|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3253 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Queen Elizabeth and the U.K.? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2615 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
That was actually the king of Belgium, Baudouin, or Boudewijn in Dutch. He felt he couldn't sign the bill regarding abortion, so for one day, he was declared unfit to reign. The bill got passed by the government (who, in absence of the king are head of state), and the next day he was reinstated.
There was something that came up in ... I forget ... Belgium, or the Netherlands ... the Queen of whichever country it was had some sort of conscientious objection to signing a bill about abortion, so it was seriously proposed that she could abdicate in favor of her son, who would sign it and then abdicate right back in favor of her. I don't know how the situation was eventually resolved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3253 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Modulous writes: Is there a written law that provides for the powers of the Monarchy to be regulated by the legislatures, or would there have to be some type of referendum to modify or abolish the powers of the Monarchy?
It hasn't happened for 300 years. It would be a crisis that will probably result in the monarchy being stripped of those powers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3253 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Is there a written law that provides for the powers of the Monarchy to be regulated by the legislatures, or would there have to be some type of referendum to modify or abolish the powers of the Monarchy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3253 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
nwr writes:
It probably depends on circumstances. It it is a bill that just about every sensible person thinks should be signed, then the monarchy ends. If it is a bill that just about every sensible person thinks should be vetoed, then the monarchy is strengthened When you say the monarchy ends, are you familar with the procedure for that process?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As long as you can still bowl a maiden over, all is not lost. If I tried, I'd probably get hit for six.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I guess there'd have to be an Act of Parliament ... which the Queen would have to sign. And it would be rude to ask her, so no-one will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Is there a written law that provides for the powers of the Monarchy to be regulated by the legislatures, English constitutional law is a mess of case history, treaties, acts and so on and so forth. There is the Magna Carta, of course, which sets the precedent for limiting the powers of the Monarchy. As a result of the looseness of the constitution, parliamentary sovereignty essentially means that Parliament has the power to limit or abolish the monarchy. This actually happened once: in 1649 courtesy of Oliver Cromwell, whose statue stands outside the houses of Parliament.
would there have to be some type of referendum to modify or abolish the powers of the Monarchy? I don't know of any law that requires a referendum for modifying the powers of the monarchy. Indeed, the results of referrendums in the UK are not even legally binding. However, they are usually held when constitutional changes are proposed, so I would expect that the abolishment of the monarchy would only go forwards if there was a positive response from a referrendum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9629 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
nw writes: When you say the monarchy ends, are you familar with the procedure for that process Oh yes, lots of sharp pointy things and fire. Muskets have been used I believe, but that was on foreigners so would probably be deemed inapropriate. Some blood. And shouting, lots of shouting. Then you need to find a guy from Lewes, East Sussex, to write some fine words. Preferrably using the word freedom rather too much.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh yes, lots of sharp pointy things and fire. So like vampires then. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6489 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: |
..., are you familar with the procedure for that process?
No. But if there were a strong enough outcry of demand, it would happen.Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Boof Member (Idle past 566 days) Posts: 99 From: Australia Joined: |
Modulus writes: Most of this is symbolic of course, she doesn't make any decisions that have not been decided already. She does have the power to dismiss the prime minister, but this would only be exercised if the prime minister loses a 'no confidence' vote and does not resign, and it's never actually been tested in modern times. Not in England at least - she has previously sacked an Australian Prime Minister. Not that long ago either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6187 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
I would have thought that this had come up in your political science classes. The question of a government's legitimacy and the source of every government official's authority. It was a frequent point that would come up in my history classes (outside of the US history requirement, this came up mostly in my Japanese and Russian history classes). In Japanese history, legitimacy was usually derived from one's ancestry. For example, the title of "Generalissimo who quelled the barbarians", Shogun, had been bestowed upon the leader of the Minamoto family, so only a Minamoto descendant could ever reclaim the title. Although Oda Nobunaga was able to reunify Japan in the late 1500's, he was not related to the Minamotos and so could never claim the title of Shogun, but one of his generals, Tokugawa Ieyasu, was a Minamoto and so was able to found the Tokugawa Shogunate. Similarly, the death of Ivan the Terrible without an heir by the death of his son, Dmitry, threw the empire into the Time of Troubles, out of which emerged a parade of "False Dmitrys" followed by their own armies.
Later, both in the Air Force and the Navy leadership schools, one of the first subjects covered would be to trace the source a NCO's or petty officer's authority back through various regulations, executive orders, laws, and ultimately back to the US Constitution, the ultimate source of legitimacy for everything that the US government does. What is the source for the legitimacy of the government in the UK? Isn't it the monarchy? Governments come and go, sometimes due to votes of no-confidence, but the constant that remains is the monarchy and the system for changes of government that is derived from that. Without that, where would a new government derived its authority from? Especially if opponents want to form their own government. Another thought is the monarchy's PR function. As governments come and go, the monarch provides a consistent public face. As the US goes from one presidential administration, the entire tone of the government and even the country can change radically. As the UK's government changes over from one political party to another, how radically does the entire tone of the country change? The US' constant factor is the US Constitution, which many view as an abstract concept and few have any understanding of. The UK's constant factor is the monarchy, which has a human face. Does that make a difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9629 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
dwise1 writes:
What is the source for the legitimacy of the government in the UK? Isn't it the monarchy? No, not at all. We're a democracy, the government's legitimacy comes from the people's vote. The monarchy is invisible in the process apart from its symbolic roles. (The queen is asked by the winning party to form a government and she formally opens parliament.) But it's all pomp and circumstance, it could disapear in a heartbeat and nothing would change to the legitimacy of the government (unless the government tried to do it without asking us first.) The fact is that most Brits admire and like the queen and enjoy all the ritual state occasions. For as long as the monarchy stay out of politics, I can't see much changing.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6187 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Uh, excuse me, please ...
No, not at all. We're a democracy, the government's legitimacy comes from the people's vote. And, uh, just exactly why should the people's vote ever matter? And just what exactly ever made you a democracy? Do please cite just exactly what documentation made you a "democracy". I am a retired US Navy Chief Petty Officer! Last drill weekend, I visited my unit four months after my retirement. And I found myself counselling a fellow chief, albeit with whiskers on my chin. Just exactly what was the basis for my authority? What was the basis for any CPO's authority? Just exactly was any petty officer's basis for authority? In both my Navy and in yours, there is a chain of authorization for your petty officers' authority and for our petty officers' authority. And for both our chiefs, albeit through different chains of authorization. The question returns to that of: just what exactly legitimizes your government? I'm a fucking American! (provided specifically for our UK members here: if you Brits don't see that word, "fucking", then it cannot be American -- in an episode of "Inspector Morse", the only thing that identified a character as "American" was her over-use of the word "fucking"; it became a running joke for us watching that on PBS) The defining political idea of things American is the US Constitution. So with all this idiocy that's going on this side of the Pond, albeit primarily Republican, is all in some way backed up by the US Constitution. It is the US Constitution that in one way or another backs up everything that we do (or at least until the Supreme Court finds otherwise). OK, Brits, what justifies what you do? You want to claim to be a democracy? On what basis? We "Yanks" are able to make that claim and have a solid basis for that claim. What exactly is the basis for your claim? Yes, I can appreciate your feelings and sentiments. My sister has been in contact with our Scottish cousins and has visited them. One remembers as a child being all dressed up and prepared for the Queen's arrival and being severely disappointed when the Queen passed by and completely ignored her. Yes, pomp and circumstance can easily appear empty. But the legitimacy of the government is paramount! I saw the movie with Helena Bonham Carter, Lady Jane (1986). Lady Jane Grey, "Queen for Nine Days", against "Mary, Bloody Mary". Two different factions, both vying for the throne. Who was the legitimate ruler? Mary won out, and that is the reason I assume to be behind England's perennial mistrust of Catholics and the Monty Python perennial "Nobody ever suspects the Spanish Inquisition!" Ultimately, the question has to always be who has the legitimate claim. Which returns us to the question of why the British peoples' vote should matter. Whether the American peoples' vote should matter is well defined by the US Constitution. So just what exactly determines what the British peoples' vote should mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
This seems to be of a type with one of the three common justifications offered for monarchy. 1. It's popular, 2. Tourism! and 3. Vague, abstract musings about legitimacy and consitutional roles.
The legitimacy of the British government doesn't come from the monarchy - it comes from the fact that it's a government elected by popular vote. As for what makes us a democracy - the fact that people think this is the most appropriate way to run a country in the modern world. The only legitimacy that really matters is popular support. If the monarchy were done away with tomorrow, this would not suddenly mean that popular support for democratic government would evaporate along with the silly little quaint traditions. Maybe a written constitution would be appropriate, although given that absolutely nothing would change in the practical functioning of government, it doesn't seem wholly necessary.
I saw the movie with Helena Bonham Carter, Lady Jane (1986). Lady Jane Grey, "Queen for Nine Days", against "Mary, Bloody Mary". Two different factions, both vying for the throne. Who was the legitimate ruler? Mary won out, and that is the reason I assume to be behind England's perennial mistrust of Catholics and the Monty Python perennial "Nobody ever suspects the Spanish Inquisition!" Ultimately, the question has to always be who has the legitimate claim. The question that actually matters here is who wins the armed struggle for the throne. Legitimacy is a vague, abstract concept, while the swords of the soldiers marching for you and the pikes of the peasants rising in your support are concrete, significant matters. If you can convince enough people to support you because of your marriage, or your bloodline, or the words of God, then you can win the throne. If you can convince enough people to support you because of backroom promises, a winning personality or promises of bread and circuses, then you also win the throne.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025