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

[lloydie]

I was always lead to believe that is what the Monarchy prevent more than what they actually control etc.
I am not a big monarchist, but imagine without them we could have a Corbyn or Farage wreaking havoc on the country.

It wasn’t the monarchy that scuppered Corbyn, and nobody’s scuppering Farage but himself.

 

[BrianW]

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.

 

[lloydie]

Descendant of the Royal Oak that kept Charlie safe from the Roundheads in 1651 at Boscobel House, Salop.

View attachment 194185

Those ribbons weren’t won in battle then, seems appropriate.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

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.

 

[johnny crossan]

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.

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?

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.

The US Supreme Court does seem to be helping that republic to follow the same path as the Weimar one. God Save The King.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Proportionally, the English Civil War was deadlier for the British population than World War I and World War II combined, a brutal fact that Oliver's admirers seem to overlook.

The principal cause of the English Civil War was Charles I being a ****.

 

[johnny crossan]

The principal cause of the English Civil War was Charles I being a ****.

Only partially true, Charles 1 was a stupid king but the principal cause of the civil wars was parliamentary aggression exploiting deep rooted religious division.