[Closed] How Many Armies does the Queen have?

I'm more of an observer, rather than a participant. But can you, JHJ, write down what you actually think please rather than post links to articles elsewhere. Do you actually think the Queen could get us to invade France or Australia to invade NZ?

In theory she could; because state power resides in the monarch, who vests their authority to the government of the day. Many people believe we live in a democracy; but we don't. Instead the UK (the clue is in the 'Kingdom' part of the name) is a constitutional monarchy, with the rights we think of as inalienable only granted to us by the monarch's good will; the product of an unwritten, informal series of 'understandings' developed over time as to how we should be governed.

With a stroke of a royal pen the monarch could abrogate the whole process; and what's to stop them?

Exactly, Charles the 2nd was just doing us a favour to keep us quiet.

Quite a big favour, admittedly.

I'd have stopped at costing an arm and a leg, tops.

I know for a FACT that the Queen plays Jill Archer in the long running radio soap.

She uses it to pass messages to Government. The recent story line about her son David leaving Ambridge to set up a new farm in Northumberland and the consequent breakdown of his relationship with his family is a warning about allowing UKIP to take Britain out of Europe leading to a breakdown of the Nation.

It's all true because it's at [u]this link[/u] Please allow me about half an hour to write the Wikipedia article that I can attach to the link.

Well, if it's on the Internet. It must be true.

The real test is whether you can knock up a meme and post it on Facebook.

"With a stroke of a royal pen the monarch could abrogate the whole process; and what's to stop them?"
Precedent last King to try that had his head chopped off . Before that they have been made to say sorry at sword point.

The beauty of our democracy is that we don't have a constitution so we don't really have to kill off our nice tourist atracting paper selling funny conspiracy generating ceremonial royal fammilly .We just leave them in a nice vague limbo .

Jive your question about the "Royal Prerogative" to declair war has been answered and explained repeatedly . By ways of illustration why not look up the similar modern function of the "Royal Perogative of Mercy".

With a stroke of a royal pen the monarch could abrogate the whole process; and what's to stop them?

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Alphonse,_Duke_of_Anjou ]Ask this guy[/url]

Both he and Charles the 1st lacked the force of arms to enforce their will or claim to the throne.

The observation that political power rests on some combination of legitimacy and force is hardly a novel one.

Absolute monarchy in Europe lost both centuries ago.

"Both he and Charles the 1st lacked the force of arms to enforce their will or claim to the throne."
As does Liz as will Charles III.

Interested to hear what JHJ has to say about some of the legislation passed over the years to limit the moarchs power...Magna Carta (stretching my history memory now) Bill of rights 1680-something, and the Acts of settlement in 1701?

Can't be arsed to google (do your own research...etc etc)

In theory she could;

Hmm. Constitutional theory is a bit dodgy. Ask yerself who the Soverign is in the UK.

And then there's the Queen's Speech when the Queen dictates to Parliament what "her" government's policies will be.

[img] [/img]

I feel subjugated !

The problem seems to be that people are failing to distinguish between absolute power and overall authority.

A fine example of your problem. You have to get used to the fact that there is no "absolute power". Power is diffracted across many interest blocks, all competing with each other in the public arena.

You are confusing the actual situation with symbolic titles, such as "Her Majesty's Government". This does not mean that the government belongs to the Queen, surprising though this may be to you.

it is long established that parliament is sovereign over the monarch

JY - this is the opposite of what you argued with me! Only a few weeks ago! Wish I could remember the thread title! 🙂

Assuming we mean

A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction.

Then parliament.

Like JHJ you need to google figure head
FWIW the crown has[ minor] real powers, symbolic powers and powers exercised ONLY on the advice of ministers . Personally I would remove them all but to think the monarch is in charge is to completely ignore reality.

Anyone know the last law passed that was not done by parliament but was just the will of the monarch? ie the last time they really did reign supreme?

Genuine q as my history of royals is weak

EDIT: FWIW I was thinking the same thing whilst typing.
IIRC I was arguing the Crown had real powers and it was not JUST symbolic. I have never arguedas JHJ has that she runs the show. IMHO they are not incompatible views but I can see why you would [ legitimately] raise that point.

I'm also wondering why it is that when someone posts a response to your skewed view of the way civil society runs, pointing out why you are wrong, you go on to ignore it and reiterate your previous misunderstanding?

I'm wondering if there is a clinical term for this affliction.

Both he and Charles the 1st lacked the force of arms to enforce their will or claim to the throne.

Charlie certainly had those arms to start with.

And 😡 at being too slow to edit the number on my post. Hey Ho.

I'm wondering if there is a clinical term for this affliction.

This could literally be aimed at anyone posting on this thread 😀

😆

"Literally", eh?

The way our system is set up as a pseudo democracy with a supervising monarch, where the real power lies is a bit fuzzy.

However as a person who saw the govt I democratically voted for in Oz overturned in an establishment coup, I have no doubt that that power exists and can and will be exercised.

It also made me aware of the the power of the small number people who control the media. They serve their interests first, and what we hear and see is what benefits them.

It is not a good system, and it certainly isn't democratic.

IMHO they are not incompatible views but I can see why you would [ legitimately] raise that point.

JY- You are priceless! 😀

As far as I'm aware, the vote went against a Republic because the format offered was not a popular one.

How is this a "coup", exactly?

It also made me aware of the the power of the small number people who control the media.

So - no absolute power anywhere, then...

Mr Woppit - Member
As far as I'm aware, the vote went against a Republic ...

What are you taking about? I'm talking about 11 November 1975 in Australia.

Ah, sorry. Link, please.

EDIT: Just "Done my own research". I wonder what would happen today if the same set of circumstances existed. I suspect the "Governor General" (is there still such an office?) would find his/her powers somewhat waned.

The "constitution" having evolved.

Your passive aggression is cheap rather than priceless 😛

Hello Junkyard. I've no idea what you're talking about.

However as a person who saw the govt I democratically voted for in Oz overturned in an establishment coup, I have no doubt that that power exists and can and will be exercised.

Hmm, not quite that simple was it, in fact you had managed to vote in two opposing branches of government, with each dominating one House of Parliament, yet both having been democratically elected, and neither having supremacy.

Funnily enough it remains one of the strongest arguments against an elected upper house in the UK, since here supremacy rightly remains with the only democratically elected branch of government.

I have struggled to understand conspiracy theorists, but I read a piece which analysed them in terms of a religion. Whatever you think of religion, they are a way of placing a structure onto the world around us. I think it is much harder to accept that the world is chaotic and there is no overarching order. so people look for structures, even if they cal them evil, so that the world isn't so scary, things are happening for a reason (eg the illuminati etc are controlling it all).

I think it is also why arguing with conspiracy theorists proves to be quite fruitless, people who have a deeply held religious belief cannot simply stop believing, even when presented with clear evidence. They will wriggle, look for exceptions, suggest that there is more going on but that you aren't enlightened enough to see it.

I do feel a little sorry for them, as is just seems a little desperate, and they would most likely criticise organised religions for being part of the overarching conspiracy, when they themselves are displaying all of the same traits.

I do think there have been cover ups, by the government and other organisations, most of the time they are discovered, and it is due to petty reasons like protecting their mates/ the name of the organisation. However it would be a fallacy to suggest that because cover ups have occurred, all of the world is ruled by an organisation, it is like saying all of the universe is ruled by a god. Neither the God or the world dominating organisation exist, they are merely there to provide a structure when in reality there is only chaos!

@phil Id quite like to read that article if it's online. It's my main interest in these threads to be honest.

I have a conspiracy theory:

Jhj has realised that if he starts a batshit mental thread rather than derailing an existing one, he won't be banned for it.

Strangely, he has suckered quite a lot of us into going along with him.

@ phil - yes, well put.

It is not a good system, and it certainly isn't democratic.

So some people have identified the self-evident shortcomings of bourgeois democracy, and have come to the conclusion that this stems from the fact that we have a constitutional monarchy ?

Presumably therefore we can separate the countries in Europe which are democratic from those that aren't by simply establishing whether they operate a constitutional monarchy or not ?

IE, Italy is democratic but Sweden is not.

[b][i] "Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact". [/i][/b]
Tony Benn

I get the feeling that Saint Tony might have felt there was something wrong with this?

Sweden is ruled by Jim Broadbent

[img] [/img]

....Jhj has realised that if he starts a batshit mental thread rather than derailing an existing one, he won't be banned for it.

Strangely, he has suckered quite a lot of us into going along with him.

Well I'd much rather read through one of JHJs "batshit" threads than some middleclasswhinycockbag rambling on about their latest coffee maker, watch, wood burning stove, dietary fad, or niche shaving device.

More JHJ, less MCWCB 😀

I find that not clicking on the MCWCB threads renders them harmless.

But I like that acronym and think it should become accepted STW speak.

*waits for some MCWCB to tell me that is not the correct use of the word "acronym"*

Sweden is ruled by Jim Broadbent

Interestingly, the next in line to the throne has expressed his determination to be more "influential" when he ascends to High Crankdom.

I guess we'll see how far his absolute power progresses him down that road, eh?

I find I get a better shave with a closed-guard safety razor. Mach 3's are pants.

Well said @Phil40 - I watched the recent Bitter Lake Documentary Film and it tried to suggest some sinister world order was in place but by the end all I could define from it was that after WWII Roosevelt tried to a deal with the Saudis. It was only partially successful as they (the Saudis) have more in common with ****stan than USA and sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. Problem was it took the guy 2hrs 15 mins to tell the story. I was on a plane and had nothing else to watch.

EDIT +1 for the Jim Broadbent idea.