Forum menu
[quote=imnotverygood ]It's also entirely possible that the Queen is a closet Chelsea supporter and has decided that this year Chelsea are going to win the Premiership. Obviously she has arranged this in secret. There is no proof that she hasn't and you can't deny the link between Chelsea FC and the Kings Road. Makes you think eh?
I think you're onto something
[img]
😀
[quote=jivehoneyjive ]How many Monarchs of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?
2
jivehoneyjive - Member
... and I'm impressed with the way that "the Queen runs everything" has journeyed (albeit tortuously) to "the Queen tries to influence the Prime Minister".
How many Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies since the Queen has been on the throne?How many Monarchs of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?
Do your own research.
and how is that a response to my point that you quote, exactly?
... and I'm impressed with the way that "the Queen runs everything" has journeyed (albeit tortuously) to "the Queen tries to influence the Prime Minister".
I'm not sure it has - I suspect JHJ is still in the former camp...
Personally I was always in the second group, I don't doubt the Queen has influence, even if it's not as much as Charles would like. What is it about the name Charles and absolutist monarchs?
"Since the Queen has been on the throne:
How many Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?
How many Monarchs of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?"
Good question but without any point that supports your argument one way or another no matter what the answer .
What I'm trying to ascertain with those questions is who has held power throughout, whilst Prime Ministers in the UK and further afield come and go?
I'm not saying the Queen runs every last detail, [url=
[b]The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements[/b]. However, a treaty cannot alter the domestic laws of the United Kingdom; an Act of Parliament is necessary in such cases. [b]The monarch is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces (the Royal Navy, the British Army, and the Royal Air Force)[/b], accredits British High Commissioners and ambassadors, and receives diplomats from foreign states.
Which then begs the question, if the Queen doesn't like a ministers advice, will she dismiss them?
Furthermore, getting back to my original point about the 5 Eyes Alliance and the mass surveillance network, which requires a degree of co-ordination and international agreement, it would seem that falls under the Monarch's remit...
The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to ........ issue passports
She's a very busy lady, no one can deny that.
Which then begs the question, if a Queen doesn't like a ministers advice, will she dismiss them?
No, because she can't. Whatever powers the "Royal Perogative" might in theory give her, she doesn't actually have that power. She might try and persuade the PM to do it for her, of course.
She's a very busy lady, no one can deny that.
Would also explain the backlogs before christmas, the time taken out recording her message must have put a big spanner in the works.
No, because she can't. Whatever powers the "Royal Perogative" might in theory give her, she doesn't actually have that power. She might try and persuade the PM to do it for her, of course.
Therein lies the quandry... from what we can ascertain, it seems that is the procedure; however, to all intents and purposes, the Queen will have achieved her bidding, directly or indirectly, which exhibits a level of power and control...
So all the people who are attempting to persuade you that you are talking bollocks are in fact exhibiting 'a level of power and control' over you? Interesting.
jive this is the bit you are wilfully blind to.
"The prerogative appears to be historically and as a matter of fact nothing else than the residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the crown. The prerogative is the name of the remaining portion of the Crown's original authority ... Every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an Act of Parliament is done in virtue of the prerogative."
a bit of a dicey quote I know but you get the gyst the "Crown" is the "state" not Liz .
Jive buy and read this . If having done so you still have any cogent questions I'll ask the author for you (on proof of purchase.)
I get what you're saying crankboy, but none of it is designed to be easily defined and we all know that practice often differs from theory.
That seems to be part of the problem in conveying things, as people think I'm being wilfully awkward, but I'm really just trying to point out it's open to interpretation and none of us really know, [url=
MPs themselves it seems[/url]
The Crown extends far beyond Busy Lizzy as an individual, however, she is the acknowledged head of that institution, in whose name all sorts of dodgy business goes on.
A recent example I already provided is [url=
Crown's overruling of a court to prevent publication of letters between Prince Charles and ministers[/url]
I guess what I'm really trying to achieve is to get everyone to ask questions of the system for themselves, as some things just don't add up, like my old faithful fallback position of [url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-mcgrath-goodman/david-miranda-uk-detention_b_3844480.html ]who has authority over both the UK Home Office and Jersey in relation to detainment of this journalist[/url]
You questions are a tad out of date.
The Case of Proclamations [1610] EWHC KB J22
"The King has no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him".Chief Justice Coke.
That seems to be part of the problem in conveying things
I thought your post where you said that the Queen is only able to try and influence the Prime Minister in weekly meetings was quite an improvement.
You finally acknowledged that she has no actual power and is only a figurehead who can at best, try and persuade.
Then for some strange reason, forgot you'd said that and started yourself back on the same tiresome little circular argument you've been using since you started the thread.
Do you have an attention deficit disorder?
I think JHJ is right, and will be stocking up on foil post haste...
I thought your post where you said that the Queen is only able to try and influence the Prime Minister in weekly meetings was quite an improvement.You finally acknowledged that she has no actual power and is only a figurehead who can at best, try and persuade.
Therein lies the problem, there is a degree of paradox:
Since the Queen has been on the throne:How many Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?
How many Monarchs of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?"
Not to mention of course:
The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. However, a treaty cannot alter the domestic laws of the United Kingdom; an Act of Parliament is necessary in such cases. The monarch is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces (the Royal Navy, the British Army, and the Royal Air Force), accredits British High Commissioners and ambassadors, and receives diplomats from foreign states.
BGS.AERO Jive if you cut and paste your own quote into google you get the wiki page that actually answers all your questions including The Dicey quote I used above and this gem.
"The monarchy has a significant constitutional presence in these and other areas, but very limited power, because the prerogative is in the hands of the prime minister and other ministers or other government officials."
So no paradox just a bit of redundancy of concept.
I wasn't joking, we genuinely have a situation of paradox:
Is that the Prime Minister she meets weekly, or the Government Officials who swear an oath to the Queen and work on her behalf?
What about the several other governments which come under her authority adhering to the Westminster System?
What I'm trying to ascertain with those questions is who has held power throughout, whilst Prime Ministers in the UK and further afield come and go?
WE the people. Not the hardest question to answer . There is never a time when an elected person is not in power.
Which then begs the question, if the Queen doesn't like a ministers advice, will she dismiss them?
How many ministers have there been ? How many has she sacked? Lots and none isnt it.
the Crown's overruling of a court to prevent publication of letters between Prince Charles and ministers
FFS I have said this twice now it was a minister it was not the crown.
Your own link
They will argue on Monday morning that the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve, acted lawfully when he overrode a court two years ago to veto the publication of the letters written by the prince to influence official policies.
If you are not trying to be obtuse then WTF are you doing?
I'm demonstrating the system in all it's warped glory:
[b]the Crown's[/b] overruling of a court to prevent publication of letters between Prince Charles and ministers
FFS I have said this twice now it was a minister it was not the crown.Your own link
They will argue on Monday morning that the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve, acted lawfully when he overrode a court two years ago to veto the publication of the letters written by the prince to influence official policies.
And what is the role of the Attorney general:
Like I've said, obfuscation and delegation is rife:[url=
General[/url]:
Her Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales, usually known simply as the Attorney General, is one of the Law Officers of the Crown. Along with the subordinate Solicitor General for England and Wales, the Attorney General serves as the chief legal adviser of the Crown and its government in England and Wales.
Yes every part of the govt "serves the crown" as its their govt.
TYhey are however an elected MP and answerable to parliament which is also on wiki and you ignored as you like to cherry pick
As a government minister, the Attorney General is directly answerable to Parliament.[11]
So the govt did it not the crown
Junky, you're funny...
Read what you've pasted and written above:
[b]the Crown's [/b]overruling of a court to prevent publication of letters between Prince Charles and ministersFFS I have said this twice now it was a minister it was not the crown.
the bold bit is me quoting what you said and its your bold....have you forgotten what you said
It was not the crown it was the attorney general
Ok follows ernies advice
[img]
SILICONREPUBLIC.COM [quote>
Jive buy and read this . If having done so you still have any cogent questions I'll ask the author for you (on proof of purchase.)
Seems like a generous offer.
Jive, why not take him up on the offer ?
Possibly because you aren't interested in actual answers.
Obviously having actual answers would ruin it for you, as you are more interested in being able to make assumptions and insinuations based on guesswork.
It was not the crown it was the attorney general
^Basically what that demonstrates is that once again, the paradox of our constitution is coming into play...
What I'm trying to ascertain with those questions is who has held power throughout, whilst Prime Ministers in the UK and further afield come and go?WE the people. Not the hardest question to answer . There is never a time when an elected person is not in power.
So if WE the people wanted to speak to the Prime Minister every week, or to regulate the offshore tax avoidance system, or to have a warship named in our honour, how would we go about it?
What about if we the people weren't too happy with an undisclosed surveillance system?
Which then begs the question, if the Queen doesn't like a ministers advice, will she dismiss them?How many ministers have there been ? How many has she sacked? Lots and none isnt it.
Aside from the debatable case of the Whitlam coup, there is a number of notable recent cases of high ranking members of government apparently choosing to leave of their own will, though what has gone on behind closed doors we can only guess.
William Hague, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw (who was set to retire anyway before the recent scandal led to his premature departure) and a number of other less prominent figures such as John Vine and Norman Baker are all potentially implicated in scandals surrounding the cover up of child abuse, for which it is very unlikely the Queen would want to draw attention to by publicly dismissing ministers.
I appreciate this last point is conjecture, but it does fit in with the extensive research I've done on the child abuse scandal and the descriptions of the means by which ministers are offered the choice to resign
And there's [url=
However, the complete extent of the Royal Prerogative powers, many of them originating in ancient custom and the period of absolute monarchy, or modified by later constitutional practice, has never been fully described.
Seems like a generous offer.Jive, why not take him up on the offer ?
Though I appreciate crankboy's offer, that is a book designed to get you to answer questions that examiners want... examiners don't want to be challenged, they want easy, clearly defined answers, which the constitution itself lacks...
Possibly because you aren't interested in actual answers.
It could be that, or it could be, as in much of the legal system which relies on past precedent and interpretation, that there is no absolute answers.
Paradox in effect...
I did actually give you the full answer as others have . I also know the author of that book and the examiners contrary to your assumption constitutional lawyers relish and encourage the type of debate you aspire to . However they do get tired and drained by the desperate attempt to misread and selectively quote to try and fit the material to a preconceived conclusion that is based on nothing.
So.
Are you going to buy the book then ?
Lets assume that despite:
Presiding over several governments around the world
Being the Commander in Chief of several armed forces around the world
Presiding over many of the worlds least transparent financial centres
Receiving a very healthy slice of funds collected via taxation
etc etc for over 60 years
the Queen is devoid of any effective power...
What then, is the point of the Monarchy in real terms?
(and don't give me that tourist bumpf, as France is the world's #1 tourist destination and we know how they deal with Monarchs)
So.Are you going to buy the book then ?
Tell you what, rather than buying the book, how about crankboy gets one of his mates to do a Q&A session on here and we can get to the bottom of the convoluted lunacy of the constitution and what's more, the reality surrounding it...
^Basically what that demonstrates is that once again, the [s]paradox of our constitution[/s] limitations of JHJ understanding is coming into play...
TBH after the last self pwn I think its all an act for the giggles
[s]Aside from the debatable case of the Whitlam coup, there is a number of notable recent cases of high ranking members of government apparently choosing to leave of their own will, though what has gone on behind closed doors we can only guess.[/s]NO I CANNOT THINK OF ANY BUT THAT LITTLE FACT WONT ALTER MY OPINION SO LET ME RAMBLE ON ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE
Tell you what, rather than buying the book, how about crankboy gets one of his mates to do a Q&A session on here
yes, that's exactly what published writers want to do.
Help people to avoid buying their books (even though that person claims to have a direct interest in the subject)
And waste their time trying to polish a turd on the Internet.
I bet they will be queuing down the road waiting for their turn 🙄
Damn I typed a long post setting out what is at the bottom of the constitution but it vanished in posting . so in short the answer is brute force and in the modern world it is the executive that control that not the Queen.
What then, is the point of the Monarchy in real terms?
The Queen represents the State: The continuing political entity we live in known as the UK. This is what you don't seem to be willing to get your head around. You can't easily have the Government of the day doing this because governments change. The idea is that public servants, armed forces personnel etc etc owe their duty to the State, not the Government. Ironically, given all the crap you come out with, this is designed so that the business of the State is kept separately from the policies of the Government of the day. Ask yourself why countries like Germany, Ireland etc have a President who is separate from the Chancellor, PM or whatever. That is what the Queen does. It isn't difficult to understand or particularly complex as you keep implying. It isn't a paradox, it isn't a mess, it is a way defining the continuing organs of political activity as distinct from daily politics. This is why it is said that the Queen is 'above politics' If you don't understand that nobody on here is going to be able to help you make sense of what you seem to think is inexplicable.
[quote=jivehoneyjive ]I'm demonstrating [s]the system[/s] my mind in all it's warped glory:
Though glory might be pushing it a bit
[quote=jivehoneyjive ]What about the several other governments which come under her authority adhering to the Westminster System?
You mean the ones whose PMs don't even get to meet Liz every year, let alone every week?
The Queen represents the State
Couldn't we just have a mascot like a rubber duck or an old English Sheepdog?
Might be a safer bet to avoid getting embroiled in scandals with paedophiles and whatnot...
You mean the ones whose PMs don't even get to meet Liz every year, let alone every week?
Aye, them ones...
Modern communications these days are wonderful though eh?
Arguing with strangers on the internet is exceptionally accessible in this day of age, I wonder if conference calls between heads of state are similarly straightforward 😀
[quote=jivehoneyjive ]Modern communications these days are wonderful though eh?
Why are you making such a big thing of the one who does meet here every week then? For all you know they might all be taking weekly phone calls from Jorge telling them what to do.
I wonder if conference calls between heads of state are similarly straightforward
Well I suppose Liz could call herself up - or are you even managing to confuse yourself now?
I would vote for you as the nations mascot and controlling the vast empire will mean you have no time left for the frivolities of the Internet and paedophiles will no longer exist
Win win.
My belief system is not based on you, no real surprise there, it is based on critical evaluation of evidence and data in order to reach reasoned conclusions. Now the reason I don't think you and i will find common ground is that all of the links you provide as 'evidence' do not stand up to critical scrutiny.
I will not repeat the deconstruction of your arguments that other forum users have so eloquently provided, suffice to say, your inability to critically evaluate evidence is what makes me reach the fairly reasoned conclusion that your conspiracy theories are acting in the same way for you (please note the subtle idea here), that religion does for many people. Just to make it clear, I am not suggesting you have a belief in a god, but you are trying to find underlying structure where there is most likely just a chaotic system!
Now if you follow your usual pattern, you will either try to belittle my intelligence, or you will attempt to use this same argument, but replacing my name as the focus rather than yourself. Would it be easier if we both assumed you have done that, so I don't have to bother reading a fairly tiresome response and you don't have to waste time trying to craft a response with complex words that say nothing?
Might be a safer bet to avoid getting embroiled in scandals with paedophiles and whatnot...
What would be "central to the control structures" then though ?
Won't somebody think of the Control Structures !!!!
Yet another example of you not thinking things through properly.
What, you reckon the rubber ducks and old english sheep dogs are part of the control structure too?
rubber ducks? Is that the unsinkable rubber ducks?