The lack of enthusiasm for the Coronation

[MamoruHisaishi]

I know this is shallow but I think part of the reason why people aren't enthusiastic about Charles’ coronation is that neither he nor Camilla have movie star good looks plus they're both in their 70s. I bet if both were in their 30s or even 40s, and Charles looked like Pierce Brosnan and Camilla looked like Angelina Jolie, they would have the world fawning over them and their Coronation.

If Charles had refused to sign off on the legislation there would have been uproar - undemocratic, overreaching etc etc. Lay the blame in the right place, with the democratically elected government.

'the other side' is an easy way to describe those who are Monarchists. If you would prefer me to use that term just say so. It's not attacking, it's presenting a different view.

Believe me, I've been attacked endlessly for having a different view to some.

@AskMeMore Where do you get that information? It is simply not true that a monarch can change a bill between it being passed by Parliament and royal assent.

Monarchs have worked with the government before but they have no power just to change laws. It would be unconstitutional.

Thank you. Yes to this.

I doubt very much debate is feared, but it’s not mandatory to indulge someone the opportunity to convince that they hold a superior opinion.

People have different reasons why they might be in favour or not of a monarchy. It doesn’t need justification to a stranger on the internet.

Again, where did you get this information? I’m open to new ideas. It just not check out with my logic filter that ‘secret laws’ are being made by the royal family that no one knows about.

I've never said it's a 'superior' view. Just different.

A strange reach. I said Charles signed assent for the new law.
I did not claim he drafted the law. I stated a fact.
And the law of assent is always sold as a safeguarding measure. If it really is nothing more than a ritual, why not abolish it?

"The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian.
A series of government memos unearthed in the National Archives reveal that Elizabeth Windsor’s private lawyer put pressure on ministers to alter proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings from being disclosed to the public.

Following the Queen’s intervention, the government inserted a clause into the law granting itself the power to exempt companies used by “heads of state” from new transparency measures."

And there's more.

I’m fact, talking about ‘secrets’ in the conspiracy theory way is probably not helping you convince people. I generally run a mile from people who say they have inside information on government secrets- because it it so often totally made up bollocks they’ve been fed by social media.

Royal assent is a formality. He doesn't have an active input into the fine details. It is a worrying law which has been under-publicised. More people in the UK know about Katie Price's latest round of surgery instead of something which reverses the hard won liberties of common people.

More

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent. Secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy

https://www.newsweek.com/queen-elizabeth-accused-lobbying-uk-government-royal-consent-1567864

@Boudicasbeard There are lots of articles about this.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

So she lobbied the government @Roussette

Just like anyone writes to their MP or pressure groups lobby the government. It is up to the government to say yes or no. The decision is theirs and we vote for them.

Hardly the makings of a facist state.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth

See my links

No vetted. And they stole gifts to the State and absorbed them into their private collections.

"There was a particular clause in there that the royal household didn't like. And you can see from the documents that are published that the Queen's lawyer says 'we have concerns about this bill'.
"From that you can see that a particular exemption was given to Balmoral, in which particular pipelines wouldn't be built on her private lands."

All fine then.

No. Not really.

If I lobbied the government for a change in the law, what would happen>

Nowt. Zilch. Nada

Royalists claim royal assent is a mere formality
(Why have it then )

But it's royal consent which is the real issue
Any law the 'royals' dont like the look of , they go over first , exclude themselves from any bits they don't like , then pass it back to be applied to the rest of us fully

So that's why the Freedom of information Act doesn't apply , equality legislation doesn't apply , animal protection laws dont apply .
Tell me why this get it clause was set up and why you are happy for it to continue

I’ve seen both your links. These are not secrets to anyone who has the first knowledge of the make up of the estates of government in the U.K. or how laws are passed

The monarch is in constant conversation with the government. That is part of the job. What do you think are in the red boxes? Why do you think they go for special lessons in constitutional law?

The fact is that the role of monarch is the act as a separate estate- above the cut and thrust of politics. This means that they sometimes have a different view on things and should be able to make that known. It is up to the elected government to decide whether to allow it or to follow the advice. That’s our system.

They have access to bills long before any private citizen. And you really think any other company could have successfully lobbied to be exempt from the equality act?

"It has previously been revealed that the Queen used her access to the UK Government to influence ministers to change UK legislation to benefit her own interests between the late 1960s and 2021."

'Why is debate about the Monarchy so feared on here?'

Nothing to fear about 'debate', but the sheer volume of derisive insults aimed at those who don't perceive getting rid of the monarchy as the panacea of all things doesn't lead to debate, it leads to entrenchment.

There have been an avalanche of derogatory comments today about anyone even remotely enthusiastic about the coronation. Forelock tugging peasants, embarrassingly dim, prejudiced bigots, the coronation was a 'sub par, banal performance' etc etc etc

All that's going to happen is yet another polarisation of society a la Brexit/Scottish Independence.