oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Post by oldie on Oct 22, 2024 11:28:40 GMT
I kind of agree with you. Our 'Royal family ' dictating upon Canada, Australia, new Zealand etc... does not make sense. 'Our' includes them too, we share them, constitutionally and historically at least. They don't dictate either, it's delegated to the Governor General. There are pros and cons to all flavours of Head of State, the current set up is probably the least invasive. Not if you are of First Nation origin. |
|
Icegas
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 1,813 
|
Post by Icegas on Oct 22, 2024 11:35:28 GMT
I kind of agree with you. Our 'Royal family ' dictating upon Canada, Australia, new Zealand etc... does not make sense. 'Our' includes them too, we share them, constitutionally and historically at least. They don't dictate either, it's delegated to the Governor General. There are pros and cons to all flavours of Head of State, the current set up is probably the least invasive. If you spoke to most Aussies, Canadians or New Zealanders they wouldn't really care about the monarchy, pretty much like us here in the UK. It's disliked down there, and in north America as much as it it is here. Again, apart from the "Hollywood side" of it, as I explained the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy there is nothing there for me apart from them being historical bullies. |
|
baldrick
Joined: July 2024
Posts: 1,344
Member is Online
|
Post by baldrick on Oct 22, 2024 12:41:49 GMT
'Our' includes them too, we share them, constitutionally and historically at least. They don't dictate either, it's delegated to the Governor General. There are pros and cons to all flavours of Head of State, the current set up is probably the least invasive. Not if you are of First Nation origin. I'm referring to the here and now, symbolic but the real power lies with the Canadian PM, just as here. |
|
baldrick
Joined: July 2024
Posts: 1,344
Member is Online
|
Post by baldrick on Oct 22, 2024 12:42:57 GMT
'Our' includes them too, we share them, constitutionally and historically at least. They don't dictate either, it's delegated to the Governor General. There are pros and cons to all flavours of Head of State, the current set up is probably the least invasive. If you spoke to most Aussies, Canadians or New Zealanders they wouldn't really care about the monarchy, pretty much like us here in the UK. It's disliked down there, and in north America as much as it it is here. Again, apart from the "Hollywood side" of it, as I explained the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy there is nothing there for me apart from them being historical bullies. Indeed, 1/3 hate it, 1/3 love it, 1/3 can't be bothered either way to change it. |
|
Icegas
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 1,813
|
Post by Icegas on Oct 22, 2024 13:04:04 GMT
Not if you are of First Nation origin. I'm referring to the here and now, symbolic but the real power lies with the Canadian PM, just as here. Really, so why does the Prime minister have to be sworn in my the king or Queen? I'm sure certain powers have to be ok'd by the King and his ears also? |
|
baldrick
Joined: July 2024
Posts: 1,344
Member is Online
|
Post by baldrick on Oct 22, 2024 13:35:30 GMT
I'm referring to the here and now, symbolic but the real power lies with the Canadian PM, just as here. Really, so why does the Prime minister have to be sworn in my the king or Queen? I'm sure certain powers have to be ok'd by the King and his ears also? Not in practice. Parliament can declare war, for example, it's no longer under what's called Royal Prorogative. Swearing the Oath of Alligence is merely a technicality. The power of the monarch has been diluted over the centuries, from Magna Carta to Bill of Rights and Coronation Oath Act under William and Mary and further up to today. Just symbolic now. |
|
Icegas
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 1,813
|
Post by Icegas on Oct 22, 2024 13:48:07 GMT
Really, so why does the Prime minister have to be sworn in my the king or Queen? I'm sure certain powers have to be ok'd by the King and his ears also? Not in practice. Parliament can declare war, for example, it's no longer under what's called Royal Prorogative. Swearing the Oath of Alligence is merely a technicality. The power of the monarch has been diluted over the centuries, from Magna Carta to Bill of Rights and Coronation Oath Act under William and Mary and further up to today. Just symbolic now. So who would have the final call if we needed to use our nukes? |
|
baldrick
Joined: July 2024
Posts: 1,344
Member is Online
|
Post by baldrick on Oct 22, 2024 14:07:30 GMT
Not in practice. Parliament can declare war, for example, it's no longer under what's called Royal Prorogative. Swearing the Oath of Alligence is merely a technicality. The power of the monarch has been diluted over the centuries, from Magna Carta to Bill of Rights and Coronation Oath Act under William and Mary and further up to today. Just symbolic now. So who would have the final call if we needed to use our nukes? The PM or Deputy PM if the PM is incapacitated. The Captain of the at sea submarine has a "letter of last resort" written by the PM. It's the first thing any new PM does when entering office. |
|
Icegas
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 1,813
|
Post by Icegas on Oct 22, 2024 14:12:46 GMT
So who would have the final call if we needed to use our nukes? The PM or Deputy PM if the PM is incapacitated. The Captain of the at sea submarine has a "letter of last resort" written by the PM. It's the first thing any new PM does when entering office. I honestly never knew that, I was sure that the King would have been asked..? |
|
baldrick
Joined: July 2024
Posts: 1,344
Member is Online
|
Post by baldrick on Oct 22, 2024 14:15:40 GMT
The PM or Deputy PM if the PM is incapacitated. The Captain of the at sea submarine has a "letter of last resort" written by the PM. It's the first thing any new PM does when entering office. I honestly never knew that, I was sure that the King would have been asked..? None at all. There's also a myth the US would veto or somehow stop it, that's not true either and has been debunked many a time. |
|
Icegas
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 1,813
|
Post by Icegas on Oct 22, 2024 14:37:53 GMT
I honestly never knew that, I was sure that the King would have been asked..? None at all. There's also a myth the US would veto or somehow stop it, that's not true either and has been debunked many a time. I don't understand the US myth thing. How much power would they have over us in this situation? For example, say we had to react to an nuclear attack by say, Pakistan, who from my understanding has less nukes than us. I believe they have around 100-150, where as we have 360 plus. Say for some reason the UK had such a big disagreement with the states that we started attacking each other by nuking each other ( US and the USA that is) our 360 nukes would still wipe the USA of the face of the planet regardless or their 5/6k of nukes. Of course, we would also be gone, 100 times over compared to them.But why would they be included in us pushing the button if needed in our defence,even more so than the King? |
|
baldrick
Joined: July 2024
Posts: 1,344
Member is Online
|
Post by baldrick on Oct 22, 2024 14:46:37 GMT
None at all. There's also a myth the US would veto or somehow stop it, that's not true either and has been debunked many a time. I don't understand the US myth thing. How much power would they have over us in this situation? For example, say we had to react to an nuclear attack by say, Pakistan, who from my understanding has less nukes than us. I believe they have around 100-150, where as we have 360 plus. Say for some reason the UK had such a big disagreement with the states that we started attacking each other by nuking each other ( US and the USA that is) our 360 nukes would still wipe the USA of the face of the planet regardless or their 5/6k of nukes. Of course, we would also be gone, 100 times over compared to them.But why would they be included in us pushing the button if needed in our defence,even more so than the King? It stems from the CND or SNP end mostly, trying to discredit it for various reasons. The myth tends to be around guidance systems or the fact we share some elements so the US has some form of method to disable or destroy. In truth, it is totally independent and can be launched by the PM of the day or the captain of the boat via those letters I mentioned. If the boat loses contact after a certain period of time, the captain will open the letters with written instructions of what to do. Unopened letters are destroyed on change of PM and only Jim Callaghan iirc has ever said what was written. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Oct 22, 2024 15:07:44 GMT
I'm referring to the here and now, symbolic but the real power lies with the Canadian PM, just as here. Really, so why does the Prime minister have to be sworn in my the king or Queen? I'm sure certain powers have to be ok'd by the King and his ears also? Every country has a "Head of State", be it monarchy or Republican. Would you prefer a President Blair, or President May, or god forbid a President Starmer? |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Post by oldie on Oct 22, 2024 15:53:23 GMT
Really, so why does the Prime minister have to be sworn in my the king or Queen? I'm sure certain powers have to be ok'd by the King and his ears also? Every country has a "Head of State", be it monarchy or Republican. Would you prefer a President Blair, or President May, or god forbid a President Starmer? Any person democratically elected. So that excludes any heredity monarchy |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Oct 22, 2024 16:10:17 GMT
Every country has a "Head of State", be it monarchy or Republican. Would you prefer a President Blair, or President May, or god forbid a President Starmer? Any person democratically elected. So that excludes any heredity monarchy Lot's of countries have Presidents who are appointed and not democratically elected, Germany & Italy are two off the top of my head. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Post by oldie on Oct 22, 2024 16:13:44 GMT
Any person democratically elected. So that excludes any heredity monarchy Lot's of countries have Presidents who are appointed and not democratically elected, Germany & Italy are two off the top of my head. They may well do. I am saying it's wrong and anti democratic |
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 725
Member is Online
|
Post by aghast on Oct 22, 2024 20:40:35 GMT
Lot's of countries have Presidents who are appointed and not democratically elected, Germany & Italy are two off the top of my head. They may well do. I am saying it's wrong and anti democratic I don't necessarily have a problem with an appointment made on merit, but a hereditary leader is just ridiculous in 2024, even if their powers are curtailed to the point of opening village fetes. |
|
baldrick
Joined: July 2024
Posts: 1,344
Member is Online
|
Post by baldrick on Oct 22, 2024 21:07:23 GMT
They may well do. I am saying it's wrong and anti democratic I don't necessarily have a problem with an appointment made on merit, but a hereditary leader is just ridiculous in 2024, even if their powers are curtailed to the point of opening village fetes. Personally I'd rather have a Head of State with little power than one with genuine Executive Powers. If we change, I'd prefer a politically neutral post. We aren't unique in this setup, several other Constitutional Monarchies out there. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Post by oldie on Oct 22, 2024 21:30:45 GMT
I don't necessarily have a problem with an appointment made on merit, but a hereditary leader is just ridiculous in 2024, even if their powers are curtailed to the point of opening village fetes. Personally I'd rather have a Head of State with little power than one with genuine Executive Powers. If we change, I'd prefer a politically neutral post. We aren't unique in this setup, several other Constitutional Monarchies out there. How can it be "constitutional" when nobody has voted for and approved their role? |
|
baldrick
Joined: July 2024
Posts: 1,344
Member is Online
|
Post by baldrick on Oct 22, 2024 21:45:40 GMT
Personally I'd rather have a Head of State with little power than one with genuine Executive Powers. If we change, I'd prefer a politically neutral post. We aren't unique in this setup, several other Constitutional Monarchies out there. How can it be "constitutional" when nobody has voted for and approved their role? Parliament has, besides that's the accepted term. |
|
