Altfish
Veteran Member
Indeed, the only ones I have any time for are Harry and Meghan and they've sacked the job
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
British Subjects: A Reminder
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
I don't have time for any of them.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Actually this a rather funny piece of re-heated non-news, by the Grauniad. The latest edition of Private Eye (No 1541) explains all. Some key points:
1) this procedure, of asking for the consent of the monarch (and Prince of Wales) whenever a bill may affect their affairs, is a centuries-old convention.
2) By convention, they never withhold consent in such cases, just as by convention the monarch never withholds the Royal Assent from any bill due to be passed into law. It's just done for information and as a gesture of respect to the monarch.
3) This procedure not in the least secretive. It is announced in the House of Lords, on every occasion the provision is exercised in relation to a bill be enacted, and reported in Hansard.
4) The Guardian suffers from amnesia, as well as constitutional ignorance. It ran articles supposedly "exposing" this (perfectly open and ancient) practice as long ago as 2011 and then again in 2013 (having forgotten in the meantime, apparently).
So it's codswallop, served up to fill empty pages and to try to stimulate the indignation glands of the leftie readership on a dull news day.
Last edited:
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Damn. And it worked!Actually this a rather funny piece of re-heated non-news, by the Grauniad. The latest edition of Private Eye (No 1541) explains all. Some key points:
1) this procedure, of asking for the consent of the monarch (and Prince of Wales) whenever a bill may affect their affairs, is a centuries-old convention.
2) By convention, they never withhold consent in such cases, just as by convention the monarch never withholds the Royal Assent from any bill due to be passed into law. It's just done for information and as a gesture of respect to the monarch.
3) This procedure not in the least secretive. It is announced in the House of Lords, on every occasion the provision is exercised in relation to a bill be enacted, and reported in Hansard.
4) The Guardian suffers from amnesia, as well as constitutional ignorance. It ran articles supposedly "exposing" this (perfectly open and ancient) practice as long ago as 2011 and then again in 2013 (having forgotten in the meantime, apparently).
So it's codswallop, served up to fill empty pages and to try to stimulate the indignation glands of the leftie readership on a dull news day.
My dislike of monarchies doesn't extend to bumping off any or gloating so as to fulfil some hoped for state, so I hope Prince Philip gets well.
Prince Philip, 99, in hospital 'as a precaution' - BBC News
Prince Philip, 99, in hospital 'as a precaution' - BBC News
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
My dislike of monarchies doesn't extend to bumping off any or gloating so as to fulfil some hoped for state, so I hope Prince Philip gets well.
Prince Philip, 99, in hospital 'as a precaution' - BBC News
It would be shame for him not to get his century.
Altfish
Veteran Member
But funny
exchemist
Veteran Member
Where does water come into this?
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
It doesn't!Where does water come into this?
exchemist
Veteran Member
What do you mean by an "aquatic ceremony", then?
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
exchemist
Veteran Member
Aha, thanks. I'm not a Holy Grail aficionado, I'm afraid - though I know the original Flying Circus sketches reasonably well.
If Britain became a republic (as we have in 1946) they would have a President of the Republic who would act as a monarch. With no effective power.
Actually I miss the monarchy.
This would be our king if we still had it.
Actually I miss the monarchy.
This would be our king if we still had it.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Indeed. There are plenty of monarchies left in Europe (UK, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway) and frankly I don't see that a modern, ceremonial-type monarchy is substantively different from a republic with a ceremonial president. Of course where the president has executive power, e.g. France, that's a different story.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Splitter.Aha, thanks. I'm not a Holy Grail aficionado, I'm afraid - though I know the original Flying Circus sketches reasonably well.
A few thoughts:
- the McCarthy era wasn't exactly a high point for the US, "morally speaking."
- even at the height of McCarthyism, you didn't have poltical dissidents fleeing armed mobs that would have killed them if they stayed in the country.
There's a reason there's a lot of stuff called "Loyalist ______" just north of the US border.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I don't know, I enjoy having the illusion of choice in who represents me in front of international arms dealers and corrupt dictators.
Well, even outside of the McCarthy era, it was basically the same thing through the Reagan era and even on up to the present day. But you don't hear much about communists these days. Nowadays, the big bugaboo is socialists and socialism.
Well, it was after the Revolutionary War. Lot of bad blood, anger.
I can just imagine.