The thread is about reasons people have to want to get rid of the monarchy. Royal family members doing terrible stuff surely is on-topic, otherwise it will be a very, let's say, theoretical thread.
Not really.
Andrew isn't the monarch or likely to become monarch. Awful person that he is, hes still irrelevant.
The Queen, Charles, William probably all believe in their role (having been brought up to believe its their right and duty since birth).
It doesn't matter. Belonging to a particular family that long ago seized control of these islands by force is no qualification for rulership or position.
No, Americans cannot have any titles. Their constitution says so for some silly reason. A senator is a job description, not a true title. Nothing to write home about.They can become senator - or buy one or more. Also, isn't there some honorary title given by the potus?
The monarch giving someone a title for (say) scientific excellence, clearly presents how the title-giver isn't tied to the actual order the title is a distinction in.
A president is still a mere commoner.They can become president though.
Imagine thinking that these are materially-beneficial things that actually help the state of the country. Good news for everyone suffering record energy bills! Somebody you don't know but saw on TV is getting an OBE!Because Britons who achieve great things can be knighted or receive a peerage. Americans who achieve great things cannot attain any kind of meaningful distinction. Americans cannot become Baron, Duke, Earl, not even Sir.
Government memo reveals Queen's secret influence on Scottish lawsshe didn't change the British laws or anything
Well, so long as people either try to pretend it doesn't happen, or try to make excuses for it . . .You do keep bringing this old point up.
Well yeah, and that is called power.You do keep bringing this old point up.
Thing is all sorts of lobbying goes on regarding draft laws from all
sorts of organisations and people and we often never know the details.
One can well argue that as head of state and as laws are made in her name
(so she was ultimately responsible for them) she had a much better right to be
consulted, and even a duty to discretely comment on them, than anyone else.
I certainly think that political donations should be under scrutiny, and the money buying power should be addressed. However that is a different thing from the legal right to to examine legislation before even MP's get to see it, and to "suggest" changes.I mean, we expect the monarch to have some sort of influence in the highest circles. When can we start extending this scrutiny to Tory party donors?
What constitution is this?constitutional monarchy
Because Britons who achieve great things can be knighted or receive a peerage. Americans who achieve great things cannot attain any kind of meaningful distinction. Americans cannot become Baron, Duke, Earl, not even Sir.
BoJo was a USian-born PM.They can become president though.
Anyone can attain an OBE, though, it gives young Britons something to aspire to. What can young Americans aspire to? To eat McDonalds all day and play with guns while riding in a pickup truck?Imagine thinking that these are materially-beneficial things that actually help the state of the country. Good news for everyone suffering record energy bills! Somebody you don't know but saw on TV is getting an OBE!
She has some influence over laws that directly effect her property and such. She doesn't have final say over major laws, she can't set tax policy, immigration policy, COVID policy, etc...She's no more influential over laws than big donors are in non-monarchy countries.Government memo reveals Queen's secret influence on Scottish laws
A SCOTTISH Government memo has revealed that “it is almost certain” proposed laws have secretly been changed to secure approval from the Queen.Through a constitutional mechanism called “Queen’s Consent”, the monarch is given an opportunity to look over prospective laws that could affect her property and public powers.Representatives for the Queen had previously refused to say how many times the process had been used to request alterations to legislation. Buckingham Palace has said that Queen does not use Crown Consent, which is what it is called in Scotland, to change the nature of bills.However, a memo obtained by The Guardian has revealed the first explicit admission that Crown Consent can be used to alter legislation to assuage concerns of the Queen.The memo also confirmed that the monarch’s lawyers can discuss the substance of bills with the Scottish Government and admits “it is almost certain some bills were changed before introduction to address concerns about crown consent”.This means that MSPs in Holyrood would not have any knowledge of bills being amended through this procedure.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.
BoJo's parents were British, thus, he was born a British citizen (in addition to a US citizen). He wasn't an immigrant in any meaningful way. If you want a country where an actual immigrant became PM, look no further than South Africa - Dr. Verwoerd was born in the Netherlands, and had no ancestral ties to South Africa.What constitution is this?
BoJo was a USian-born PM.
Personally, I think the Equality Act is objectionable. The government shouldn't be able to mandate segregation/discrimination, but if individuals wish to discriminate, they should be allowed to. And that includes political figures, if they don't want to hire staff/assistants who are a member of whatever group, they shouldn't have to, but they shouldn't be able to introduce laws that say "only XYZ group can go to public beaches". I believe the Americans call it "the right to the freedom of association" or something like that.Well, I don't have a specific issue with the sovereign's consent - the wording of bills gets kicked around an awful lot, often for entirely cynical reasons, but I do object to their interests being excluded from legislation, such as the Equality Act reportedly not applying to the Queen's household. That's clearly objectionable in a modern country.