I think I know why I admire Prince Harry.

[Coffee Pancake]

2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

but it's just you making it up. Neither you nor I have any idea one way or the other.

Oh please, we have a pretty good idea at this point concerning his associations with Epstein & associates, not to mention that picture of him with his arm around a 17 year old Virginia Roberts Giuffre's waist. Interesting that he denies knowing her .. maybe that's because when it's a different 17 year old every night it's hard to remember all their names.

9 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

OOPS! It wasn't you. It was Coffee. Sorry 🥵

It was .. and they are, and your wanton denial doesn't change any of that.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

They don't have that power - not since King John signed the Magna Carta.

Phil, I'm sorry, but you need to do some serious work on understanding the history of the English / British political system. Magna Carta was an important document in British legal and constitutional history, but it most certainly did not end the direct power the monarchs had over the political system. Not even cutting off the head of Charles I did that. I could provide you with literally hundreds of examples, ranging from the Plantagenets through the Tudors and Stuarts. They have never had unfettered power -- the reason why Charles I got his head cut off was because he tried for that -- but it was decisive until at least William and Mary's Revolution Settlement and the Bill of Rights, and remained substantial if much reduced until well in the 19th century.

As for Andrew -- well, he certainly consorted closely with one of the most notorious sexual predators of the past century. But we'll probably never know his own exact culpability because he's too powerful and important to be investigated and, probably, charged -- as an ordinary citizen likely would have been long before now.

[Phil Deakins]

@Coffee Pancake Concerning Andrew: You are free to believe what you want to believe but that doesn't make things true. You have no idea of what's true concerning that. All you know is what you read in newspapers. And we all know how newspapers try to dramatise things. But the real truth is that YOU DON'T KNOW.

You seem to be very good at imagining and guessing things - and believing what you imagine or guess. You have offered nothing at all to back up your claim of corruption. You can't offer anything, because there is nothing. Next you'll be telling us that they keep reds under the beds LOL.

[Phil Deakins]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

As for Andrew -- well, he certainly consorted closely with one of the most notorious sexual predators of the past century. But we'll probably never know his own exact culpability because he's too powerful and important to be investigated and, probably, charged -- as an ordinary citizen likely would have been long before now.

So did a lot of other people. The guy had lots of friends. So there's no evidence there.

As for royals with power, you need a quick course in British government. You can argue all you like, Scylla, but you haven't offered anything to back it up - not a shred - or even a glimpse of the system that allows the royals to have power here. All you've offered is your imagination. You are entitled to it, of course, but that's all it is - imagination.

[Phil Deakins]

Incidentally, the Magna Carta was an agreement, between King and Parliament, that the King does not run the country, and that Parliament does. Perhaps the King was left with some powers, such as raising taxes or going to war. I don't know. But I can assure you that the monarch today has no power except to appoint a PM (you were even wrong about that ). It is a figurehead and a servant of the country.

Heck it's only yesterday that the King was not allowed to marry who he wanted to marry. To marry her, he had to abdicate the throne. Some power, huh? His money counted for nothing lol.

Edited April 12, 2021 by Phil Deakins

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Perhaps the King was left with some powers, such as raising taxes or going to war. I don't know.

Kinda my point, Phil.

Raising taxes, incidentally, has always been the prerogative of parliament. Indeed, for centuries, it was pretty much the only major power that parliament did have.

Do you really believe that people listen to what Charles has to say -- about, for instance, public architecture, or homeopathy -- because of his brilliant mind and trenchant insights into these things? Would his views have the same impact, and attract the same number of adherents, were he, say, you or me?

That's power, Phil. The same kind of power that the George Soros or the Koch brothers wield in the US. And it's all about money.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

12 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Incidentally, the Magna Carta was an agreement, between King and Parliament, that the King does not run the country, and that Parliament does.

The first British PM to rule by consent of parliament -- indeed, arguably, the first PM period, in the modern sense -- was Sir Robert Walpole, who was Prime Minister from 1721 to 1742 -- about 500 years after Magna Carta. Walpole, like modern PMs, relied upon support in the House of Commons for his power.

Before him, the "chief minister" of the realm, generally the Chancellor, was appointed by the monarch.

[Phil Deakins]

@Scylla Rhiadra

Sorry Scylla, but that's not power. Power is the ability to cause things to happen. Being listened to isn't power like that. In many cases, people who do have power probably laugh at what Charles says sometimes. You included money in your original statement, as though the money was power too. Unless the royals manage to bribe decisions their way, their money has no power. And I don't believe for a second that any of the royals use money in that way.

[Phil Deakins]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The first British PM to rule by consent of parliament -- indeed, arguably, the first PM period, in the modern sense -- was Sir Robert Walpole, who was Prime Minister from 1721 to 1742 -- about 500 years after Magna Carta. Walpole, like modern PMs, relied upon support in the House of Commons for his power.

Before him, the "chief minister" of the realm, generally the Chancellor, was appointed by the monarch.

All of which is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Phil Deakins said:

@Scylla Rhiadra

Sorry Scylla, but that's not power. Power is the ability to cause things to happen. Being listened to isn't power like that. In many cases, people who do have power probably laugh at what Charles says sometimes. You included money in your original statement, as though the money was power too. Unless the royals manage to bribe decisions their way, their money has no power.

So innocent and naive. It's a bit adorable.

Never change, Phil. 😄

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Phil Deakins said:

All of which is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

If it was irrelevant, why do you keep harping on (erroneously) about Magna Carta?

The British constitutional system took nearly a millennium to get where it is now. It is enormously complicated -- much much more so than your reductive understanding of the current power of the monarchy acknowledges.

[Phil Deakins]

@Scylla Rhiadra

Wow! Run out of sensible points, Scylla. Can't provide credible replies. I take it as a concession. Thank you.

[Phil Deakins]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

If it was irrelevant, why do you keep harping on (erroneously) about Magna Carta?

I don't keep harping on about it. I mentioned it once because it was the point when the King, who believed he should have absolute power over the country, conceded that he shouldn't. He changed his mind later, but it was too late. You kept it going.

 

[Phil Deakins]

@Scylla Rhiadra

Just one more thing, if you don't mind. Please tell me exactly what power the royals have in governing the country these days. You've learned from me that the monarch, not the people, appoints the PM, but apart from that, what power do they wield these days?

So far you haven't stated anything other than they and their money have power, and I'm interested to know where you see them exercise power.

Edited April 12, 2021 by Phil Deakins

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

@Scylla Rhiadra

Just one more thing, if you don't mind. Please tell me exactly what power the royals have in governing the country these days. You've learned from me that the monarch, not the people, appoints the PM, but apart from that, what power do they wield these days?

So far you haven't stated anything, and I'm interested to know.

The point I've been making, and that you keep ignoring, is that the power of royals resides in their wealth, popularity, public profile, and cultural influence.

Allow me again to ask you: would people care what Charles thinks about things like architecture and aesthetics or alternative medicine if he were not a royal?

Pretty sure I know the answer.

[Phil Deakins]

19 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The point I've been making, and that you keep ignoring, is that the power of royals resides in their wealth, popularity, public profile, and cultural influence.

So being famous with money, popular, etc. makes them powerful? Many other people fit that description and, like the royals, they don't have any power in the way the country is run either.

Sorry, Scylla, but, as I explained earlier, having power means having the ability to make things happen. You are arguing that having the ability to be heard more than most people is power. (I still don't know why you include wealth though). I say no. Power is being able to make things happen, and the ability to be heard more than most can't do that.

 

19 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Allow me again to ask you: would people care what Charles thinks about things like architecture and aesthetics or alternative medicine if he were not a royal?

I don't know that anyone does care about what Charles thinks about those things. He hasn't managed to change anything, has he? He doesn't have the power to do that, does he? He is as entitled to his views as anyone else, but that's all. The fact that his views are sometimes reported is down to the fact that he is famous - nothing to do with wealth, incidentally. But getting in the papers doesn't change a darned thing. There is no power in it.

ETA: If Ed Sheeran stated publically that the building in London is like a carbuncle, that would get in the papers too. But he can't change it, or stop another one being built, so he has no power either. He is everything you said of Charles except he's not a royal. He would be heard but the addition of being a royal would make no difference whatsoever.

Edited April 12, 2021 by Phil Deakins

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Ok, Phil. I give up.

But I am immensely relieved to learn that the privileges accruing from vast wealth and an outsized (and largely unearned) public profile doesn't impact at all on "the power of the people" to govern themselves. How lovely to know that money changes nothing!

I'm off now to let off fireworks in celebration of our perfectly representative and responsive democracies. Have a lovely day.

[RunawayBunny]

30 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

So being famous with money, popular, etc. makes them powerful?

Do you know actually some people kill them self just for money? Just saying... not implying anything because I don't understand monarch. If you have money you make things happen with or without personal intervention, depending situation.

[Gabriele Graves]

3 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

It would be far more complicated than that. Whilst not sure about New Zealand, but insofar as Australia goes it could be its doom.

As of now Australia is a federation under a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as head of state. Should any form of republic happen in Australia the constitution would need to be rewritten thrown out and a new one made to a federated republic of which would give individual, now federated states, the possible ability to remove themselves from the current country of Australia and start there own country. Western Australia and Queensland have been wanting that for decades (since 1920's) so any possibility would be acted on.

The same would apply for any law that requires royal consent that is currently given by the Governor General on behalf of the queen. Any established laws such as crown land etc will be obsolete, irrelevant and subject to abuse. Who would get the crown land? Which state? Will landowners that have a lease agreement with the Crown for 99 years at $1 per year have to renew that and if so for how much?

Maybe Australia is unique but I do believe Canada is the same federation of states therefore may have the same issues.

Of course it would be more complicated than that, I would be amazed if it weren't.  Of course there are huge issues but that doesn't mean a relatively smooth transition that preserves what we is insurmountable.  There just has to be enough appetite to do it.  I don't know about Australia much either so cannot really comment there.  It seems like with all big changes there is a large amount of fear and doom and gloom associated with the idea of attempting it.

[Mollymews]

20 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

The only reasonable transition strategy from the Crown to a republic government would preserve the existing treaty and any other agreements that are in place and make them standing agreements with any future republic government.  This could be done as part of a binding legal framework of the transition.  There wouldn't have to be a vote on this in the same way there isn't a vote on a lot of things.  It would be a move to keep the existing status quo just without the monarchy.  I doubt any candidate in a republic would get a majority vote on chucking the treaty in the bin after that, we tend to like the existing status quo or something close to it.  If that wasn't the case some radical party would be already gaining huge ground in popularity and seeking some way to tear it all up, Crown or not.

in an ideal world this would be case

the status quo today is that the Treaty has no formal constitutional basis. There is the only the institutional convention that the servants of the Crown will adhere to agreements made by the Crown

if we changed to a republic then the Crown would be replaced by the People. The People would be the Sovereign

at the moment when the People are unhappy with agreements made by the Crown (the Sovereign), then the Crown does its stoneface and the matter ends there

the People on the other hand don't have a stoneface. Nor do presidents elected by the People

[Anna Nova]

I am a Russian 3rd-gen-ex-pat (now British by birth) noblewoman (Boyar).  You are all speaking rubbish, and should be in Siberia sweeping the snow.

The world would be a better place with more Autocrats.  This democracy rubbish is the cause of all the world's woes.  What in God's name were you doing giving serfs the vote?

Fortunately in UK, despite everyone thinking they elect the Members of Parliament, from where the Government is formed, only proper people can get on the ballot with any chance of winning (and they have to vow to obey their party).  And then the Government is formed by one person ( Prime Minister), and does what he says, ignoring Parliament.  The Prime Minister does what the Autocrat tells him/her.  Some think the Queen is the Autocrat, I'm not so sure.

It must be so.  No collection of reasonable individuals could make this many cockups.

[Phil Deakins]

18 hours ago, RunawayBunny said:

If you have money you make things happen with or without personal intervention, depending situation.

Not with the British monarchy.

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

19 hours ago, RunawayBunny said:

If you have money you make things happen with or without personal intervention, depending situation.

Not with the British monarchy.

People with wealth and power tend to hang together and affect society via what is known as the 'old-boy network'. 

OLD-BOY NETWORK -- an informal system of support and friendship through which men use their positions of influence to help others who went to the same school or college as they did or who share a similar social background.
"many managers were chosen by the old boy network"

The influence is more indirect and is the result of 'who you know'. Those with high status (be it via money or societal status) tend to slant society in a way that benefits themselves, sometimes consciously and deliberately and sometimes less malevolently when they are simply unable to comprehend the plight of those outside their own experience.
All monarchies are part of this network and have influence via their various relationships.

Even outside these old-boy networks, many tend to believe the ideas of those in higher status positions (often wealthy or successful people who may or may not even know anything about the causes they champion) and so votes on various issues affecting society are influenced by this dynamic as well.

[AdrianCoffin]

I don't admire the current British Monarchy at this time, with maybe the exception of Prince Harry. Don't give a rat's ass about Meghan, the queen (lower-case Q) or the dead prince.

Though I do feel bad for Archie. I actually smirked to myself when the dead prince died almost a month after these allegations of racism. Not because I wanted him to suffer, per se, but because I wanted the Queen ***** to suffer. And I believe that thing is suffering hard and long!

I may not like Meghan, but I don't dislike her because of her skintone. 

[Amina Sopwith]

1 hour ago, AdrianCoffin said:

I wanted the Queen ***** to suffer.

Why?