Her Majesty's...

I posted this in another thread but decided to ask the thoughts of members in a topic devoted to the whole "Her Majesty's" thing...

Don't believe the illusion. The Crown is still ultimate head of state and signs off acts of Parliament. I am massively anti monarchy.
Curious factoid, all the authoritarian government departments have Her Majesty's... in their title.
We have the department of transport, dept of work and pensions, blah but the following are still Her Majesty's:
HM Prison & Probation Service
HM Coast Guard
HM Revenue and Customs
HM Passport Office
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary
The Crown very much has it's teeth in our administration and likes to remind us in the official names of select government departments.

Oh I forgot this obvious beauty: HM Courts & Tribunals Service ...Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Meh, you ain't Her Majesty's, same as all other peasant government departments.

Department for Education? Department for Business, Innovation & Skills? Meh, you ain't Her Majesty's, #in peasants.
Thoughts?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Her Majesty still owns what the British Empire squandered over the many many years of hostile takeovers.

Her Majesty simply collects interest on all the holding and doesn't have an active role , that what government is for, taking the focus off the real masters .

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Interesting reply, thank you
I see it like that also, it is why I'm passionately anti constitutional monarchy.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Probably get a black van sat in my street now though so sorry if I stop replying lol

EDIT
But I'd look a future King William in the eye and say you ain't king over me mate.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Do like my countrymen and women did, kick them to the curb.

a reply to: donktheclown

Tragically too many of my countryfolk enjoy being ruled by an unelected monarchy, but one can always hope for the future.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
Pal, pack your family and come to live in my country. We'd be thrilled to have you.

a reply to: donktheclown

Haha thank you but I can't bail on my people, gotta stay and walk the right path looking for changes and shaping them where I can.

We should have a monarchy but a lotto one.
For a year a random person is king or queen for a year.
With absolute power!.
I have world domination plans and that would be a good start.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
It's a legal fiction, nowadays. Like the only way to resign from Parliament is to apply for the job of "Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds", which carries no duties or salary but technically counts as an "office of profit under the Crown", not compatible with being an M.P. Another legal fiction.

The constitutional position is that the Queen can do anything she likes, up to and including declaring war, on the sole condition that she acts "on the advice of her ministers". Think about that for a moment. The practical effect is that she can do absolutely nothing except what the Cabinet tells her to do. I don't know if you've read the story of Edward VIII wanting to put his case to the people, in the middle of the Abdication crisis, and how he wasn't allowed, because he would not have been acting "on advice". Any President who can make a speech without seeking permission from his Cabinet is much more powerful than the monarch.

If you look again at the list of bodies that are "H.M", you will see that they are all ancient functions of government, going back to the time when royal control was a reality. Tax collection, obviously, and the legal system, and most of the others are semi-military, including control of access to the country. The labels have survived, but they are now another legal fiction.The more modern departments did not pick up the label in the first place.

Why get hot under the collar about an imaginary grievance? "Royal power" is not a reality, so it doesn't affect anybody.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

In reality the monarchy has very little real power.
Abolishing the monarchy would only mean we'd probably replace it with some sort of Presidential system which would be just as expensive to maintain and equally toothless.

Regardless of what we have it would still be the same elite who exercise real power in this country unless we begin a programme of real and radical reform of our electoral and parliamentary processes whilst getting rid of the career politicians whose sole intent and purpose is to maintain the status quo instead of representing the wishes and best interests of the British people.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
The constitutional position is that the Queen can do anything she likes, up to and including declaring war, on the sole condition that she acts "on the advice of her ministers". Think about that for a moment. The practical effect is that she can do absolutely nothing except what the Cabinet tells her to do.

I know, and it kind of makes the Monarchy redundant as a head of state. I don't see how we'd need a president either, cabinet, PM, and Parliament run the nation and can be voted out.

a reply to: Freeborn
As above, I don't see any need for a president either, I see the position equally as redundant as a monarch which can only do whatever the cabinet advises.
You are correct about overhaul being needed in our political system though. I'd be ditching a pointless impotent head of state decided by birthright.
Keep her palaces and wealth, it's just a point of principle to me regarding the hereditary system as head of state.