The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 07-09-2007, 02:55 PM
Avalon's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,907
Upon becoming the Party Leader, Brown did announce that he would limit the Royal Powers, in paricular he mentioned removing the Power to declare war.
However in the changes to constitution he proposed, there was no word of it, if anything, he was limiting the PM's role (as explained by Beatrixfan).

I'm not sure about the future changes though, if Brown is elected in the next elections, he might go ahead with some power-limiting stuff, even though he is alleged to be on good terms with Prince Charles.
__________________

__________________
Queen Elizabeth: "I cannot lead you into battle, I do not give you laws or administer justice but I can do something else, I can give you my heart and my devotion to these old islands and to all the peoples of our brotherhood of nations." God, Save The Queen!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-09-2007, 03:16 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Indeed, the new constitution will change who the monarch's powers are devolved to but they'll still be the monarch's to excercise. As to the Honours System, depending on the report and investigation into the Cash for Honours scandal I think we'll see big changes there under Mr Brown.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-16-2007, 05:50 AM
HRH Kimetha's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Arlington, United States
Posts: 778
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Indeed, the new constitution will change who the monarch's powers are devolved to but they'll still be the monarch's to excercise. As to the Honours System, depending on the report and investigation into the Cash for Honours scandal I think we'll see big changes there under Mr Brown.
As I am not a British citizen and upon reading someone's post indicating the closeness between Brown & PC, how does the present PM see the monarchy. Has Brown indicated any motion of granting at least "personal opinions" of say, Prince Charles regarding conservation, environmental policy to name a few. What exactly is his relationship to the BF besides the ruling party PM? (not meaning blood relationships).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-16-2007, 05:55 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Well, Gordon Brown has never spoken out against the Queen but as a socialist one would assume he was anti-monarchy. That hasn't come across but he does seem to be keen on reforming the monarchy. On the other hand, he did date Princess Margarita of Romania which would suggest that it isn't something he minds. He's got a good relationship with Prince Charles working wise and I believe he was one of the ministers who said he was pleased to recieve notes from Prince Charles but generally, this is a typical GB issue - we don't really know what he thinks. We just have to make educated guesses.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-16-2007, 01:45 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canandaigua, United States
Posts: 21
This is a very interesting topic. I don't have much to add except a few questions. I was always fearful that Blair would work at limiting the monarchy even further. Can anyone assess how Blair's term as PM affected the role of the monarchy if at all? As far as Brown goes. His call for Constitutional reform might not necessarily be a bad thing. A written constitution where the powers of Parliament (Commons and Lords) and the monarchy are defined could be beneficial as long as the monarchy retains it's current role.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-16-2007, 01:56 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,403
Procedures and powers regarding the disolving of Parliament and dismissing/appointing of ministers should be meticulously put down, with no possible loophole for anyone wanting to repeat the Sir John Kerr episode in Australia. That was just nutters! This kind of "I'll sack you before you sack me!" business, is crazy!
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-16-2007, 04:21 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,213
Is there actually going to be a codified constitution? The only plans I've seen are for several more acts to be added to the disparate collection that make up the constitution.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-16-2007, 05:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterey, United States
Posts: 2,325
Ive Heard Codified if he looses his next election what Party is most Monarchist Also Royally What Did Tony Blair do good and bad for the Monarchy also What about Gordon Brown after almost a month in office Also I Was away On the 27th and really didnt find to much when I Got home about the Handover any articles you can direct me to
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-16-2007, 07:31 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,403
Well, written constitution implies (as I can see it) something more than just a succession of Acts. I hope it is a formal constitution because, even though Britain is fine after all this time without it, it's always a positive thing to have a written formal constitution. The only problem with the present system of a sucession of acts is that acts can be overturned. You can amend a written constitution, but only after a pain-in-the-you-know-where process through the courts; it's good because it keeps the politicians from getting too trigger happy on things and they have to think twice (very hard for some of them) before acting. Politicians and legislators come and go; constitutions (real ones, or good ones) stay.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-17-2007, 02:34 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio View Post
with no possible loophole for anyone wanting to repeat the Sir John Kerr episode in Australia. That was just nutters! This kind of "I'll sack you before you sack me!" business, is crazy!
That is a very loose interpretation of the events. It should be made expressly clear that the Governor-General consulted the senior constitutional interpreter and official constitutional expert (the Chief Justice of the Hight Court of Australia), before acting. Constitutionally, Sir John Kerr was obliged to act as he did.

I apologise for digressing, however Kerr-bashing, thirty-two years after the event, when we have been able to assemble and analyse the facts, is less-than-complimentary of the accuser.
__________________
Thy choicest gifts in store, on her be pleased to pour, long may she reign. May she defend our laws, and ever give us cause, to sing with heart and voice, GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-12-2007, 07:30 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Hoo-boy. I already thought that the monarchs powers were limited. Now they want to limit them even more??
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-12-2007, 09:41 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russophile View Post
Hoo-boy. I already thought that the monarchs powers were limited. Now they want to limit them even more??
In this day, they're really just trying to limit the powers of the Government more than anything. Far more people worry about some ministers going crazy than the Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-27-2008, 09:07 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: none, United Kingdom
Posts: 1
Hi folks, my first post.

With regard to the Royal Prerogative, I'm of the opinion that, as no British monarch has rocked the boat during the past 300 years, whatever pressure is put on them to conform to a government's wishes, nullifies any of the powers that they apparently have.

I would say that, over this "quiet" period of three centuries, the various Royal Families have been conditioned not to go against the grain, and therefore would never excercise their rights.

Does anyone agree with this?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-23-2008, 08:42 AM
KingCharles's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 31
I don't see how the powers of a monarch can be 'limited' as all power is vested in the monarch themselves. I think the legal jargon is contradictory as the Queen is the law. The law is uphelp in her name, the Queen cannot be tried or sent to jail for any crime because she is above the law, so how can her powers be revoked or restricted if in fact she is the be-and-end-all in this country?
I think if you were to think about it yourselves you could understand my point of view.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-23-2008, 02:37 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,213
An Act of Parliament can restrict or even remove any of the powers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-23-2008, 05:45 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
In theory, yes. But the fun thing is that HM must signify assent for parliament to even debate a law that will remove or modify her existing powers. She most recently did so when a private members' bill attempted to give Parliament in the UK the ability to declare war on Iraq without her permission. As this would have removed part of her prerogative (the right to declare war), she said "Naff off, you lot" (I may be paraphrasing), and they couldn't even debate the bill.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-23-2008, 10:26 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,213
That part is done solely on the advice of the government, though. Tony Blair didn't want Parliament getting involved in what he saw as his advice to the monarch, so he told them to naff off through the Queen. That's actually quite common. Private members introduce bills like that (and other bills that require the royal consent before debate, like money bills) all the time, and one of the reasons they never go forward is because the government doesn't like them, so they don't get the Queen to give her sayso.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-24-2008, 01:39 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Yes, but she does have the power herself to refuse assent for debate. It seems pretty clear that if she were to refuse assent for a bill it would provoke a constitutional crisis--the last monarch who did so was Queen Anne. But refusing assent for debate.. I dunno.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-24-2008, 03:08 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,213
She doesn't have any independent power (that she can exercise in reality, at least) to refuse consent for debate that she doesn't have to refuse assent to bills. It's the same deal. Not doing as her ministers advise (at least on a bill of any substance) would cause the same constitutional crisis in either case.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-27-2008, 02:37 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denver, United States
Posts: 2
Would it be possible and/or feasible that the Queen would not give her assent to the new treaty that would in essence form an EC that is one government thus preserving British independence? I was thinking of the Queen Anne and when she refused to give assent for what, I believe, would be similar to the current bill/treaty.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ancient laws, british government, british monarchy, constitutional monarchy, elizabeth ii, eugenie, parliament, power, queen elizabeth ii, royal prerogative, royalty


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander norway palace picture thread pom pregnancy prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim prince laurent princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess annette princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess marilene princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sheikh state visit wedding willem-alexander william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:29 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]