Poll: Why does England still have a royal family?

Are you pro or anti royal?

  • Total voters
    604
pingwing said:
Well because of the status of the monarchy (being a head of state with no power) we live under semi-tyranical rule of the prime minister in that he rules under "the royal prerogative" on the basis they are the head of the elected house so they must ultimately know best.

Which sticks us in a situation where government (the prime minister) is free to do what ever they want with the country and it's citizens have very little (if any) say or power to change it. This is shown clearly in the Iraq war and all the mad counter terrorist legislation (legally we can't take a photo of a police officer because of this).

We end up with a very undemocratic democracy because the heads and facilitators of it have very minimal checks and balances to it, oddly common law is the only effective one as no one has ever been arrested and convicted of photographing a police officer as its stupid but its still no way to run a state.
Click to expand...

This isn't really anything to do with the monarchy. We have a hereditary monarch who could be in place over any form of democratic government.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Not really. The monarch could take over any democratic government just as much as raping the Queen or setting fire to any port are still hangable offences.
Click to expand...

The issues that were raised with our current form of democracy could be changed without any need to remove the Queen as head of state.

Oh, we don't have any offences that carry the death penalty anymore. The last offences were repealed in 1998.
 
I've always hated the royal family. I loathe the concept that their somehow a higher form of lifeform than the rest of us and that we should grovel at their feet whenever their nearby.

Stuff like being forced to kneel, bow, walk backwards out or a room to avoid showing them your back. Its all relics of a would we should have long ago outgrew.
 
spudbynight said:
This isn't really anything to do with the monarchy. We have a hereditary monarch who could be in place over any form of democratic government.
Click to expand...

It's entirely to do with the monarchy, the legitimacy for the government to rule ultimately rests with the Monarch and all power of that government relies on the royal prerogative and the royal assent. So I don't see how you can say it is nothing to do with the Monarchy, our system of government is dependent on the consent of a bunch of inbred old mad people, who's position is obtained and maintained on the basis they were born into it.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Not really. The monarch could take over any democratic government just as much as raping the Queen or setting fire to any port are still hangable offences.
Click to expand...

No they're not. And the Queens powers are mostly symbolic these days. Constitutional monarchy does not equal absolute monarchy.

pingwing said:
It's entirely to do with the monarchy, the legitimacy for the government to rule ultimately rests with the Monarch and all power of that government relies on the royal prerogative and the royal assent. So I don't see how you can say it is nothing to do with the Monarchy, our system of government is dependent on the consent of a bunch of inbred old mad people, who's position is obtained and maintained on the basis they were born into it.
Click to expand...
He can say its nothing to do with the monarchy because we have a constitutional monarchy. Most of the monarchs "powers" these days are symbolic.
 
pingwing said:
It's entirely to do with the monarchy, the legitimacy for the government to rule ultimately rests with the Monarch and all power of that government relies on the royal prerogative and the royal assent. So I don't see how you can say it is nothing to do with the Monarchy, our system of government is dependent on the consent of a bunch of inbred old mad people, who's position is obtained and maintained on the basis they were born into it.
Click to expand...

Semantics - the Queen doesn't actually have any choice or any power.

She can't actually refuse to give her consent.
 
Andrew_McP said:
In my youth I'd have turfed them all out on the streets. As I get older and less stroppy I'm prepared to accept the argument that they act as fairly revenue-neutral caretakers to some of the nation's assets. Those tourist attractions don't look after themselves, after all.
Click to expand...
Revenue positive. Very positive.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Not really. The monarch could take over any democratic government just as much as raping the Queen or setting fire to any port are still hangable offences.
Click to expand...

Under the provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, parliamentary elections must be held every five years, beginning in 2015. The Act received the Royal Assent on 15 September 2011 and effectively removed the monarch's authority to dissolve Parliament.

"the Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy ... three rights—the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn."
 
Last edited:
Ceryndrion said:
Under the provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, parliamentary elections must be held every five years, beginning in 2015. The Act received the Royal Assent on 15 September 2011 and effectively removed the monarch's authority to dissolve Parliament.

"the Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy ... three rights—the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn."
Click to expand...

Has it removed their authority to dissolve Parliament or just rendered it unnecessary in the ordinary course of events?
 
Vonhelmet said:
Has it removed their authority to dissolve Parliament or just rendered it unnecessary in the ordinary course of events?
Click to expand...

Under section 3(1) of the Act, Parliament automatically dissolves 17 working days before a polling day of a general election.

Section 1 of the Act provides for such polling days to occur on the first Thursday in May of the fifth year after the previous general election, starting with 7 May 2015.

The Prime Minister has the power, by order made by Statutory Instrument under section 1(5), to provide that the polling day is to be held up to two months later than that date.

Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five year period:

  • If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
  • If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its members, resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".

In either of these two cases the monarch (on the recommendation of the Prime Minister) appoints the date of the new election by proclamation. Parliament is then dissolved 17 working days before that date.

Apart from the automatic dissolution in anticipation of a general election (whether held early or not), section 3(2) provides that "Parliament cannot otherwise be dissolved".

The Act repealed the Septennial Act 1715 as well as references in other Acts to the royal prerogative of dissolving parliament.
 
spudbynight said:
Semantics - the Queen doesn't actually have any choice or any power.

She can't actually refuse to give her consent.
Click to expand...

She can if she wants a constitutional crisis. Either way there is no limit to what the PM can do with the power from this either way which is the problem (derived from the Monarchy)

platypus said:
No they're not. And the Queens powers are mostly symbolic these days. Constitutional monarchy does not equal absolute monarchy.

He can say its nothing to do with the monarchy because we have a constitutional monarchy. Most of the monarchs "powers" these days are symbolic.
Click to expand...

No the absolute has become the PM (to a certain degree) because the PM can act without the authority of Parliament via the power of the royal prerogative, which is where the powers of the monarchy are now found.

Technically the Monarch can just say no, they would never dare as they get so much free stuff out of being the Monarch, but technically it is still a possibility.

The main problem is that by remaining the head of state, the actions of the PM/Government will remain relatively arbitrary because they are not bound by any institution other than the authority derived from the Monarchy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom