thing holding the PM accountable. Charles couldnt actually use his powers because to do so would make everyone reconsider why he has them.

A comparison with the US doesn’t make sense, as it’s a fully presidential system.

Ireland, Germany, India would be better examples of a semi-presidential state we’d become without a Monarchy, depending on how the new head of state was elected.

I would imagine most people have never heard of Droupadi Murmu, despite the fact she controls the second biggest military in the world.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the point I was making so my assumption about your reading and comprehension skills seems to be based on fact.

Democracies are supposed to have checks and balances on the executive, whether that executive power is vested in an elected president or an elected or appointed prime minister, whether they serve under a monarch or non-executive elected president. Those checks and balances include written constitutions, elected representatives, independent judiciaries and a free press.

The comparison to the USA was based on some of those checks & balances there seemingly being attacked, ignored or overridden. Even within those checks and balances, the US executive can directly appoint members of the Supreme Court when a vacancy arises. The appointee generally reflects the political views of the President and can therefore directly influence the political agenda. In 1933, following a democratic election, Hitler and the Nazis effectively suspended the democratic process and introduced an authoritarian regime and racist laws.

My question was, what could stop a British Prime Minister with, like Starmer, a large overall majority, or any executive in a democracy, doing the same thing?
 
So why has he got a huge red mark on the side of his face - Royals don't normally get battered in the Pub on a Friday night do they??
 
domalino said:
The idea of Monarch being head of State has merit in theory, but in practice, because the Monarch can’t actually use any of their executive powers for fear of upsetting norms, all it does is put all of the executive powers in the hands of the Prime Minister and leaves parliament the only thing holding the PM accountable. Charles couldnt actually use his powers because to do so would make everyone reconsider why he has them.
Click to expand...
King William IV?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top