Queen to abdicate?
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think the monarchy can survive an idiot, but the problems, like the landed gentry who inherit stately homes, arise when you get two morons in a row. That's when you end up in real trouble.
But William looks pretty sensible, so the reign of his buffoon of a dad shouldn't be fatal.
Amazing that you consider his 'reign' to be that of a buffoon when he hasn't ever been the monarch. He may actually turn out to be good although I doubt he will ever get a chance.But William looks pretty sensible, so the reign of his buffoon of a dad shouldn't be fatal.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Gargamel said:
Anyway, I am not that worried about Charles, The UK have had good and bad Monarchs before, and survived.
I think the monarchy can survive an idiot, but the problems, like the landed gentry who inherit stately homes, arise when you get two morons in a row. That's when you end up in real trouble. But William looks pretty sensible, so the reign of his buffoon of a dad shouldn't be fatal.
Blue Oval84 said:
Blue Oval84 said:
I had to google for this but I knew I had read somewhere that the queen has not actually been acting simply as a figurehead but has consulted on, and in some cases blocked laws that Parliament wished to pass...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-p...
Quoting myself, which is a new low, but I'm wanting to bump it to find out whether this article is a load of crap, or whether she is in fact doing more than just "unveiling plaques"?http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-p...
The suggestion above that merging the role of chief exec and head of state would return to the system that was in place before the Civil War and Glorious Revolution is, I suggest, incorrect, because it overlooks the facts that we now have the rule of law (including judicial review of government action), a well developed free media, and regular elections with general adult suffrage. We did not have all of those things in the seventeenth century.
AJS- said:
Loads of people lived through WW2 without being head of state.
One of those was the Duke of Edinburgh. He did commendably well in the War. On that basis, he is, according to some, even better qualified to advise the Government than his wife is, but, oh, hang on, his opinions are famously loopy. Hmmmmm, something wrong with this system of picking top advisers, perhaps.Quite a few people bang on about how fabby Brenda is. I think that she may be just a tad overrated, or - to put it another way - she should be good, as the job is not rocket science; but let's for the sake of argument accept that the job has some content and that she is indeed fab at the job. Do those people who so commend the current incumbent not realise the inherent flaw of relying on the unpredictable personal qualities of whomever's turn it is next? If one of the forelock tuggers pops up and says "centuries of breeding, born to serve" or similar, I may laugh so much that my ears bleed.
Breadvan72 said:
AJS- said:
Loads of people lived through WW2 without being head of state.
One of those was the Duke of Edinburgh. He did commendably well in the War. On that basis, he is, according to some, even better qualified to advise the Government than his wife is, but, oh, hang on, his opinions are famously loopy. Hmmmmm, something wrong with this system of picking top advisers, perhaps.Quite a few people bang on about how fabby Brenda is. I think that she may be just a tad overrated, or - to put it another way - she should be good, as the job is not rocket science; but let's for the sake of argument accept that the job has some content and that she is indeed fab at the job. Do those people who so commend the current incumbent not realise the inherent flaw of relying on the unpredictable personal qualities of whomever's turn it is next? If one of the forelock tuggers pops up and says "centuries of breeding, born to serve" or similar, I may laugh so much that my ears bleed.
Breadvan72 said:
AJS- said:
Loads of people lived through WW2 without being head of state.
One of those was the Duke of Edinburgh. He did commendably well in the War. On that basis, he is, according to some, even better qualified to advise the Government than his wife is, but, oh, hang on, his opinions are famously loopy. Hmmmmm, something wrong with this system of picking top advisers, perhaps.Quite a few people bang on about how fabby Brenda is. I think that she may be just a tad overrated, or - to put it another way - she should be good, as the job is not rocket science; but let's for the sake of argument accept that the job has some content and that she is indeed fab at the job. Do those people who so commend the current incumbent not realise the inherent flaw of relying on the unpredictable personal qualities of whomever's turn it is next? If one of the forelock tuggers pops up and says "centuries of breeding, born to serve" or similar, I may laugh so much that my ears bleed.
you can read this post and its agreement that you have a point - just look at the next in line for that "unpredictable qualities" factor. Talk about bleedin' ears. turbobloke said:
Breadvan72 said:
AJS- said:
Loads of people lived through WW2 without being head of state.
One of those was the Duke of Edinburgh. He did commendably well in the War. On that basis, he is, according to some, even better qualified to advise the Government than his wife is, but, oh, hang on, his opinions are famously loopy. Hmmmmm, something wrong with this system of picking top advisers, perhaps.Quite a few people bang on about how fabby Brenda is. I think that she may be just a tad overrated, or - to put it another way - she should be good, as the job is not rocket science; but let's for the sake of argument accept that the job has some content and that she is indeed fab at the job. Do those people who so commend the current incumbent not realise the inherent flaw of relying on the unpredictable personal qualities of whomever's turn it is next? If one of the forelock tuggers pops up and says "centuries of breeding, born to serve" or similar, I may laugh so much that my ears bleed.
you can read this post and its agreement that you have a point - just look at the next in line for that "unpredictable qualities" factor. Talk about bleedin' ears. 
And the hands....
mybrainhurts said:
turbobloke said:
Breadvan72 said:
AJS- said:
Loads of people lived through WW2 without being head of state.
One of those was the Duke of Edinburgh. He did commendably well in the War. On that basis, he is, according to some, even better qualified to advise the Government than his wife is, but, oh, hang on, his opinions are famously loopy. Hmmmmm, something wrong with this system of picking top advisers, perhaps.Quite a few people bang on about how fabby Brenda is. I think that she may be just a tad overrated, or - to put it another way - she should be good, as the job is not rocket science; but let's for the sake of argument accept that the job has some content and that she is indeed fab at the job. Do those people who so commend the current incumbent not realise the inherent flaw of relying on the unpredictable personal qualities of whomever's turn it is next? If one of the forelock tuggers pops up and says "centuries of breeding, born to serve" or similar, I may laugh so much that my ears bleed.
you can read this post and its agreement that you have a point - just look at the next in line for that "unpredictable qualities" factor. Talk about bleedin' ears. And the hands....
Jug ears by name and nature then.
Nice jugs, shame about the ears.
The primary law which effects who gets to be King or Queen is discussed here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_170...
It also states some of the primary changes.
Basically if the Queen goes it will be Charles as King, unless all of the sovereigns Parliaments (and there are lots of them, Canada, Aus and New Zealand etc...) decide it should be someone else, there are rules about who they can choose from, but those can be changed too. The general consensus is that the other parliaments will follow the UK unless we choose to do something nuts.
It's interesting that CMD's promise to change the rules to allow eldest Females to take the throne have not come to pass, I guess as William had a Boy parliament can't be arsed changing the rules. History suggests that parliament can change the rules pretty fast if they need to.
The UK's immigration laws are tied into the various acts to do with the Royal family too; so I can see why they might not be willing to change anything in the current climate without the need to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_170...
It also states some of the primary changes.
Basically if the Queen goes it will be Charles as King, unless all of the sovereigns Parliaments (and there are lots of them, Canada, Aus and New Zealand etc...) decide it should be someone else, there are rules about who they can choose from, but those can be changed too. The general consensus is that the other parliaments will follow the UK unless we choose to do something nuts.
It's interesting that CMD's promise to change the rules to allow eldest Females to take the throne have not come to pass, I guess as William had a Boy parliament can't be arsed changing the rules. History suggests that parliament can change the rules pretty fast if they need to.
The UK's immigration laws are tied into the various acts to do with the Royal family too; so I can see why they might not be willing to change anything in the current climate without the need to do so.
PlankWithANailIn said:
It's interesting that CMD's promise to change the rules to allow eldest Females to take the throne have not come to pass, I guess as William had a Boy parliament can't be arsed changing the rules. History suggests that parliament can change the rules pretty fast if they need to.
The Succession to the Crown Act was enacted in April 2013 but its substantive provisions have not yet commenced, apparently because not all Commenwealth realms have changed their laws of succession yet.I know quite a bit about immigration law, and it has not much if anything to do with the Royal Family. If you are thinking of Royal Prerogative Powers, to the limited extent that these still exist they are exercised by the Government of the Day, not the Monarch in person. Even if a power is nominally exercised by the Queen she is doing what she has been told to do (no doubt politely) by the Government that we politely call HMG but which isn't really HMG at all (ie: it is a Government, but it is not really hers).
If you are thinking of Orders in Council, but they are just a form of delegated legislation that in reality are usually prepared by Whitehall Departments. The Monarch has various nominal roles in relation to many forms of legislation in many contexts, but those rules could easily be dispensed with in a revised Constitution.
If you are thinking of Orders in Council, but they are just a form of delegated legislation that in reality are usually prepared by Whitehall Departments. The Monarch has various nominal roles in relation to many forms of legislation in many contexts, but those rules could easily be dispensed with in a revised Constitution.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 27th December 14:17
WinstonWolf said:
Not a chance of her abdicating, she becomes the longest serving monarch this year.
As of 10th September 2015 , our current, remarkable, head of state will become our longest serving head of state in history. I'm pretty sure though, she is not currently the longest serving head of state in the world. Again, I'm pretty sure , that accolade goes to the King of Thailand, who, apparently, is in poor health.
Breadvan72 said:
I have been in a deep swoon for the last day or so because turbobloke and I finally agree on something. 'kinnell, anyone would think it was Christmas or something.
It might surprise you but there's previous on this matter, by chance I was reminded of one such occasion almost two years ago. I agree with your view on S59 as expressed in this thread on Monday 21st January 2013. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=1&a...
So, not finally, but once again
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff