Dear British people, wake up!

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
You know, I honestly want to see what would happen if Charles became King. That would be some good reality TV right there. You could put a camera in there and film it like Osbournes!

Haha...he'll reinstitute the death penalty for those that don't recycle and compost. But the Queen's only 86...given that her Mother made it past 100...Charlie will cark it before she does...and William will be the next King.

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
You know, I honestly want to see what would happen if Charles became King.

Again you do realise that because of his marriage to Camilla many commentators think that he would probably just hand the monarchy over to his son, William.

So william is lickly to be the next king

You don’t really know much about the Royal family yet you post a thread like you do, its annoying.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I'm but a dumb American that knows not of the ways of royalty and their gossip.

Forgive me masa. I look at world events not the killing of Diana and a nurse. Forgive me masa. I read the news not of Charles wandering around thinking he's a vampire. Forgive me masa.



Royal Family is serious business.

Here we go Brits, let's make some fun of Americans for a bit then?



Is our children learning?

Seriously, calm down. Brits and their dry humor

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
reply to post by ObservingYou

 

I wasn't attempting to give advice, simply a warning. If you understand the warning, good. I also posed the question what would the UK do if royalty ever did want their power back? I'm not blaming UK citizens for not being armed. That decision was made. The question is, what happens if Charles takes the crown? The man everyone thinks to be a loon? What happens if decrees himself supreme ruler? Where is the resistance?

You do realise that the English have chopped off the head of one king already - they booted another out about 70 years ago [ Edward 8th], lots of Queens have been beheaded.

We are not passive mugs you know - we are just like evryone else, trying to live good productive, lives with a dash of kindness and plenty of humour and if we are lucky, happiness.

reply to post by Heisenberg59


good, you are learning, and on a righteous path of personal growth. now put the kettle on and watch the FA cup highlights

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
The Monarchy does not have its hands on the keys to power any more - they haven't for some time.

As far as I know they can still veto any law/legislation... I just thought they made the choice not to, as not to interfer with the government chosen by the people.

reply to post by HelenConway


As I said, it was simply a warning that the wheels seem to be in motion. Nothing more.

reply to post by Heisenberg59


and while we are showing some of our national eejits, here's phil the greek for you...

"We go into the red next year. I shall probably have to give up polo."

When accepting a figurine from a woman during a visit to Kenya he asked: "You are a woman aren't you?"

Prince Philip's opinion of Beijing, during a tour of China in 1986, was simply: "Ghastly."

To a British tourist in Hungary in he quipped: "You can't have been here that long — you haven't got a pot belly."

To survivors of the Lockerbie bombing he told them: "People usually say that after a fire it is water damage that is the worst. We are still drying out Windsor Castle."

He asked a Scottish driving instructor in Oban: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?"

The Duke asked a British student who had been trekking in Papua New Guinea: "You managed not to get eaten then?"

In Cardiff he told children from the British Deaf Association, who were standing by a Caribbean steel band: "If you're near that music it's no wonder you're deaf".

On being offered fine Italian wines by Giuliano Amato, the former Prime Minister, at a dinner in Rome, he is said to have uttered: "Get me a beer. I don't care what kind it is, just get me a beer!"

While touring a factory near Edinburgh he said a fuse box was so crude it "looked as though it had been put in by an Indian".

To Australian Aborigines during a visit to Australia with the Queen he asked: "Do you still throw spears at each other?"

Said to black dance troupe Diversity at the Royal Variety Performance: "Are you all one family?"

On asking a female Sea Cadet what she did for a living, and being told that she worked in a nightclub (as a barmaid), the Duke asked “Is it a strip club?” Observing her surprise he dismissed the suggestion saying that it was “probably too cold for that anyway”.

At a prize-giving ceremony for the Duke of Edinburgh Awards a girl told him that she'd been to Romania to help in an orphanage. He replied: "Oh yes, there's a lot of orphanges in Romania - they must breed them".

"If it doesn't fart or eat hay then she isn't interested"
- speaking about his daughter, Princess Anne.


www.telegraph.co.uk...

reply to post by aspiechick

in theory the queen could refuse to sign legislation, but this would lead to a constitutional crisis if there was not an issue with major public support behind it.. in short it would be the end of the monarchy

reply to post by Heisenberg59

I'm but a dumb American that knows not of the ways of royalty and their gossip.

Hey you said it, not me

also there is nothing in the death of Diana or that nurse.

And Charles is just a weather man these days

Originally posted by skalla
in theory the queen could refuse to sign legislation, but this would lead to a constitutional crisis if there was not an issue with major public support behind it.. in short it would be the end of the monarchy

Not just theory... http://(link tracking not allowed)/W3eOdE

Ok, clearly bitly not allowed... www.telegraph.co.uk... ml

Add the extra letters after clicking the link to the address bar.

reply to post by aspiechick


sorry but your link doesnt seem to work for me... as far as i know the last time it happened was in 1910 and it was fairly swiftly sorted - it was covered in history lessons when i was about 13, which is like an eon ago for me now so i dont remember all the ins and outs, but no doubt there is plenty on the net about it if you want to look into it

eta: ok, got it working, the article is very intersting but does not seem at all sinister, just part of the checks and balances, that although obviously somewhat antiquated, work ok from my POV

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
reply to post by commencalrider

 

The point I tried to make here is that keeping royalty around because you like having them is like keeping a lion on a lease in the backyard. He's such a cute little kitty until he bites your arm off.

I think that if the monarchy really wanted it's power back, they have the funds to do so be it through mercenary strength or your own military. And if you can really walk down the street and purchase a firearm in the UK, how has gun control been a success? The criminals are obviously still armed.

In this case the lion has had its teeth and claws pulled out with pliers because it bit too many people in the past.

The British system is designed with a whole load of checks and balances. Most of which come about as a result of bloody mistakes in the past. We had a civil war over this you know, a century before your nation existed as it does now.

The levers of the state are controlled by parliament. Changes in the balance of power would require acts of parliament. We could in theory be stupid enough to vote for politicians that legislate our freedoms away but the monarchy cannot take them. This is a danger inherent in all democracies.

As for the 'wealth of the monarchy', yes they are wealthy. However, you need to look at the reality of how that is managed. The 'Crown Estate' is the property portfolio (currently worth about 8 Billion) which is how the royals historically earned money. These days that is run as an independent organisation accountable to parliament. The queen cant 'cash it in'.

The profits from the crown estate these days go back to the UK treasury. The royals are given funds back through a yearly grant to manage affairs of the royal household. The profits to the treasury from the crown estate exceed the grant provided to the royals from the treasury.

The Queen is not Dr Evil, they don't have unlimited funds to conjure up armies of henchmen to undo a system that has been stable for hundreds of years now.

The Queen (or monarch) does have power. For example, she can refuse to dissolve Parliament when this is requested by the PM and can dismiss the PM and the Government. She can also refuse to give Royal Assent to bills. None of the above happens.

With regards to the removal of the PM and the Government, the Queen is the last ditch saviour if the Government went mad. Interestingly, you can envisage the Queen removing the Government if (for example) it started to turn into a dictatorship, like extending a term of office, or perhaps if the PM refused to quit when it was clear the time was up etc...

I love it when US people complain about the monarchy and the way the British run their affairs. It seems to me that Republics (like the US and France) have Presidents who act like monarchs of old, with vast budgets, sweeping powers and queens (sorry, I meant “first ladies”).

As to the oft ranted argument that the British are disarmed (which is a fallacy), I just wonder if Americans are armed not because of the risk of the government going out of control, but because Americans are afraid of each other. I think the latter is probably closer to reality.

Regards

Originally posted by skalla
ok, got it working, the article is very intersting but does not seem at all sinister

I think it's nice to have royals, but I always assumed the Queen could veto anything she wanted, but made the choice not to... I didn't know that Prince Charles had the power to veto! Wonder how far out the lines the power goes then... could prince Harry veto as he wishes? (*toodles off to trace family tree... surely I must have the power to veto too*)

reply to post by aspiechick


i think the key to the telegraph article is that its about returning things to parliament for further consideration... parliament could after all just send it back and say "sign it" if the royals were just being obstructive without good reason.

So what this really comes down to is "we have laws in place to restrict that"? As I asked, what happens when royalty decides to use it's large sums of money to buy politicians or buy mercenary forces to take what it thinks it rightly owns as large corporations and banks already do today in the US?

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
So what this really comes down to is "we have laws in place to restrict that"? As I asked, what happens when royalty decides to use it's large sums of money to buy politicians or buy mercenary forces to take what it thinks it rightly owns as large corporations and banks already do today in the US?

In Britain the monarchy has had their power removed - there is a separation between king and parliament [ or queen] ... you could ask the same question about the church of England or the Catholic church.

Why am I even reading this thread..

Good night dear Nero !

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
So what this really comes down to is "we have laws in place to restrict that"? As I asked, what happens when royalty decides to use it's large sums of money to buy politicians or buy mercenary forces to take what it thinks it rightly owns as large corporations and banks already do today in the US?

refer to previous posts...