SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61585886
Buckingham Palace has announced that Queen Elizabeth II has died.
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Queen Elizabeth II has Died - Buckingham Palace Announcement
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 74 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
To be a kind of moral Unix, he touched the hem of Nature's shift.
-- Shelley
(Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Friday September 09 2022, @01:34PM (10 children)
Some of my information is a couple of hundred years out of date, but here goes. Note the UK has no constitution, but rather the Common Law, based on precedents some of which date back 100s of years and have not been tested since major constitutional crises. The basic system came into place during the War of the Four Kingdoms (1642), and also the Glorious Revolution (1688).
In the UK we elect people to the legislature, i.e. the body of people who enact laws. Each year, the UK legislature enacts (or not) a new law that enables taxation, in much the same way as the US system.
The UK monarch chooses a Prime Minister, formally the First Lord of the Treasury, who is able to pass the bill for taxation into law. Usually that would be the party that holds the majority in the House of Commons. The monarch appoints other ministers, usually under the advice of the Prime Minister, and the ministers act on his behalf. The ministers then carry out the business of government, i.e. collecting tax and raising an army. They also deal with some other minor details like building roads and running hospitals.
The monarch signs all laws, which makes them legal, and without which parliament cannot enact new legislation. The monarch calls elections under the advice of the sitting government. The monarch appoints peers (upper house) directly, under advice of the sitting government and His Majesty's Opposition. The monarch appoints the judiciary and they act on his behalf. The monarch can pardon people who have broken the law. I can't remember whether the monarch can suspend existing laws (they changed things in 1688 and I can't remember which ones got changed).
Were we to elect a bad outfit, the monarch could in principle refuse to appoint them to government positions. In practice, were the monarch to use his powers then it would cause a constitutional crisis. At the very least, no new taxes would be legally raised. Practically, whoever controls the army decides (which swung things against Charles I in 1642).
Recent and not-so-recent examples in other countries near and far where a wise monarch would save the people from their poor choice of government. Godwin's law applies, so I won't name names.
ps: does pre-invoking Godwin's law cause Godwin's law to be invoked? Second order Godwinning perhaps?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2022, @02:19PM (9 children)
I know several members of the UK armed forces and I'd just like to point out that they are quite adamant that they swore their oaths to the Queen, not some politician. I am quite sure that had Lizzie ordered them to shoot Boris they would have. Whether that translates over to Charlie is an open question, but if I am quite sure that if I was the current PM of England I would not like to test if the armed forces were loyal to me over the crown.
(Score: 1, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 09 2022, @04:00PM
So those boots on the ground during Apartheid were serving the Queen and not the State?
(Score: 2) by srobert on Friday September 09 2022, @06:55PM (2 children)
"they swore their oaths to the Queen, not some politician."
In the U.S., we swear to uphold the Constitution. Of course that is meaningless to soldiers and politicians alike because hardly any of them have ever actually read it.
Despite the frequent dysfunction of many republics, it is surprising to me that, in the 21st century, people still consent to living under a monarchy even if it is only a figurehead. The U.S. has many problems, but I'm sure that none of them are caused by the absence of the king.
(Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Sunday September 11 2022, @02:19AM
Here in AU, every time the subject of becoming a republic gets significant traction someone will do a costing of replacing the Crown with an Office of President. Turns out to be rather expensive, especially since the UK bears most of the cost of the Monarchy.
The Monarchy in AU is mostly tradition and symbology really. We have a King or Queen, but no other hereditary peerage. High achievers might be awarded a knighthood but all that really gets them is the right to put Sir on their business cards. And it's not like King Charlie is going to drop in and claim Droit du Seigneur.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Sunday September 11 2022, @11:26AM
What absence? Your president has way, way more power than most constitutional kings and queens have today. Essentially, you're closer to an elective monarchy than a republic.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday September 09 2022, @07:05PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Sunday September 11 2022, @01:13PM (2 children)
I agree but historically, it hasn't always worked out like that. In 1642 the reason why Cromwell and Fairfax were buddies during the interregnum - between them they had the army sewn up, so that whatever stuff the puritans and other factions threw at them, at the end of the day they could (and did) fall back on the support of the army (against the interest of the King).
If you look up the history of the interregnum, it is basically Cromwell cycling through different approaches to forming a government in order to find any system which is remotely viable, and largely failing. He was capable enough to keep on top of things, when he died no one knew what to do and put his feckless son in charge - at which point Monck, a senior general, decided things were a mess and went to Charles II (son of the beheaded king, hanging out in France) and asked him to sort it out. Once again, it was the army which decided, this time for the king. In 1688 it was (arguably) the defection of John Churchill, head of the army, to the invading Prince William, as well as James II being a prat, that swung things against the Stuart monarchy, against the king but for his son in law.
Very interesting period, well worth looking into.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday September 11 2022, @05:54PM
The reason that the Oath of Allegiance is written the way it is is precisely because it was written after Cromwell and others, and it reflects the relationship between the Monarch, Parliament and the people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2022, @04:48AM
That was then, this is now.
If Ms Truss stood up and said "Parliament has voted. We're going to become a Republic. Soldiers go and arrest the Monarch and seize all the royal property.", then the person in The Tower for treason at the end of the day isn't going to be Charlie.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday September 09 2022, @07:12PM
The actual wording is (depending upon arm of the forces)