It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could William & Kate skip over Prince Charles?

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: paraphi
Yet the opinion polls show that a the vast majority of people want to maintain the monarchy.


Yup. Support for the monarchy is at around 80 per cent and has been for years.

Republican sentiment comes and goes, and the last big peak was in the 1990s. It'll be back, but it's not around at the moment. Even Queen Victoria had to deal with anti-monarchism. It's a sign of a healthy democracy, and the monarchy is well-used to riding it out when it erupts.


its a sign of no democracy at all !




posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

I think the opinion polls show the majority of the nation are in favour of the Queen , she will be a hard act to follow.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
its a sign of no democracy at all !


Rubbish.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: audubon

well Benjamin Franklin obviously disagreed as did many others



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: audubon

well Benjamin Franklin obviously disagreed as did many others


The cause of the American revolution was expressed in the slogan "No taxation without representation." The fact that the US is a republic is a side-effect of that complaint, a big side-effect but a side-effect nevertheless.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: paraphi
Yet the opinion polls show that a the vast majority of people want to maintain the monarchy.


Yup. Support for the monarchy is at around 80 per cent and has been for years.

Republican sentiment comes and goes, and the last big peak was in the 1990s. It'll be back, but it's not around at the moment. Even Queen Victoria had to deal with anti-monarchism. It's a sign of a healthy democracy, and the monarchy is well-used to riding it out when it erupts.


its a sign of no democracy at all !


If it's a sign of no democracy, they'd have sole power and not have to answer to Parliament first. The royals are figureheads that just happen to have longstanding ownership of a lot of land. It doesn't mean they rule it unconditionally with iron fists.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Doesnt the Prime Minister, when elected by the people, have to obtain permission / be asked from the sovereign to form a government? Doesnt that government belong to the sovereign? I have seen incidents where the Queen has taken action against certain governments in the British Empire.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

What is written as law in the UK gets bent all the time , look at how celebrities avoid justice in the UK
just because they are well associated in society.
What makes you think the queen is subject to the same laws just because its written on a piece of paper it doesnt strip her of power.

You can believe what you like , but there is no way in hell that a family that powerful would ever allow a nation they own to be controlled by a democracy, they run the show from the galleries instead of out front like the politicians
why because kings and queens were tired of getting their heads cut off when the people rebelled.

I know it sounds daft to people but im pretty convinced thats how it works



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
Yes, but that's just a formality. The British style of doing things is to hold onto the forms even when the realities behind them have changed.
The Queen can do anything, up to and including declaring war, but ONLY when acting "on the advice of her ministers". In other words, the form is that she is doing it, the reality is that the government is doing it.
During the Abdication crisis, the King wanted to make a direct appeal to his people. He was not allowed, because he would not be acting "under advice". If your President can make a speech without the consent of his Cabinet, he has more real power than a British monarch.





edit on 10-8-2017 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Nyiah

Doesnt the Prime Minister, when elected by the people, have to obtain permission / be asked from the sovereign to form a government? Doesnt that government belong to the sovereign?


Sort of, but not really. It's an interesting set-up. The monarch is above politics, and his or her permission to form a Government is really a foregone conclusion. The circumstances in which it would be refused are quite literally unimaginable. Similarly, all laws have to be signed into effect by the reigning monarch, and no law has been rejected by the monarch in 300 years. Again, it would be something unimaginably serious for a monarch to refuse assent for a law.

But the monarch's almost passive role belies the fact that if an elected Government turned tyrannous, the monarch could -- as head of the armed forces and the civil service -- take action against such despotism. But (yet again) the circumstances in which this would be acceptable would have to be something threatening the continued peaceful existence of the nation itself.


I have seen incidents where the Queen has taken action against certain governments in the British Empire.


A misunderstanding, I think. The British Empire ceased to exist before the Queen took the throne. You might be thinking of the Gough Whitlam affair in Australia during the 1970s - but the Queen wasn't involved in that, it was the Governor-General who dismissed Whitlam.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Doesnt the Prime Minister, when elected by the people, have to obtain permission / be asked from the sovereign to form a government? Doesnt that government belong to the sovereign? I have seen incidents where the Queen has taken action against certain governments in the British Empire.


1. The Prime Minister is not "elected by the people". The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that wins the election.

2. The monarch appoints the Prime Minister on the basis that that person commands the confidence of the House of Commons. Mostly this is cut and dried because the majority party will decide, but there are cases where the monarch may have to use discretion. The potential PM is asked by the monarch whether they can form a new government and if so, they go and do it.

There are important checks and balances here. Where things are confused, or unclear, the monarch can force the issue and seek alternative advice, as has happened in the past.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi


1. The Prime Minister is not "elected by the people". The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that wins the election.


Yes, an important point to emphasise. I think this issue is particularly confusing for non-Brits because of the course the person who is Prime Minister has to be elected as an MP - but so does everyone else in Parliament.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   


I’m not sure if a lot of people understand exactly what a Commander-in-Chief is. Talk about “democracy” all you like, but the CiC is where supreme authority lies. It may depend on particular nations, but in the case of Britain, and Canada for that matter, the ultimate authority lies with the Monarch.

Take for instance the first vote in the Commons regarding military action in Syria - Commons was packed with lively debate, the result was unexpected and unprecedented. Now consider the second vote, Commons was deserted, people only made a proper presence when the vote itself was due - this time, several MPs, and in particular Ed Miliband, came in looking absolutely shell-shocked. It is of my opinion that somebody, quite possibly the Queen or even Charles, threatened them in order to prevent another embarrassment.

Whichever way I look at it, the Head of State is the absolute commander of the country and cannot possibly be overruled, regardless of what is written. Yes, going against the will of the Constitution could risk civil war but nobody really has much of an idea as to what goes on behind the scenes.

Edward VIII may not have cared too much about wielding almighty power over his lands, but I’ll be totally blunt with you now - I’m a different kettle of fish altogether. I certainly don’t have the country’s support, but I am most definitely in a position to force it if things continue to get out of hand.




posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I thought this is what's been expected for years. Though it's interesting that it's posed in the title as a question, but written as though there was an official statement.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join