If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Prince Charles anxiously awaiting news of his mum, tells Camilla to get her best riding gear ready for a big ceremony   (cnn.com) divider line 53
    More: News  
•       •       •

25668 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2013 at 11:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-03 12:04:34 PM
5 votes:
The British monarchy is a system of government in which a hereditary monarch is the sovereign of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, and holds the now constitutional position of head of state. According to convention, the Queen's powers are exercised upon the advice of her prime minister. She does however possess certain reserve powers which she may exercise at her own discretion.

In the UK, the Queen (or King, when there is a male monarch) has numerous theoretical personal prerogatives. In practice, however, with the exception of the appointment of a prime minister, which is done with every prime minister, there are few circumstances in modern British government where these could be justifiably exercised; they have rarely been exercised in the last century. These powers could be exercised in an emergency such as a constitutional crisis. The monarch's personal prerogatives are:

- The refusal to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister.
- To appoint a Prime Minister of her own choosing.
- The dismissal of a Prime Minister and his Government on the Monarch's own authority.
- The refusal of the Royal Assent.
- The refusal of the "Queen's Consent," where direct monarchical assent is required for a bill affecting, directly or by implication, the prerogative, hereditary revenues-including ultimus haeres, treasure trove, and bona vacantia-or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament.

It has long been established in the uncodified Constitution of the United Kingdom that political power is ultimately exercised by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, of which the Sovereign is a non-partisan component, along with the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and by the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Thus, as the modern British monarchy is a constitutional one, the Sovereign's role is in practice limited to non-partisan functions (such as being the fount of honour).

In practice, political power is exercised today through Parliament and by the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The sovereign also holds the title of Supreme Governor of the established Church of England. The monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister, as well as regular audiences with other members of the Cabinet. The monarch may express his or her views, but, as a constitutional ruler, must ultimately accept the Prime Minister's and Cabinet's decisions.

/ but you already knew that, of course
2013-03-03 12:38:50 PM
3 votes:

ontariolightning: Funny how the americans are commenting on the monarchy when they havent a clue


It be fair, most Canadians don't either. Being a dual citizen, I've heard some pretty dumb things from both sides of the border. Heck, there's an awful lot of Canadians who don't even get that the Queen of Canada and the Queen of Britain are two separate positions held by the same person rather than a single position with a different titles depending on where the person is standing. The only time most Canadians even give a flip about the Queen is when the Governor General does something at the request of a party that the person doesn't like.

/Prorouging Parliament is only evil when the other guy does it.
2013-03-03 11:21:42 AM
3 votes:
It's a stomach flu. Nothing to see here. False deathwatch alarm.
2013-03-03 07:40:16 PM
2 votes:

FarkinNortherner: kg2095: The Governor General of Australia, who is the Queen's representative in Australia, fired the democratically elected government in 1975. And then installed their political opponents to office.

So that would suggest that the monarchy does have the ability to impact politics in a big way.

The Queen publicly disavowed interest in or responsibility for the actions of the Governor-General. Constitutionally he's Governor-General in Council, acting on the advice of parliamentary ministers.


The Governor-General in Aust, IIRC has pretty much the same powers as the Queen - seeing as he/she is the Queen's of Australia's representative on-site, as it were. The Oz govt at the end of 1975 was in a shambles, unable to pass supply bills, etc etc, and no matter whose fault that was, an election was the only real solution - but the Prime minister was too stubborn to admit it, especially as he knew he was going to be well and truly rolled out the door. The Gov-Gen has the reserve power to dismiss the government, but protocol and precedent required him to warn the PM first - a sort of "final warning" to grow up and act responsibly, i.e. call an election. Had he done so (warned the PM first), the PM would have been on the phone to the Queen quick-smart to have the Gov-Gen replaced immediately. So the Gov-Gen sacked the PM and government, and installed the leader of the opposition as caretaker PM. It wasn't an altogether pleasant situation, but it did result in an election a couple of months later, and I think the alternatives would have been worse. There's no point getting all high and mighty about dismissing a democratically elected government, when that government is itself acting against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. Whitlam and labour were a spent force as a government, only they wouldn't do the right thing and resign, call an election, and let the voters decide.
2013-03-03 12:33:55 PM
2 votes:

ontariolightning: Funny how the americans are commenting on the monarchy when they havent a clue


Funny how ass hats all over the world biatch about Americans when they haven't a clue,  or an apostrophe..
2013-03-03 12:02:17 PM
2 votes:

Russ1642: Considering she probably has several doctors on staff the only reason she'd be sent to a hospital is if they thought it could turn bad quickly.


Or for IV fluids and observation, which I'm sure at her age would be necessary with a bad case of gastroenteritis.  Take no chances.
2013-03-03 11:53:13 AM
2 votes:
It's probably time for Lizzy to think about letting Charlie have a go at king. He's no spring chicken himself, he's got 10, 15 years tops? Then it'll be time for little Willy to take over and we can all be excited at the coronation.

The longest reign of a British monarch is the 63 years, 216 days or 63 years 7 months and 3 days ofVictoria between 1837 and 1901. The second longest reign is that of the current monarch, Elizabeth II (since February 1952).

Really, Lizzy, you're trying for Vicki's record. Aren't you?
2013-03-03 11:45:17 AM
2 votes:

bborchar: /Does anyone really want to see Charles as King?


I do. In recent years he's done much to call attention to the problems in the built environment. While I don't always agree with his views on the importance of traditional styles for building facades, he has given visibility to the issue of how we build our cities effects our health and how we end up interacting with each other. Most leaders couldn't care less about these issues except when one of their developer friends need inside access to build something crappy.

Regardless of who gets the throne next, I suspect many of Elizabeth's current realms will become republics within ten years of her death. For much of the world, she is the only commonwealth monarch they've known. The attachment is as much to her and it is to the crown. I don't see Charles or William inspiring that kind of loyalty.
2013-03-03 11:36:41 AM
2 votes:

Russ1642: Klivian: bborchar: Always found it interesting that the British say "in hospital" as a state of being instead of "in the hospital".  Completely off-topic, though.

/Does anyone really want to see Charles as King?

Does it really matter? Parliament and PM rule the UK, not the monarchy

By that logic the papacy also has no influence on the world whatsoever.


Yea, except no, not even close
2013-03-03 11:22:04 AM
2 votes:
Don't over-react

/Her Majesty had a slight case of the Royal Trots
2013-03-03 03:30:46 PM
1 votes:

Lost Thought 00: Why bother. Just pass it on to his son, who is infinitely more popular and let him enjoy the long, successful rule that Charles never got to enjoy himself.


It isn't that easy.  She cannot just ignore the Act of Settlement, which sets out the order of succession (thought they are in the process of tweaking it, just not in that way). If she abdicated, as it is set up now, she also removes all her descendants from the succession - and if Charles abdicated, he would be removing not only himself, but William, Harry, and Little Royal Fetus.  Even if she or Charles were to try and abdicate, Parliament has to approve it.  We breezily suggest skipping, excluding, and/or disinheriting royals with merry abandon, but there is actually a fark-ton of established law and precedent that would make it a colossal pain in the ass to actually do.

Oh, and for the "Charles is so unpopular the monarchy will fall the instant the crown hits his head" crowd:  Charles is the personal Lord and Savior to the most ardent anti-monarchist compared to the popular disgust with George IV, and yet the Brits not only let him reign, they gave him an extensive beta-test before slapping the Orb and Sceptre in his hand.  They also got rid of the monarchy, only to bring it back - they are pretty much wedded to it now
2013-03-03 03:24:10 PM
1 votes:

EngineerAU: Regardless of who gets the throne next, I suspect many of Elizabeth's current realms will become republics within ten years of her death. For much of the world, she is the only commonwealth monarch they've known. The attachment is as much to her and it is to the crown. I don't see Charles or William inspiring that kind of loyalty.


Granted, I have an outsider's perspective (I'm American) but I've always had this feeling that England et al. will become republics after Elizabeth's death - they don't respect any of her successors enough to take them seriously.
2013-03-03 03:16:17 PM
1 votes:
2013-03-03 03:12:28 PM
1 votes:

LibertyHiller: DoctorCal: LibertyHiller: Coco LaFemme: Speaker2Animals: LibertyHiller: cptjeff: JasonOfOrillia: I've found the name choices for the current set of heirs to be interesting.  There hasn't been a Charles or a William in 300 years.

Besides that being wrong, you do realize that they get to choose their name as monarch, right? Elizabeth kept her given name, but since the English monarchy has had a bit of bad luck with Charles, Prince Charles will probably choose something else. William, who the hell knows.

My bet is on Charles going for "George VII" rather than trying to break the streak and then, if there's a monarchy, we'll see "William V".

Arthur I.

Slight quibble; ordinals are not used if you are initially the first one to reign with that name.  For example, Victoria was never known as Victoria I.  So if William wanted to use Arthur as a regnal name, he'd be just Arthur, not Arthur I.

Generally true, but the most recent breaks with that rule I can think of are Pope John Paul I and King Juan Carlos I. Must be a '70s thing.

Um. No.

Um. Yeah.

[img.timeinc.net image 400x527]

The Downfall: Yeah, when John Paul I was Pope, he was just "Pope John Paul" wasn't he? And he was only Pope for a month, so no one probably thinks about that.

See above.


Well, my apologies, then. That's really odd to me; my recollection as a lifelong Catholic up to that time (when I was 15) was that we only referred to him as John Paul.
2013-03-03 02:57:44 PM
1 votes:

The Downfall: 1. She's not in imminent danger of dying.
2. It's just a stomach bug.
3. She's 86 and the Queen of England, so they will put her in the hospital to be better safe than sorry.
4. I think she's going to live to be 100.
5. Charles will be George VII, after his grandfather. His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George. I doubt he'd choose Arthur. I could see Philip happening. No way in Hell there will a Charles III in England, ever.
6. Aren't babies slightly more likely to be girls? Bet on girl then.


7. She doesn't want to go on the cart.
2013-03-03 02:57:18 PM
1 votes:
img.spokeo.com
2013-03-03 02:54:42 PM
1 votes:
1. She's not in imminent danger of dying.
2. It's just a stomach bug.
3. She's 86 and the Queen of England, so they will put her in the hospital to be better safe than sorry.
4. I think she's going to live to be 100.
5. Charles will be George VII, after his grandfather. His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George. I doubt he'd choose Arthur. I could see Philip happening. No way in Hell there will a Charles III in England, ever.
6. Aren't babies slightly more likely to be girls? Bet on girl then.
2013-03-03 02:05:52 PM
1 votes:
In some distant future time, when QEII exits stage right, they should make HARRY the king. That'd be cool. It'd be like having Joe Biden as president.
2013-03-03 01:52:48 PM
1 votes:
Boooo bad subby, bad use of news flash tag. Queenie has a stomach bug, no one dying today.
2013-03-03 01:45:12 PM
1 votes:

LibertyHiller: cptjeff: JasonOfOrillia: I've found the name choices for the current set of heirs to be interesting.  There hasn't been a Charles or a William in 300 years.

Besides that being wrong, you do realize that they get to choose their name as monarch, right? Elizabeth kept her given name, but since the English monarchy has had a bit of bad luck with Charles, Prince Charles will probably choose something else. William, who the hell knows.

My bet is on Charles going for "George VII" rather than trying to break the streak and then, if there's a monarchy, we'll see "William V".


Have the bookies started taking bets on the gender and regal name of the royal fetus yet?
2013-03-03 01:34:36 PM
1 votes:

cptjeff: JasonOfOrillia: I've found the name choices for the current set of heirs to be interesting.  There hasn't been a Charles or a William in 300 years.

Besides that being wrong, you do realize that they get to choose their name as monarch, right? Elizabeth kept her given name, but since the English monarchy has had a bit of bad luck with Charles, Prince Charles will probably choose something else. William, who the hell knows.


My bet is on Charles going for "George VII" rather than trying to break the streak and then, if there's a monarchy, we'll see "William V".
2013-03-03 01:32:16 PM
1 votes:

cptjeff: Besides that being wrong, you do realize that they get to choose their name as monarch, right? Elizabeth kept her given name, but since the English monarchy has had a bit of bad luck with Charles, Prince Charles will probably choose something else. William, who the hell knows.


Rumor has it he'll be George VII, just for the reasons you listed.

//god save the queen
2013-03-03 01:27:50 PM
1 votes:

EngineerAU: bborchar: /Does anyone really want to see Charles as King?

I do. In recent years he's done much to call attention to the problems in the built environment. While I don't always agree with his views on the importance of traditional styles for building facades, he has given visibility to the issue of how we build our cities effects our health and how we end up interacting with each other. Most leaders couldn't care less about these issues except when one of their developer friends need inside access to build something crappy.

Regardless of who gets the throne next, I suspect many of Elizabeth's current realms will become republics within ten years of her death. For much of the world, she is the only commonwealth monarch they've known. The attachment is as much to her and it is to the crown. I don't see Charles or William inspiring that kind of loyalty.


Charles no. William possibly, maybe not right now but an injection of youth is something that can't be overlooked as it relates to the overall big picture. His world tour certainly showed that he is popular in the commonwealths.
2013-03-03 01:27:47 PM
1 votes:
My ultimate CSB:
I was at a reception with Prince Charles.  My girlfriend was chatting with him and brought me into the conversation.
She: we were just talking about writing. The prince was saying he employs five speech writers.  Towatchoverme here is a writer.
Me: Are they very good?
Charles: Well, no.  I think it's very difficult to find someone to think one's thoughts after one, as it were.
Me: oh yes. It's a lot like a marriage.  Very hard to find a good one.
*Girlfriend shoots me a panicked look.  The enormity of what I've said and who I've said it to begins to dawn. Visions of the Tower of London float before me.*
 Me: ... Or at least that's what Ted Sorensen used to say, who was Kennedy's speechwriter.
 Charles waits a beat ... takes a sip of gin and tonic ... points at me, with a pink finger, and with a hint of a grin says: ... Well played.
2013-03-03 01:16:34 PM
1 votes:

cptjeff: Besides that being wrong, you do realize that they get to choose their name as monarch, right? Elizabeth kept her given name, but since the English monarchy has had a bit of bad luck with Charles, Prince Charles will probably choose something else. William, who the hell knows.


Some day in the future, King Willy's daughter will name herself Queen TurdFerguson and will wear a giant foam hat for a crown.

/nostradamus
2013-03-03 01:13:35 PM
1 votes:

Eutychus: Direct political power? Not much, really. But here's someone who's had regular briefings with every Prime Minister since Churchill. How many other people can boast such a wealth of political experience?


Candid, completely off the record conversations, and they go both ways. She's already up to date on even the top secret stuff before going into those meetings with the PM. That's a hell of an institutional memory. She's also the only remaining Head of State who served in WWII- as a mechanic and ambulance driver.

It does always amaze me how many people in these threads are completely befuddled by the concept of a constitutional monarchy.
2013-03-03 01:10:35 PM
1 votes:

JasonOfOrillia: I've found the name choices for the current set of heirs to be interesting.  There hasn't been a Charles or a William in 300 years.


Besides that being wrong, you do realize that they get to choose their name as monarch, right? Elizabeth kept her given name, but since the English monarchy has had a bit of bad luck with Charles, Prince Charles will probably choose something else. William, who the hell knows.

And seriously folk, the Queen is not governing England. There's a Parliament, you know. She does provide candid advice to the PM on a weekly basis, with full knowledge of everything the government is doing and in a setting where she and the PM can talk completely candidly. That's indeed valuable to the government. And she can use her diplomatic forces for good- see her outreach to Ireland recently. But it's hardly anything like ordering the navy to bombard Amsterdam in contravention of the wishes of the elected government.
2013-03-03 01:04:31 PM
1 votes:
Hey Chuck, why the long face?

Don't like the man - as I think about it, I can't stand the idea of him and that horses ass he goes tripping around with.

What a sad pair to front a country.
Luckily, my disgust of them has no meaning to anyone.  whew!
2013-03-03 12:57:54 PM
1 votes:

WeenerGord: ontariolightning: Funny how the americans are commenting on the monarchy when they havent a clue

Funny how ass hats all over the world biatch about Americans when they haven't a clue,  or an apostrophe..


It's  ontariolightning. Hating on Americans is the only thing he lives for now.
2013-03-03 12:55:50 PM
1 votes:

Benevolent Misanthrope: Russ1642: Considering she probably has several doctors on staff the only reason she'd be sent to a hospital is if they thought it could turn bad quickly.

Or for IV fluids and observation, which I'm sure at her age would be necessary with a bad case of gastroenteritis.  Take no chances.


Or they might just have some anti-nausea\anti-diarrhea drug at the hospital they prefer to administer there. Or they might feel she won't just STFU and sleep it off without being in a hospital. There's a thousand non-lethal reasons to stick her in the hospital, especially since she's eighty-six and the doctors probably want to make this relatively comfortable instead of the hell stomach flu usually is. I'm not really panicking either.
2013-03-03 12:31:30 PM
1 votes:

NeoCortex42: To anybody that does know much: Has Elizabeth II ever made any significant use of her reserve powers during her reign?


Yes, but not in the sense of going rogue. She 'chose' Douglas-Home as PM at the behest of a gravely ill Harold Macmillan. She also refused assent to a bill which would have modified her constitutional powers over the war in Iraq, that assent was withheld on the request of the then majority party in government.
2013-03-03 12:24:10 PM
1 votes:
Funny how the americans are commenting on the monarchy when they havent a clue
2013-03-03 12:17:06 PM
1 votes:
It might be a stabilizing factor in British politics that the Sovereign has her reserve powers.  She can just toss out a misbehaving Prime Minister to for e a new selection.  She can also veto a bill by withholding Royal Assent, but that's largely theoretical.

It's nice to have someone mostly beyond reproach who can smack the Legislative and Executive branches back in line from time to time.  Here, that's the Supreme Court.

/doesn't actually know much, so is talking out her butt
2013-03-03 12:15:07 PM
1 votes:
Her death will be the end of what little respect the monarchy has left. People get the concept of the Queen of England being a sweet old lady who in an almost quaint way "rules" Great Britain. We know she was once tough just like Victoria many years earlier. But our perception of their power is about identical and seen as a distant memory.
All most people know about Kings of England is they are usually holding a bloody sword and shouting for a way out of their self inflicted predicament. That or being pilloried by the groom-of-the-stool in some Merchant Ivory movie. No tough guy images come up to contemporary people for HRH.

You can put a crown on Charles, Henry, the royal butler or Vinnie Jones but all anyone will do is burst out laughing.
2013-03-03 12:14:52 PM
1 votes:

JasonOfOrillia: I've found the name choices for the current set of heirs to be interesting.  There hasn't been a Charles or a William in 300 years.


William IV would like a word with you
2013-03-03 12:11:03 PM
1 votes:

JosephFinn: 1 parasite down, many to go...


Okay.

Sure.

The royal family keeps 15% of the revenue generated by their estate holding, not to mention the absurd amounts of tourist shmuck bait cash they make off Yanks who come in to gawk at the beefeater hats.  They're pretty much a bargain.
2013-03-03 12:10:06 PM
1 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.com

Don't worry, subby.  We got our best detective on it
2013-03-03 12:05:52 PM
1 votes:

FarkinNortherner: Russ1642: Hell, even in Canada we see her face on our currency, her representatives are part of our government, and you still pledge allegiance to the queen to become a citizen.

Just as in the UK, law-making power is exercised by parliament rather than by the Queen. Comparing the power of the monarch to that of the pope is ludicrous, particularly given that a monarch hasn't refused assent for a parliamentary act since 1707.

The biggest impact of Charles as monarch is likely to be an increased focus on the environment, he obviously has the ear of the most politically powerful in the land, not to mention a hugely influential PR position*, and a very focal agenda.

*much like Jimmy Savile**

**only different, please don't send me to the tower


I know its the done thing to have a go at Charles (and lord knows he makes it easy) but the guy via the Princes Trust has helped more young people make something of themsleves than anything the last five or six governments have done. If he became king he would have to reign in his agenda a lot.
2013-03-03 11:57:54 AM
1 votes:
www.keepcalmstudio.com
2013-03-03 11:55:32 AM
1 votes:

Nothing To See Here: Elton John will always be The Queen of England.


i thought that was Freddie Mercury
2013-03-03 11:44:56 AM
1 votes:

Klivian: Russ1642: Klivian: bborchar: Always found it interesting that the British say "in hospital" as a state of being instead of "in the hospital".  Completely off-topic, though.

/Does anyone really want to see Charles as King?

Does it really matter? Parliament and PM rule the UK, not the monarchy

By that logic the papacy also has no influence on the world whatsoever.

Yea, except no, not even close


Hell, even in Canada we see her face on our currency, her representatives are part of our government, and you still pledge allegiance to the queen to become a citizen. If you think that Charles as king would have little to no influence you're simply deluded. Also he's crazy.
2013-03-03 11:43:21 AM
1 votes:

JasonOfOrillia: I've found the name choices for the current set of heirs to be interesting.  There hasn't been a Charles or a William in 300 years.


Link

Queen Victoria's uncle would like a word with you.
2013-03-03 11:42:44 AM
1 votes:
I think this is a great opportunity for a pair of Australian DeeJays to pull one of their whacky Zoo Crew antics.
2013-03-03 11:38:47 AM
1 votes:
She's got another 40 in her. You have no idea how resiliently they designed that model.
2013-03-03 11:38:14 AM
1 votes:

bborchar: Always found it interesting that the British say "in hospital" as a state of being instead of "in the hospital".  Completely off-topic, though.

/Does anyone really want to see Charles as King?


God, save the Queen.
2013-03-03 11:33:11 AM
1 votes:
Just had the gastro myself this week. 4 days of misery with stuff gushing out both ends at the same time. I'm sure she is not amused.
2013-03-03 11:31:25 AM
1 votes:
Well, she did go to hospital and it is notoriously easy to pick up some kind of nasty antibiotic resistant bug nowadays from those places.
2013-03-03 11:25:31 AM
1 votes:
So who are the radio shows going to impersonate when calling the hospital for an update?
2013-03-03 11:23:09 AM
1 votes:
Oh, she's not going anywhere yet. Which is good as she's a much better monarch than ol' Charles. William has a lot more hair to lose before Elizabeth goes and things move down the line.
2013-03-03 11:23:02 AM
1 votes:
The Vatican seen whistling innocently in a tube station.
2013-03-03 11:22:42 AM
1 votes:
First we are without a Pope and now the Queen is ill.
2013-03-03 11:21:04 AM
1 votes:
So ERII has the shaits.
2013-03-03 11:18:26 AM
1 votes:
He'll never be King. He'll have a stroke before they lay the crown atop his head.
 
Displayed 53 of 53 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report