It’s all about the fine balance between monarchy and parliament, not many master that balance but we’ve done it very well.What a patronising view. Not surprising.
If it is such a superior system why aren't other countries rushing to bring back their inbreds?
It’s all about the fine balance between monarchy and parliament, not many master that balance but we’ve done it very well.
If either one was over bearing then I’d probably want change too but I like the idea of the monarch being there to keep the Prime Minister in check.
Regarding the patronising view, you didn’t pick up on the boot-licking insinuations and other childish comments by anti monarchists. 18-24 year olds often do change their minds once they leave universities and get older.
Your reply is just hearsay and there was plenty of hearsay that said she gave bozo a proper bollocking after she found out he’d lied to her. In fact that was reported in papers that tend to swing to the left and hate the Tories.This is a fantastical view of the constitution, the monarch doesn't hold the prime minister in check. She or he cannot make a decision without the advice of their ministers, when the government lied to the sovereign to progogue parliament without stating a reason for doing so, she didn't stop them.
Individuals had to intervene and seek redress from the courts, that isn't a fine balance, that is teetering over the edge to an Orban style dictatorship.
Why would I pick up on the bootlicking remarks? I called you a forelock tugger.
You've demonstrated perfectly in this thread and other discussions before that such remarks are accurate.
If she ever did use those powers, I imagine the end of the monarchy would be nigh.Your reply is just hearsay and there was plenty of hearsay that said she gave bozo a proper bollocking after she found out he’d lied to her. In fact that was reported in papers that tend to swing to the left and hate the Tories.
She has a significant amount of power that can by used if a government becomes tyrannical and Parliament has measures to stop a tyrannical monarch. She doesn’t use that power because she believes in democracy but it’s a good check to have in case of a Pm who gets ahead of his station.
A January 6th type event in the UK that goes further than the US and she can take charge of the armed forces to restore peace.
Your reply is just hearsay and there was plenty of hearsay that said she gave bozo a proper bollocking after she found out he’d lied to her. In fact that was reported in papers that tend to swing to the left and hate the Tories.
She has a significant amount of power that can by used if a government becomes tyrannical and Parliament has measures to stop a tyrannical monarch. She doesn’t use that power because she believes in democracy but it’s a good check to have in case of a Pm who gets ahead of his station.
A January 6th type event in the UK that goes further than the US and she can take charge of the armed forces to restore peace.
I’m not saying the legalities of prolonging Parliament are hearsay, I’m saying the Queen’s response is that you claimed. Other claims said she gave him a bollocking after it and that she wouldn’t allow it again. I think the Mirror reported that.No it is not hearsay, it what was established in the court case and the ruling, no reason was given and it was quite obvious that the purpose was improper, so it was delcared void ab initio.
Your argument that she has powers and is able to exercise them doesn't stand up well to this point of fact. If no reason was given, and it was quite obvious it was improper, why did she not refuse the request?
A tyrant would have her locked up in the tower before she could exercise such powers, so it is just more stuff of fantasy.
Exactly and that’s Why she doesn’t.If she ever did use those powers, I imagine the end of the monarchy would be nigh.
In one reply, you are suggesting she could literally take control of the armed forces and that she wouldn’t allow such shithousery from the government again. What do you think she could do?Exactly and that’s Why she doesn’t.
funny Fode in the hole liked this whilst being oblivious to the fact that’s my point on why she doesn’t exercise the powers he claims she doesn’t have.
Those powers will be important if we ever have an extreme situation tho
She could do that, her power is far greater than the layman thinks but she COULD only do it in an extreme circumstance where the vast majority of the public was calling for her to do it, otherwise the public would turn against the monarchy.In one reply, you are suggesting she could literally take control of the armed forces and that she wouldn’t allow such shithousery from the government again. What do you think she could do?
If she did any of those things, the monarchy would cease to be pretty quickly.
All she does currently is be a moral beacon that even the Mail and Express look up to and would come down on Johnson with a ton of bricks if he crossed her again.
Will they be the same under King Charles IV?
Exactly, so moot in the 21st Century.She could do that, her power is far greater than the layman thinks but she COULD only do it in an extreme circumstance where the vast majority of the public was calling for her to do it, otherwise the public would turn against the monarchy.
The entire thing is based upon public opinion.
We live in a sick society where we have a "Family" who most wouldnt recognise a days work if it was put in front of them
but have privileges, wealth , Castles ,houses,property,estates beyond belief ( some are hardly used )
The royals and the UK got their wealth on the backs of exploiting people and countries round the world for centuries
The laws of the UK don't apply to them
While people are struggling to "heat or eat" and many are living in abject poverty or sleeping on the streets & are dying because the NHS is on its knees they flaunt their ill gotton gains in front of us People get caught up in the Royal PR machine & get all gooey when they see the Royals waving to us
They need a bigger balcony now as there is many of the hanger oners
We have been brainwashed for years that they do a good job and are good for the country but what benefit are they to us ?
Would the country really be a worse place without them ?
Bunch of scroungers the lot of them
Not at all, you only have to look at the US in January last year. You had an outgoing President refusing to accept a democratic vote and his supporters trying to takeover the gaff. The fact our Prime Minister needs to go and bend the knee and ask permission is a good thing.Exactly, so moot in the 21st Century.
I don't disagree with youwe live in a sick society where we worship and cheer footballers kicking a ball around whilst earning millions - meanwhile homelessness and food banks are rife ….
She can literally take control of the armed forces if she wished, can’t she? She’d be out of the tower quicker than you could blink.
Have you missed the demonstrations over the past few years?Not at all, you only have to look at the US in January last year. You had an outgoing President refusing to accept a democratic vote and his supporters trying to takeover the gaff. The fact our Prime Minister needs to go and bend the knee and ask permission is a good thing.
How about a transgender queen?its about time we had a black king, I’m voting for Lenny Henry.
Does Eddie Izzard qualify yet?How about a transgender queen?
No it’s not, the monarchy has not had any executive power for a 100 years plus ..She could do that, her power is far greater than the layman thinks but she COULD only do it in an extreme circumstance where the vast majority of the public was calling for her to do it, otherwise the public would turn against the monarchy.
The entire thing is based upon public opinion.
Good shout...Does Eddie Izzard qualify yet?