Posted on 05/07/2015 1:27:42 PM PDT by NRx
The Times and the Mirror are citing royal sources suggesting that the Queen could end up running the nation if there is no clear winner in the UK election. But does she have the power to fire or hire a prime minister?
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
But what is the overall trend in regards to Britain? I understand that in most cases the monarch should not - or cannot - intervene, but then what is the purpose of the monarchy? As a token national symbol? As a check on a nonexistent parliamentary tyrant?
Oh, and I do freely admit that I am anti-monarchist. So my views in that regard are not always the most rational.
There is no evidence of that, not even with Laird & Sons building two ships for the South. Sounds like Neoconfederate propaganda to me.
In the civil war (the UK) intervened with the goal of spitting the union …
You accusing the Brits of sinking the Lusitania?? never mind having a bizarre view of Germany of that era?
Today is the day the Lusitania was sunk. We were neutral at that time. The British demanded we not trade with Germany and was willing to sink our neutral shipping to enforce it. …
Many years ago, Charles visited Western Pennsylvania. The steel mills had recently shut down. People were out of work, and entire communities were in panic.
Then Charles shows up for a tour of the area. His advice? Plant flowers! Replace all the mill sites with parks and gardens! If that's not moronic advice, I don't know what is.
By “educated”, what was the curriculum of said “education”?
Changing “defender of the faith” to “defender of faith” indicates a character flaw, with all due respect to his Highness—and there are a lot more examples of bad character besides. He would have a lot more of the anti-left on his side if he would stop pandering to the left.
May I suggest that the ‘Stench’ that you mention isn’t coming from ‘across the Atlantic’... But from you talking out of your arse...!!
There are differing opinions on that. Some people do worry that Islam will become more influential and I can't say they are wrong - it's possible. But I actually have a reasonable degree of confidence that that will not happen. History and heritage is too important to too many Britons and there will be a pushback, we just haven't reached that tipping point yet. But we are starting to see signs with the growth of parties like UKIP - they won't win many seats yet, because of the way they are distributed, but their share of the vote is getting more and more significant. And that will drive the Conservative party back towards its roots, in my view.
I understand that in most cases the monarch should not - or cannot - intervene, but then what is the purpose of the monarchy? As a token national symbol? As a check on a nonexistent parliamentary tyrant?
This is the point - the reason that there is no parliamentary tyranny is because the Monarchy exists. Any Prime Minister who would contemplate trying to set up some sort of dictatorial government knows the monarch would intervene if they took things too far away from convention, and so no Prime Minister is ever likely to do it. People seem to get the idea that the Monarchy doesn't serve a purpose because Britain isn't constantly on the verge of rebellion requiring the Monarch to intervene - but the reason it's not in that situation is because nobody tries to take it that far, and force the issue.
Here in Australia, twice in the twentieth century, governments did try to take things too far - once at a state level in New South Wales, when the Governor had to intervene as the King's representative in that state, once at a national level when the Governor General had to intervene as the Queen's representative in Australia. In both cases, looming constitutional crisis caused by socialist governments trying to act illegally and unconstitutionally were averted before they became disastrous, and in both cases, it was largely caused by politicians who did not believe the powers of the Crown were as strong as they were. This has not happened in the UK, primarily because British Prime Ministers haven't made that mistake, and haven't pushed it to that point - because they know the Queen would intervene if she had to. The system is working to keep the government stable.
The Queen has actually used some of her powers a couple of times to deal with less serious issues - in 1957, she appointed Harold MacMillan as Prime Minister after Anthony Eden resigned and in 1963 she appointed Sir Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister on MacMillan's resignation using the Royal prerogative, because the Conservative Party didn't have a procedure in place to choose a new leader as Prime Minister when a leader resigned from office. She also told the Conservative Party in 1963 that they needed to develop a democratic procedure, so she wouldn't have to keep doing this as she did not regard it as appropriate in a modern Constitutional monarchy for the Queen to be choosing a Prime Minister without some sort of voting going on. The powers are still there, to be used when they need to be - but the government should limit how often they need to be used.
Oh, and I do freely admit that I am anti-monarchist. So my views in that regard are not always the most rational.
Being anti-monarchist is perfectly valid, but it needs to be understood that in the UK, the Monarch's powers are such that simply getting rid of the Monarchy would create both a vacuum and an imbalance. It would need to be done very carefully to ensure a stable system of government did not become unstable.
Very thoughtful post (#46). Thanks for the info. But you still haven’t turned me into a monarchist (yet). Cheers!
Oh, and one more thing. Where does Judith Durham stand on this whole monarchy thing? Because I have been in love with her since I bought my first Seekers album. Her opinion would carry a lot of weight with me!
Ok dim bulb, try to keep up. In the Civil war the Brits sold all the Enfield rifles they could to the south. And remember the blockade runners,,, their main goal was trade with England.
England did all it could without crossing a line that would get them into a war.
As for the Lusitania, no, the Germans sunk it. It was bringing munitions to England from New York. The Germans took out a full page ad in the NYT saying it was a war cargo and would be sunk. They told people to not sail on it.
The point you miss is that England reserved the same right the Germans did. England openly threatened American shipping, neutral country shipping, with the sinking or capture if ANY cargo was sent from the USA to Germany.
And no, no special relationship is good for us. Washington explicitly said that a special relationship, leads to treating others unfairly.
It isn’t “Obama” to not be a British cheerleader.
+1
Wow, all the liberal propaganda one can stand. Complete with typical liberal invective.
The majority of Britain’s trade was with the Union; blockade running was no evidence of open trade with the South, but Britain’s general aversion to it, because there were other locations and means to evade the blockades.
Believing German propaganda in the NYT? When in a hole, stop digging. It took Wilson two years to avenge the Lusitania, and that was after a re-election campaign with “He Kept Us Out Of War” as the slogan—a shameful reflection upon a USA that George Washington admonished must be “at all times ready for war”.
Obama’s already proven that “no special relationship” is not good for us, especially when he replaces it with a tenuous alliance with the Israel-hating European Union. Supporting the special relationship is not necessarily being a “British cheerleader”, whatever that means. Keep sloganeering, by all means.
I don't think I've ever seen her express a view on the republican issue, which leads me to think she's probably a monarchist, as she has expressed her views on the somewhat related issue of whether or not Australia should change its flag - she's in favour of that, and while the idea of changing the flag is normally a republican idea in Australia, it's not universally so, and I thought if she was republican she'd have brought that up in her arguments.
But one thing worth mentioning - here in Australia (I'm Australian born but hold dual British citizenship as well - and I am a constitutional monarchist) there is probably majority support for the idea of a republic in theory. Nonetheless when there was a Referendum in 1999 as to whether we should become a republic and cut ties to the monarchy, a majority of Australians rejected the idea - primarily because of the stability issue I mentioned. It's easier to be a republican in theory than to come up with a model for a republic that people trust to be as stable as the system we have now. People voted to retain a monarchical system they trusted even though they didn't like the symbolism, over a symbolic change they supported and an unknown and unpredictable system. That's the big issue in many ways. Nobody would design the current system from scratch, but over decades and centuries, it's evolved into something very stable and it's hard to design something like that from scratch.
What “explicit” quote from Washington specified aversity to special relationships?
PS,,, and you’d never guess my ex-mother in law was a Brit. Would you? Those boys in the Luftwaffe really tried their best. Even the Nazis couldn’t get her,,,
I think I have a touch of PTSD from those married times,,,
Said the troll from a fiction book,,,,
I’ve noticed that those that lean left typically deride my handle for being a species of troll; I chose it due to having been into Tolkein’s literature for a rather long period of my life.
Comparing Obama and Washington is rather tenuous too.
In his farewell address back in 1796, George Washington advised that the United States abjure both “ ‘passionate attachment’ ” and “ ‘inveterate hatred’ ” in foreign relations.
I never compared Obama to Washington. I never mentioned Obama except when you invoke him.
I do not slavishly worship the UK, royalty, or a special relationship.
Washington said what he said. This is a “Hitler = VW” fallacy on your part. Hitler loved the VW, I like them too. We like them for different reasons. It does not make me the same as Hitler.
The lunatic Obama hates England because his dad was a spear chucking communist Mau mau rebel and he wants revenge.
I see England as just another nation. I realistically see them (as a government) happy to access American power, and undermining us when they see a national need. I see them full of anti freedom and Sharia. Obama loves those aspects of the UK which I most passionately disagree with.
This does not make me an Obama fan.
Obama sent he Churchill bust back. Churchill is my hero and ive read everything he ever wrote. ANd he wrote a lot.
And I couldn’t resist the troll quote. People like my name too. It is from a true story involving a desert, and a Rhinoceros.
t was before I knew what a rino was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.