OP/ED: ATSNN Fact File: United Kingdom

Odium thats what Subz said in the first place read the post again

Originally posted by andersonr
Odium thats what Subz said in the first place read the post again

I did and can't see which bit you are talking about.

Did anyone ever see the programme on POWER TELLS

Did you see Mr Bush next to our Queen.
Now didn't he look like a scared little boy LOOL

Originally posted by Odium
shots, next time I get to go into College I'll grab you the name of the book.

List of things go on...

No need to find the book it would appear your assumption is wrong.

The monarch is Head of the Armed Forces and it is the monarch alone who can declare war and peace. (This dates from the times when the monarch was responsible for raising, maintaining and equipping the Army and Navy, and often leading them into battle.)

These powers, however, cannot now be exercised on the monarch's own initiative. The Bill of Rights (1689) declared that 'the raising or keeping of a standing army within the Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against the law'. The monarch's powers today cannot be exercised except upon the advice of responsible Ministers.

Queen and Armed Services

That to me means MP have to agree with her first and she cannot do it on her own as you implied.

[edit on 8/21/2005 by shots]

Its the checks and balances I posted about in my first reply. The 1689 Bill Of Rights prohibits the monarch from fielding a standing army during times of peace, but when its annually authourized by parliament the Monarch is its supreme commander. Queen Elizabeth delegates this power to her government but there is no law that says she has to.

Originally posted by subz
Its the checks and balances I posted about in my first reply. The 1689 Bill Of Rights prohibits the monarch from fielding a standing army during times of peace, but when its annually authourized by parliament the Monarch is its supreme commander. Queen Elizabeth delegates this power to her government but there is no law that says she has to.

I under stand what you are saying but I think you are missing my point. What happens if they; meaning parliament do not authorize it?

shots, if you read all of it you'll notice:

On enlistment, the Acts require members of the Army, Air Force and Royal Marines (who operate ashore under the Army Act) to take an oath of allegiance to the monarch as Head of the Armed Forces (those for whom it is against their religion to take oaths and those who are of no religion, affirm instead of swearing an oath). The Royal Navy was formed hundreds of years ago, and its existence stems from the sovereign's prerogative - members of the Navy have never therefore been required to take the oath.

And also

The Queen takes a keen interest in all the Armed Services both in the United Kingdom and in the Commonwealth. She keeps in touch with the work and interests of the Services through the Chiefs of Staff and her Defence Services Secretary (a serving officer who is also a member of the Royal Household, who acts as the official link between The Queen, through her Private Secretary, and the Secretary of State for Defence). The Queen is regularly briefed by her Ministers.

Through Orders-In-Council the Privy Council which of course, the Queen is the Head of it and in turn can pass legislation through however it hardly ever happens. I think the last time was 1926.

The Monarch also is meant to act in guidence with what the Privy Council say (where the term Queen/King-in-Council comes from) but she doesn't have to actually do this.

They gained these new powers after the passing of the Emergency Powers Act of 1920.

1. - (1) If at any time it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may, by proclamation (hereinafter referred to as a proclamation of emergency), declare that a state of emergency exists.

However, over time these powers have allowed them to actively get involved more and more including passing many pieces of legislation in Ireland.

In fact now an Act of Parliament is needed to override an Order in Council (Royal Prerogative).

She has the power to do such a thing, however it is not likely she would. (Case of Proclamations (1611), BBC v Johns (1965) and Northumbria Health Authority (1987).)

The Fundamental Laws of England do not remove the ability of the Royal Family/Monarchs to Control the Military.

MacCormick v. Lord Advocate (1953), also marks an interesting case along these lines.

Prior to British involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a major break with precedent, sought parliamentary approval for British participation in the war. However Parliament's decision was in constitutional terms advisory as the actual decision would be taken by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. Blair indicated that should parliament not approve, he would not formally advise Queen Elizabeth II to exercise the Royal Prerogative and declare war. Given that Blair had an overwhelming Labour majority in the British House of Commons and had the support of the opposition Conservative Party, there was little likelihood that parliament would vote down the motion recommending participation in the war. It remains to be seen whether a future government with a small majority or in a minority in the House of Commons will seek parliamentary approval prior to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Odium
shots, if you read all of it you'll notice:

[en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry I do not believe what is on wikipedia that is why I used the offical queens site. Anyone even I or you could change wikipedia in a minute if we wanted, that is hardly a solid source of information for just that reason.

I understand what you and subz are both stating but neither of you has answer my question yet. What happens if MP do not renew it?

It would appear on the surface from what I have read and I admit it is very little, it clearly states MP have to approve anything she wants in time of peace for sure. (Not sure about the war part though). That being the case if they do not renew or approve what she asks you have a catch 22 situation.

Well I can give you a few books to go and buy or get from a library if you like?

The English Legal System by Jacqueline Martin is a good book.

And most Continuation Orders tend to be done through delegated legislation and if they didn't renew it the Privy Council could through an Order-in-Council.

Also if you mean, authorize a war they do not have to. The Queen can without their say if it is within the best interests of her subjects.

Originally posted by Odium
Well I can give you a few books to go and buy or get from a library if you like?

The English Legal System by Jacqueline Martin is a good book.

And most Continuation Orders tend to be done through delegated legislation and if they didn't renew it the Privy Council could through an Order-in-Council.

Also if you mean, authorize a war they do not have to. The Queen can without their say if it is within the best interests of her subjects.

As I stated earlier no need for books we have the official queens site or are you saying it is in error. Again it clearly states it is against the law.

These powers, however, cannot now be exercised on the monarch's own initiative. The Bill of Rights (1689) declared that 'the raising or keeping of a standing army within the Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against the law'.
The monarch's powers today cannot be exercised except upon the advice of responsible Ministers. Queen and Armed Services

Seems rather clear to me and it the queens official page. They above all should know what is and what is not correct.

[edit on 8/21/2005 by shots]

[edit on 8/21/2005 by shots]

Shots that is correct. What you quoted states that the Queen cannot create (command) an army herself in times of peace without the explicit permission of the parliament.

Originally posted by shots
I under stand what you are saying but I think you are missing my point. What happens if they; meaning parliament do not authorize it?

Its my understanding that what Odium said is right. If parliament doesnt authourize the British army then it has to disband. The Queen can only raise an army through the privy council if that occurs, if they too decline then its my humble opinion that the Queen cannot do anything about it.

[edit on 21/8/05 by subz]

The Queen's site isn't in error but your ability to interpret legislation is.

Source
Q: What are Royal Prerogatives?

A series of historic powers officially held by the Queen that have, in reality, been passed to politicians.

They enable decisions to be taken without the backing of, or consultation with, Parliament.

Q: Why are so many people unaware of them?

Until recently, they were shrouded in mystery, with requests to reveal them refused by the government.

But, in a bid for greater accountability and transparency, a list was published in 2003 when the Commons Public Administration Committee managed to obtain the information from the Department of Constitutional Affairs.

Q: What are the powers?

In domestic matters, the Royal Prerogative covers

the issuing and withdrawal of passports
the appointment and dismissal of ministers
the appointment of Queen's Counsel
the granting of honours
the appointment and regulation of the civil service
the commissioning of officers in the armed forces
the dissolution of Parliament
the calling of elections


In foreign affairs, it covers

the declaration of war
the making of treaties
the recognition of foreign states
the accreditation of diplomats
It also allows the deployment of armed forces in the UK and abroad.

The Royal Prerogative of Mercy used to enable the withdrawal of the death penalty, but now allows changes in sentences.

It was used by then Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Mandelson to free an IRA man responsible for the Docklands bombing.

One of the more unusual prerogatives is the Royal ownership of swans.

I assume the BBC is fine with you since Wikipedia isn't?

Originally posted by subz
Shots that is correct. What you quoted states that the Queen cannot create (command) an army herself in times of peace without the explicit permission of the parliament.

Originally posted by shots
I under stand what you are saying but I think you are missing my point. What happens if they; meaning parliament do not authorize it?

Its my understanding that what Odium said is right. If parliament doesnt authourize the British army then it has to disband. The Queen can only raise an army through the privy council if that occurs, if they too decline then its my humble opinion that the Queen cannot do anything about it.

[edit on 21/8/05 by subz]

Thanks Subz that is the exact way I took its meaning. What baffles me is why Odium does not agree on this issue.

Bill of Rights (1689)

This stops the Queen from being able to "hold" an Army(during times of peace) or Tax the people of the Nation.

However Royal Prerogatives allow her to declare War in the United Kingdom or in other Nations however, she would not be able to tax the people for these wars.

Through acts of Parliament and Orders-in-Council a standing Army is kept and paid for by the people with control shifting to the Queen in a time of war (if she desired however they have not used this since the 1920's if ever).

She also has the ability to declare War on Parliament/the British people if it is within the best interest of the people [on her ruling].

So basically, through Delegated Legislation we pay for the Queen's Army during times of peace - her vast wealth [The Crown Estates Ltd making roughly £160million per-year] makes her able to pay for the service of an Armed Force if she so desired to declare war through a Royal Prerogative. [Plus how ever much they actually do have]

Last I checked we only spend 36billion a year on the Military, which the Royal Family can afford (once you remove buying new equipment, etc) in fact I think they can afford to spend about 5 to 10billion on troops (pay) which is more than enough to fund an attack/Civil War.

It really is just if the "Queen would" and if the "Soldiers would".

Originally posted by Odium
Last I checked we only spend 36billion a year on the Military, which the Royal Family can afford (once you remove buying new equipment, etc) in fact I think they can afford to spend about 5 to 10billion on troops (pay) which is more than enough to fund an attack/Civil War.

How on earth is that possible when the queen is only worth only approx 420 million? What you are saying does not compute. How can she spend billions on her own?

Queen Elizabeth II may live in Buckingham Palace and enjoy one of the world's most stunning jewelry and art collections, but she falls far short of making the Forbes Billionaires list. Forbes pegs the world's best-known reigning monarch at a relative pauper's sum of $420 million.
www.forbes.com...

Forbed puts her as only having $420 million?

Yet she was able to give 170million last year alone to the Government? Roughly 1/3rd her wealth?

www.royal.gov.uk...

I find it highly unlikely she gives every penny to the Government and that she has such a low worth. Saying that, I couldn't even find mention of the Rothschild Family on Forbus (I searched a few times) or several other larger groups who are in the public eye and clearly have a large sum of money.

In fact, things like Forbus only go from what they tell people they have. A lot of money sits in back-accounts which they do not declare so they do not have to pay tax on this income.

And her 176million roughly pays for 11,000 people at 16K per-year.

[edit on 21/8/2005 by Odium]

Originally posted by Odium
Forbed puts her as only having $420 million?

Yet she was able to give 170million last year alone to the Government? Roughly 1/3rd her wealth?

www.royal.gov.uk...

Ah but what you are forgetting is the money you pay the royal family annualy, something around the cost of a loaf of bread. Not sure if it is per person or family though. You know that is why many have asked the royal family to cut expenses, like getting rid of the royal yacht.

Face it without the funding by the common people in Britian the Queen certainly could not affort what you claim all on her own



[edit on 8/21/2005 by shots]

The preceding arguments just go to show how confusing the law can be in the UK...


Anyway, concerning the armed forces, here's a little known fact:

The only person allowed to have a private army in the UK (and in the whole of Europe) is the Duke of Atholl. His lineage was given the right by Queen Victoria in 1845. She was impressed by the protection the then Duke gave her whilst she was on holiday at Blair Atholl (Scotland).

The 'Atholl Highlanders' saw some action in WW1 and WW2, but are now largely ceremonial.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.scotlandmag.com...
www.scotlandinargentina.com.ar...

Shots, I quote again from the above source:

Head of State expenditure for 2004-05 was £36.7 million. This was 0.3% lower than in the previous year (a decrease of 2.3% in real terms). The decrease is mainly attributable to savings in areas such as insurance and business rates.

She earner £170million. Which was given back to the Government.

Originally posted by Odium
Shots, I quote again from the above source:

Head of State expenditure for 2004-05 was £36.7 million. This was 0.3% lower than in the previous year (a decrease of 2.3% in real terms). The decrease is mainly attributable to savings in areas such as insurance and business rates.

She earner £170million. Which was given back to the Government.

So she made 170 million I will give you that, however that does not mean that she can afford 20 30 or 36 billion dollars which was your original contention that she could do.

Now prove that she can fund the RAF and RA as you contend with her OWN Private funds.