Royal Family & riots

[bitesthedust]

Has KC or anyone from the RF issue any statements about the recent riots?

If not, why not?

Genuine question.

Source for the assertion that she didn't use those powers?

My ears and ears. Or do I need to provide proof she wasn't a lizard either ?

She didn't use her powers because she had none. If she had used her powers, why was parliament still prorogued ? Unless we assume she agreed with it after all.

A much more civilised way around this discussion is for the people telling me about these "super" powers themselves link to the appropriate government documentation about the system and process.

Well worth reading a bit of history to see how many times Queen Victoria had to be told - respectfully - to stick to being Empress of India and not try to interfere in matters of state. Even then it was accepted by the Monarch they had no power.

The last Monarch who had such powers was Charles I. Which really should be a mic drop moment.

No-one here can say what didn't happen because the late Queen intervened, though.

I agree she acted exactly within her constitutional role, which was to rubber stamp whatever was put in front of her. She has the power to dissolve Parliament but only when she is told to do so. What difference does it make if she said ' Boris, I don't think this is legal' if he could just ignore her? That's not a power to do anything. I don't think the Monarch should have the power, but it means that they can't hold anyone to account, and do nothing yo protect us from the excesses of Parliament because they can't. The only power they have is to lobby to have legislation changed to suit them. I think every time they do that they should have to explain to Parliament why they want the exemption and it should be read out. I suspect there will be a dramatic reduction in requests.

Err Boris wanted to prorogue Parliament and he did! What could she possibly have intervened in? We should know if an unelected Monarch is interfering in the decisions of an elected body, because it is a serious breach of the the Constitution. That's how we know she did not intervene, because her son is still sitting there.

The faintest hint a Monarch is trying to interfere with the elected government will be the last. They know exactly which side their bread is buttered.

They get to influence legislation that affects them because they see it before it goes before the Commons. Who have no idea what may or may not have been tweaked to keep them happy.

40+ years of Court Circular in Private Eye is remarkably gap-filling.

Thanks to all who are contributing to this thread.
I’m learning a lot.

I was thinking beyond this particular time and issue.
Of issues we don't know about, when she (might have) told the PM "no".

We simply don't know what admonishment or advice she gave, and whether or not it was found to be useful or changed anything.

All we know is that various PMs have been highly complimentary about the usefulness of the consultations with her (no-one's commented on Charles yet)

We do know of one occasion when monarchical powers were used to resolve a constitutional crisis (Australia 1975). I can't think of any others

One Prime Minister, I forget which one, said that the Queen used to ask a lot of questions which they found very helpful as answering them made them really think about their decisions.

If he effectively dropped the idea of Divine Law I do not understand how he is the king and how his son and grandson are heirs to the throne

Parliament decided it.

Charles I civil war - we ended up a republic that slipped into dictatorship with Oliver Cromwell who then tried to pass position on to eldest son who didn't have support- parliament ended up asking Charles II back - I think he agreed to run things past parliament - so we had the The Restoration.

King brother was heir as Charles had no children in his marriage - James II had two daughters first wife - eldest Mary married to cousin Duke of Orange next in line after them child of their eldest sister. Jame II married again had son and converted to Catholicism - we had The Glorious Revolution - William invited to take over - so got William and Mary.

Then we ran out of Stuarts - Ann being last no heirs - Queen Anne was the last monarch to withhold Royal Assent.

Then parliament went heir shopping - creating The Act of Settlement in 1701.

So now to inherit the crown you need to be a legitimate descendent of Sophia of Hanover and protestant.

George I who got it was 52nd in line to the throne. We passed over a lot of Catholics but Sophia was second youngest of large family of mostly I think protestants - she got it due to political considerations due to Hanover being useful and William apparently grew up with Sophia and she saw him after he lost Mary his wife and offered comfort.

Constitutional monarchy developed under Hanoverian - their last monarch was Queen Victoria.

Elizabeth II parliament change act of succession to stop putting boys first after a certain date - so affecting no one place currently alive at the time.

Royal powers are murky - the monarchs head of arm forces and head of state often can't use what they have or they will lose them - but they have technically more than many people think and seem to have a lot of influenced behind the scenes.

I not sure most people are wild about having a royal family - but our system proven a stable system over a prolonged time period - they've generally proved smart enough to wrap themselves in patriotism and good works - we are not the only constitutional monarchy out there - and getting rid of fairly benign legacy system just isn't worth money effort and potential pitfalls - yet.