New King this morning
- Bach5G
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: Apr 07, 2018
An interesting moment. Queen Elizabeth II passed away last night at age 96. The palace has announced that the King (Charles) and Queen Consort (Camilla) will return to London (from Balmoral) in a couple of days.
For my entire life, Elizabeth was Queen of Canada. As a young boy I attended Queen Elizabeth II elementary school. Last night we had a Queen and this morning we have a King, Charles III.
It’s both meaningful and meaningless. We don’t sing “God Save the etc” in Canada but the currency will all have to change. The monarchy is mostly symbolic in Canada but, technically, Charles through his representative the Governor General, is the head of state.
For my entire life, Elizabeth was Queen of Canada. As a young boy I attended Queen Elizabeth II elementary school. Last night we had a Queen and this morning we have a King, Charles III.
It’s both meaningful and meaningless. We don’t sing “God Save the etc” in Canada but the currency will all have to change. The monarchy is mostly symbolic in Canada but, technically, Charles through his representative the Governor General, is the head of state.
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
I'm kind of sad about this. The Queen Mother Elizabeth lived for over 100 years and I hoped her daughter would, too.
Charles is less esteemed than his mother and I expect him to have a rocky reign.
There had been talk of Charles abdicating in favor of his son William, but I guess that won't happen; at least for now. I am about 3 weeks older than Prince Charles and following his career has been particularly interesting.
I wonder how soon the currencies and postage stamps will take to change over.
Charles is less esteemed than his mother and I expect him to have a rocky reign.
There had been talk of Charles abdicating in favor of his son William, but I guess that won't happen; at least for now. I am about 3 weeks older than Prince Charles and following his career has been particularly interesting.
I wonder how soon the currencies and postage stamps will take to change over.
- Kbiggs
- Posts: 1768
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
I’m sad. This is the end of an era. She was a classy lady. Compared to the rest of the royal family she had few controversies, and those were largely related to her decisions, not her behaviour. She is already missed.
- robcat2075
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sep 03, 2018
I also thought she might make it to 100, but she had a long run.
I think Charles has rather tested the waters of what he may do in the public sphere by now and has concluded that less is better. I predict an unremarkable decade or two for him, tabloid coverage aside.
[quote="BGuttman"]I wonder how soon the currencies and postage stamps will take to change over.[/quote]
From what I read, a Charles portrait for new coins and currency isn't prepared in advance. It might be a year before Charles III Pounds and coins will be issued, to replace the existing Elizabeth II notes and coins as worn out ones are retired. Expect Elizabeth coins to continue in circulation for many years.
I think Charles has rather tested the waters of what he may do in the public sphere by now and has concluded that less is better. I predict an unremarkable decade or two for him, tabloid coverage aside.
[quote="BGuttman"]I wonder how soon the currencies and postage stamps will take to change over.[/quote]
From what I read, a Charles portrait for new coins and currency isn't prepared in advance. It might be a year before Charles III Pounds and coins will be issued, to replace the existing Elizabeth II notes and coins as worn out ones are retired. Expect Elizabeth coins to continue in circulation for many years.
- Jimkinkella
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
I saw the title and wondered: oooo, what’s a new 3b like these days?
Then I read the post….
Then I read the post….
- Doug_Elliott
- Posts: 4155
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
New model coming, the "Charles III B"
- DougHulme
- Posts: 558
- Joined: Apr 27, 2018
So long as he doesent make it a B+ we should be fine. I dont know if the media are ready for a + just yet!... Doug
- boneberg
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Dec 19, 2020
[quote="Jimkinkella"]I saw the title and wondered: oooo, what’s a new 3b like these days?
Then I read the post….[/quote]
My thoughts exactly!
Then I read the post….[/quote]
My thoughts exactly!
- Matt_K
- Posts: 4809
- Joined: Mar 21, 2018
This is one of those rare times I can say, “about the same as the last 70 years” and be correct in both contexts
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
It's the King Charles model. Large bore. Unfaithful. Sired 2 sons (heir and a spare), one of whom is no longer in England.
More like the Edward VII model: late to come to market. Not expected to last that long.
More like the Edward VII model: late to come to market. Not expected to last that long.
- DougHulme
- Posts: 558
- Joined: Apr 27, 2018
PS... Bruce - I'll bring a spare horn to The Tower for you to practice on during your long stay... Doug
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
FWIW, I've always been intrigued by the UK's royal system. What do they actually do?
- DougHulme
- Posts: 558
- Joined: Apr 27, 2018
They free the Prime Minister up to do what he or she should be doing i.e governing. They are on hand with a wealth of experience and advice for the PM that will be totally confidential. They gve a figure head that brings the country together, especially in times of adversity. They spend 5 or 6 days a week in endless meetings and civic occassions, shaking hands and showing a great interest in whats going on. They generate an income for the country that is greater than most of the biggest of companies. And a bunch of other stuff. Constitutionally they are a great assett. I am not a Royalist and I vote Social, I am not in favour of privilige but I was a student of Constitional Law and I can see the Royal family are very useful to this democracy we call the UK. Pragmatism in my mind at least... Doug
- Bach5G
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: Apr 07, 2018
I’ll add that, in Canada, there is no strong movement to replace the monarchy. Her representative, the Gov Gen, is replaced periodically, about every 5 years or so. The GG is appointed and the appointment is based on recommendations by the prime minister. The qualifications are to be a distinguished Canadian. My favourite was Michaelle Jean, a journalist from Montreal.
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
[quote="DougHulme"]PS... Bruce - I'll bring a spare horn to The Tower for you to practice on during your long stay... Doug[/quote]
Already got one, but thanks.
Already got one, but thanks.
- robcat2075
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sep 03, 2018
[quote="DougHulme"]They free the Prime Minister up to do what he or she should be doing i.e governing.[/quote]
As I see it, the separation works like this... If the PM gets tarred by scandal or failure it's easy to jettison him/her since they're not royal and have no supernatural claim to the job.
And if the royals get tarred with scandal or failure, it's easily swept aside since they don't run the place anyway.
As I see it, the separation works like this... If the PM gets tarred by scandal or failure it's easy to jettison him/her since they're not royal and have no supernatural claim to the job.
And if the royals get tarred with scandal or failure, it's easily swept aside since they don't run the place anyway.
- JohnL
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="DougHulme"]They spend 5 or 6 days a week in endless meetings and civic occassions, shaking hands and showing a great interest in whats going on.[/quote]
From what I can see, they each have their chosen causes; not just the glad-handing photo op stuff, but something they really believe in and/or care about and to which they dedicate significant time and effort.
From what I can see, they each have their chosen causes; not just the glad-handing photo op stuff, but something they really believe in and/or care about and to which they dedicate significant time and effort.
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
If I remember correctly, Charles is into environmental issues. I guess he will lend his voice to efforts at carbon dioxide remission and reforestation.
- robcat2075
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sep 03, 2018
Politico says there are...
[url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/09/55-things-you-need-to-know-about-king-charles-iii-00055898]55 Things You Need to Know About King Charles III
7. Charles is related to Vlad the Impaler, the inspiration for Dracula. The grandmother of Elizabeth was believed to be descended from two of Vlad’s sons.
- Doug_Elliott
- Posts: 4155
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
"descended from two of Vlad’s sons"
That would be interesting
That would be interesting
- SimmonsTrombone
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Jul 24, 2018
I have always been struck by Elizabeth’s radio address to the children in 1940 during the blitz. She was 14 and had resisted leaving London as so many wealthy children had done. I heard today that 90% of the people living today were born while she reigned.
- PhilE
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Apr 26, 2018
Labour governments in Australia have typically been pro-republic.
There was a referendum in 1999 on becoming a republic. It failed to gain sufficient support for change in part because the alternative form of government which would replace the vice regal head of state was not spelled out clearly. It appeared that the politicians pushing the republican movement weren't sure either.
I think the connection with the monarchy, has brought relative stability to politics in Australia. Hard to prove perhaps.
Sir Winston Churchill was the PM at the time of Elizabeth's coronation. He was sceptical that someone so young (she was about 25) could handle the job. After meeting her in the weekly consultations the PM has with the monarch, he is quoted as saying something along the lines of 'if all the film companies of the world scoured the whole world for a candidate for the role, they wouldn't have found someone more perfectly suited than Queen Elizabeth'.
There was a referendum in 1999 on becoming a republic. It failed to gain sufficient support for change in part because the alternative form of government which would replace the vice regal head of state was not spelled out clearly. It appeared that the politicians pushing the republican movement weren't sure either.
I think the connection with the monarchy, has brought relative stability to politics in Australia. Hard to prove perhaps.
Sir Winston Churchill was the PM at the time of Elizabeth's coronation. He was sceptical that someone so young (she was about 25) could handle the job. After meeting her in the weekly consultations the PM has with the monarch, he is quoted as saying something along the lines of 'if all the film companies of the world scoured the whole world for a candidate for the role, they wouldn't have found someone more perfectly suited than Queen Elizabeth'.
- robcat2075
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sep 03, 2018
Do you suppose they will re-use Walton's "Crown Imperial" for the coronation or commission something new?
Edit: I guess "Orb and Sceptre", also by Walton, was at E2's coronation.
Edit: I guess "Orb and Sceptre", also by Walton, was at E2's coronation.
- Vegasbound
- Posts: 1328
- Joined: Jul 06, 2019
[quote="robcat2075"]Do you suppose they will re-use Walton's "Crown Imperial" for the coronation or commission something new?
Edit: I guess "Orb and Sceptre", also by Walton, was at E2's coronation.[/quote]
Something will be commissioned for somewhere during the ceremony, but Zadok the priest will be used as it has been since written for King George I coronation in 1727.
Edit: I guess "Orb and Sceptre", also by Walton, was at E2's coronation.[/quote]
Something will be commissioned for somewhere during the ceremony, but Zadok the priest will be used as it has been since written for King George I coronation in 1727.
- DougHulme
- Posts: 558
- Joined: Apr 27, 2018
Whatever they do, it will have been planned for the last 10 years or so... Doug
- Bach5G
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: Apr 07, 2018
Television coverage now a little O-T-T.
We’re (Canada) getting a national holiday on Sept 19. A long weekend!
We’re (Canada) getting a national holiday on Sept 19. A long weekend!
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
It's now traditional to declare a Bank Holiday on the date of a Royal's funeral. Probably not dating back further than Victoria, though.
The original plan would have had the funeral on a Sunday, so no Bank Holiday. But it seems everything has been moved back a day so the funeral is on a Monday.
The original plan would have had the funeral on a Sunday, so no Bank Holiday. But it seems everything has been moved back a day so the funeral is on a Monday.
- VJOFan
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Apr 06, 2018
[quote="harrisonreed"]FWIW, I've always been intrigued by the UK's royal system. What do they actually do?[/quote]
When they do it as well as Elizabeth did, they, as close as humanly possible, provide a head of state that is apolitical, stable and represents the best of the values of the country at home and abroad. (Places like Canada employ stand ins to sign our laws.)
Legally, the crown has to agree to all laws (they don't really have the authority to reject laws, but a law doesn't exist until Royal Ascent is given) and the lawmakers have to swear loyalty to the crown (and heirs).
The advantage is that a country avoids discomfort that can come with an elected, politicized head of state representing it in the world.
Further the crown is not just the person, it is the concept of the entity where the power, justice and continuity of a country exists.
In the U.S. it seems the constitution (and maybe the flag) are worshiped as the fundamental nature of the country. For constitutional monarchies, the psychic centre is the personage and idea of the crown.
They have no practical power but at the same time act as a kind of insurance against a too willful legislative branch.
In writing this post I think I just became a monarchist....
When they do it as well as Elizabeth did, they, as close as humanly possible, provide a head of state that is apolitical, stable and represents the best of the values of the country at home and abroad. (Places like Canada employ stand ins to sign our laws.)
Legally, the crown has to agree to all laws (they don't really have the authority to reject laws, but a law doesn't exist until Royal Ascent is given) and the lawmakers have to swear loyalty to the crown (and heirs).
The advantage is that a country avoids discomfort that can come with an elected, politicized head of state representing it in the world.
Further the crown is not just the person, it is the concept of the entity where the power, justice and continuity of a country exists.
In the U.S. it seems the constitution (and maybe the flag) are worshiped as the fundamental nature of the country. For constitutional monarchies, the psychic centre is the personage and idea of the crown.
They have no practical power but at the same time act as a kind of insurance against a too willful legislative branch.
In writing this post I think I just became a monarchist....
- Bach5G
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: Apr 07, 2018
I’m not sure about whether I’m a monarchist. I was born in 1955 (I went to the Queen Elizabeth II elementary school as a boy.) so I’ve only experienced one monarch. Who knows how Charles III will turn out? He’s a little older than I am so I guess there’s some chance I’ll see King William eventually.
It’s all a bit silly. But a constitutional monarchy is better than the alternatives I think.
It’s all a bit silly. But a constitutional monarchy is better than the alternatives I think.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
[quote="VJOFan"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="188351" time="1662730203" user_id="3642">
FWIW, I've always been intrigued by the UK's royal system. What do they actually do?[/quote]
When they do it as well as Elizabeth did, they, as close as humanly possible, provide a head of state that is apolitical, stable and represents the best of the values of the country at home and abroad. (Places like Canada employ stand ins to sign our laws.)
Legally, the crown has to agree to all laws (they don't really have the authority to reject laws, but a law doesn't exist until Royal Ascent is given) and the lawmakers have to swear loyalty to the crown (and heirs).
The advantage is that a country avoids discomfort that can come with an elected, politicized head of state representing it in the world.
Further the crown is not just the person, it is the concept of the entity where the power, justice and continuity of a country exists.
In the U.S. it seems the constitution (and maybe the flag) are worshiped as the fundamental nature of the country. For constitutional monarchies, the psychic centre is the personage and idea of the crown.
They have no practical power but at the same time act as a kind of insurance against a too willful legislative branch.
In writing this post I think I just became a monarchist....
</QUOTE>
I don't know much about the UKs political system, as I've said, but if the monarch can't legally veto laws or instate / kick out cabinet members .... and the people elect the prime minister and parliament..... It doesn't sound that much different than the US system. The big difference being, of course, the actual people voting and the parties they vote for.
I would have thought the monarchy could at least veto laws or at least act as a tie breaker if no one has a majority.
The UK system sounds like exactly what Japan here has, and probably adopted from.
For the US, it's the Constitution, not the flag, that is the major symbol of the government. The armed forces swear fealty to a piece of paper. It's supposed to be more important than just about anything else, at least in theory.
FWIW, I've always been intrigued by the UK's royal system. What do they actually do?[/quote]
When they do it as well as Elizabeth did, they, as close as humanly possible, provide a head of state that is apolitical, stable and represents the best of the values of the country at home and abroad. (Places like Canada employ stand ins to sign our laws.)
Legally, the crown has to agree to all laws (they don't really have the authority to reject laws, but a law doesn't exist until Royal Ascent is given) and the lawmakers have to swear loyalty to the crown (and heirs).
The advantage is that a country avoids discomfort that can come with an elected, politicized head of state representing it in the world.
Further the crown is not just the person, it is the concept of the entity where the power, justice and continuity of a country exists.
In the U.S. it seems the constitution (and maybe the flag) are worshiped as the fundamental nature of the country. For constitutional monarchies, the psychic centre is the personage and idea of the crown.
They have no practical power but at the same time act as a kind of insurance against a too willful legislative branch.
In writing this post I think I just became a monarchist....
</QUOTE>
I don't know much about the UKs political system, as I've said, but if the monarch can't legally veto laws or instate / kick out cabinet members .... and the people elect the prime minister and parliament..... It doesn't sound that much different than the US system. The big difference being, of course, the actual people voting and the parties they vote for.
I would have thought the monarchy could at least veto laws or at least act as a tie breaker if no one has a majority.
The UK system sounds like exactly what Japan here has, and probably adopted from.
For the US, it's the Constitution, not the flag, that is the major symbol of the government. The armed forces swear fealty to a piece of paper. It's supposed to be more important than just about anything else, at least in theory.
- Vegasbound
- Posts: 1328
- Joined: Jul 06, 2019
Here in the UK the system is much more nuanced by historical events such as the civil war, we did not like being a republic so then the restoration and later the glorious revolution as it’s called that removed James II and brought William and Mary to the throne part of which required them to surrender much of the royal power and that is how we became a parliamentary monarchy.
It is a system that works with our unwritten constitution, based on historical precedents and compromise.
It is a system that works with our unwritten constitution, based on historical precedents and compromise.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
Looking into it, the Monarch has "royal prerogatives", many of which are just ceremonial ("we knight you, sir Elton John, for rendering our birthday honours with such flourish"), but some of which are quite serious.
First, the monarch can effectively veto laws by refusing to sign them, but hasn't done so since 1707. This is a huge power, but it's easy to see why they would not exercise it unless they were completely crazy, or every citizen was in the streets begging them to do so.
Second, the monarch can technically choose the prime minister, especially if there is a hung parliament. They can kick out cabinet members too, but this kind of action is just not something they do. Hung parliament is the only time they would make a judgement call to pick a prime minister, and they still have just gone with the larger party in these cases.
Third, the monarch has weekly meetings with the prime minister, which are non-public and not available for record. This would be an outstanding opportunity to strongly advise or warn, or hell, even bribe the actual leader into taking action. Though I doubt the monarchy would do this.
The monarch can technically declare war, but I think this type of rogue action would be the final nail in the coffin for the monarchy and the UK as a whole would reject it. This prerogative and many others have been completely delegated to the prime minister and parliament, and the monarch will just be the final ceremonial signature.
I like this kind of stuff. It's interesting. I imagine a UK where Trump was elected prime minister, and the monarch actually booting them in response to rioting and popular demand. Hero of the people.
First, the monarch can effectively veto laws by refusing to sign them, but hasn't done so since 1707. This is a huge power, but it's easy to see why they would not exercise it unless they were completely crazy, or every citizen was in the streets begging them to do so.
Second, the monarch can technically choose the prime minister, especially if there is a hung parliament. They can kick out cabinet members too, but this kind of action is just not something they do. Hung parliament is the only time they would make a judgement call to pick a prime minister, and they still have just gone with the larger party in these cases.
Third, the monarch has weekly meetings with the prime minister, which are non-public and not available for record. This would be an outstanding opportunity to strongly advise or warn, or hell, even bribe the actual leader into taking action. Though I doubt the monarchy would do this.
The monarch can technically declare war, but I think this type of rogue action would be the final nail in the coffin for the monarchy and the UK as a whole would reject it. This prerogative and many others have been completely delegated to the prime minister and parliament, and the monarch will just be the final ceremonial signature.
I like this kind of stuff. It's interesting. I imagine a UK where Trump was elected prime minister, and the monarch actually booting them in response to rioting and popular demand. Hero of the people.
- PhilE
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Apr 26, 2018
Jordan Peterson explains it nicely in this interview
<YOUTUBE id="_5os9bT9zuo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5os9bT9zuo</YOUTUBE>
<YOUTUBE id="_5os9bT9zuo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5os9bT9zuo</YOUTUBE>
- soseggnchips
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Jan 29, 2021
My understanding (although I'm not an expert, I just live here) is that the King is the head of state and, on paper at least, has extremely broad powers.
The King delegates the actual governing of the country to the government of the day. That's why the government is properly referred to as "His Majesty's government": it exists to perform a task on behalf of the King. It's also why public employees like military personnel and civil servants are called "Crown Servants", prisons are "His Majesty's Prison", warships are "His Majesty's Ship", etc.
This leads to strange edge cases. For example, taxes are collected on behalf of the Crown (our equivalent to the IRS is HMRC: "His Majesty's Revenue and Customs"). Because taxes are being collected for the Crown, the King is exempt from paying tax, as he'd essentially be paying himself (in practice, the Queen has voluntarily paid taxes for the last few decades). Similarly, driving licences are issued on behalf of the Crown, so the King doesn't actually need one in order to drive.
When an election takes place, the leader of the winning party goes to vist the King, and says "My party has won the biggest share of a popular vote, I therefore put myself forward as the best candidate for Prime Minister, and request permission to form a government on your behalf." By tradition, the King will accept this request. Incidentally, something similar to this process happens each summer when Parliament opens and closes for the season: the PM has to go to the King and ask for permission.
The same thing happens when Parliament passes a law. Once the two houses have agreed the final wording, they take it to the King for final approval ("Royal Assent"). Again, in practice he could refuse but by tradition, the King will accept the recommendation of Parliament.
My interpretation is that it's a circular set of checks and balances. The King has sweeping powers, but with the understanding that he'll never use them. Parliament has ultimate authority to pass any law it pleases, but requires the approval of the King to do it. The legitimacy of each relies on the other, and the whole system broadly works even if it's maybe best not to look too hard at the details.
(I've also heard it suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that one of the benefits of having a King is that it serves as a constant reminder to politicians that they are not a king!)
The King delegates the actual governing of the country to the government of the day. That's why the government is properly referred to as "His Majesty's government": it exists to perform a task on behalf of the King. It's also why public employees like military personnel and civil servants are called "Crown Servants", prisons are "His Majesty's Prison", warships are "His Majesty's Ship", etc.
This leads to strange edge cases. For example, taxes are collected on behalf of the Crown (our equivalent to the IRS is HMRC: "His Majesty's Revenue and Customs"). Because taxes are being collected for the Crown, the King is exempt from paying tax, as he'd essentially be paying himself (in practice, the Queen has voluntarily paid taxes for the last few decades). Similarly, driving licences are issued on behalf of the Crown, so the King doesn't actually need one in order to drive.
When an election takes place, the leader of the winning party goes to vist the King, and says "My party has won the biggest share of a popular vote, I therefore put myself forward as the best candidate for Prime Minister, and request permission to form a government on your behalf." By tradition, the King will accept this request. Incidentally, something similar to this process happens each summer when Parliament opens and closes for the season: the PM has to go to the King and ask for permission.
The same thing happens when Parliament passes a law. Once the two houses have agreed the final wording, they take it to the King for final approval ("Royal Assent"). Again, in practice he could refuse but by tradition, the King will accept the recommendation of Parliament.
My interpretation is that it's a circular set of checks and balances. The King has sweeping powers, but with the understanding that he'll never use them. Parliament has ultimate authority to pass any law it pleases, but requires the approval of the King to do it. The legitimacy of each relies on the other, and the whole system broadly works even if it's maybe best not to look too hard at the details.
(I've also heard it suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that one of the benefits of having a King is that it serves as a constant reminder to politicians that they are not a king!)
- robcat2075
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sep 03, 2018
Impressive Funeral ceremony today.
I could hope that all the attending third world strongmen, with painfully out-of-tune military bands at their own functions, have taken note of how this stuff is supposed to sound...
(4:01:55)
<YOUTUBE id="V_gy9DFtw5U" t="14515">[media]https://youtu.be/V_gy9DFtw5U?t=14515</YOUTUBE>
[quote="soseggnchips"]...This leads to strange edge cases. For example, taxes are collected on behalf of the Crown (our equivalent to the IRS is HMRC: "His Majesty's Revenue and Customs"). Because taxes are being collected for the Crown, the King is exempt from paying tax, as he'd essentially be paying himself (in practice, the Queen has voluntarily paid taxes for the last few decades).[/i])[/quote]
Of course. it didn't begin as strange. In very olden times, the monarch chose the national priorities himself and paid for the national priorities (mostly armies and navies) out of his own purse directly, and collected taxes and customs duties (and rents) to fill that purse.
In Britain, every time the Monarch has found himself in an awkward fix, the parliament or other body has jumped in to entice him to formally give up some powers or properites in return for remedying his predicament, leading to the current situation where the parliament has control of almost everything that is "the crown".
On paper, the monarch still has some prerogatives he could exercise against the will of the elected government, but when that has happened in other European countries in modern times the elected governments have quickly moved to rescind that vestige of power.
I recall one of the continental monarchs refused to sign a bill legalizing euthanasia... and that was the last time he got to refuse to sign a bill! I'm sure that would happen in Britain unless a bill were wildly unpopular, in which case the law would never have gotten far enough to be up for signing anyway.
I think the British monarch can still slow-walk things. Last time Boris Johnson wanted to call new elections it was contrary to a recently passed law to prevent such things. I recall reading that the Queen and Charles called in some lawyers first to ascertain if it was really legal. But after waiting a few extra days, Boris got his new elections.
I could hope that all the attending third world strongmen, with painfully out-of-tune military bands at their own functions, have taken note of how this stuff is supposed to sound...
(4:01:55)
<YOUTUBE id="V_gy9DFtw5U" t="14515">
[quote="soseggnchips"]...This leads to strange edge cases. For example, taxes are collected on behalf of the Crown (our equivalent to the IRS is HMRC: "His Majesty's Revenue and Customs"). Because taxes are being collected for the Crown, the King is exempt from paying tax, as he'd essentially be paying himself (in practice, the Queen has voluntarily paid taxes for the last few decades).[/i])[/quote]
Of course. it didn't begin as strange. In very olden times, the monarch chose the national priorities himself and paid for the national priorities (mostly armies and navies) out of his own purse directly, and collected taxes and customs duties (and rents) to fill that purse.
In Britain, every time the Monarch has found himself in an awkward fix, the parliament or other body has jumped in to entice him to formally give up some powers or properites in return for remedying his predicament, leading to the current situation where the parliament has control of almost everything that is "the crown".
On paper, the monarch still has some prerogatives he could exercise against the will of the elected government, but when that has happened in other European countries in modern times the elected governments have quickly moved to rescind that vestige of power.
I recall one of the continental monarchs refused to sign a bill legalizing euthanasia... and that was the last time he got to refuse to sign a bill! I'm sure that would happen in Britain unless a bill were wildly unpopular, in which case the law would never have gotten far enough to be up for signing anyway.
I think the British monarch can still slow-walk things. Last time Boris Johnson wanted to call new elections it was contrary to a recently passed law to prevent such things. I recall reading that the Queen and Charles called in some lawyers first to ascertain if it was really legal. But after waiting a few extra days, Boris got his new elections.
- robcat2075
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sep 03, 2018
Anyone know what the band is playing here?...
<YOUTUBE id="pKNXu5n70bs" t="2031">[media]https://youtu.be/pKNXu5n70bs?t=2031</YOUTUBE>
<YOUTUBE id="pKNXu5n70bs" t="2031">
- robcat2075
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sep 03, 2018
OK, I found it.
Mendelssohn, Songs Without Words Op.62 no.3 in e Minor
<YOUTUBE id="GsqyGJklR5I">[media]https://youtu.be/GsqyGJklR5I</YOUTUBE>
Mendelssohn, Songs Without Words Op.62 no.3 in e Minor
<YOUTUBE id="GsqyGJklR5I">
- robcat2075
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sep 03, 2018
Article with water colors by Charles...
[url]<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.artnews.com/gallery/art-new ... len-muick/">https://www.artnews.com/gallery/art-news/artists/six-watercolors-painted-by-king-charles-iii-1234640624/spittal-of-glen-muick/</LINK_TEXT>
He also studied and played the cello through his college years and played in his college orchestra.
[url]<LINK_TEXT text="https://www.classical-music.com/feature ... -symphony/">https://www.classical-music.com/features/articles/prince-charles-discusses-his-experience-of-playing-the-cello-rather-badly-in-beethovens-fifth-symphony/</LINK_TEXT>
He also studied and played the cello through his college years and played in his college orchestra.