So, the British Royal Family...

[Kooky]

I volunteer to become the next King of England.
Aside from my low birth, I'm pretty sure I have all the necessary qualifications to do the job.

 

[Kooky]

That's for the people to decide.

I thought the Queen had been ordained by God himself?

 

[Augustus]

Yet more shifting of goalposts. Why can you not debate this subject honestly?

Shifting the goalposts?

That is what we were discussing, the British democratic constitutional monarchy v a British democratic republic.

The preference for one over the other is subjective.

And you're intelligent enough to know that you are wrong. So why not admit it already?

The monarchy should be abolished and there is no good reason not to. You know this.

I'm intelligent enough to understand that this is quite obviously and undeniably a subjective issue.

I'm amazed you can't grasp such a simple fact.

 

[Augustus]

I thought the Queen had been ordained by God himself?

That's what the coins say, but coins aren't always right

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Shifting the goalposts?

That is what we were discussing, the British democratic constitutional monarchy v a British democratic republic.

The preference for one over the other is subjective.

No, what we are debating is whether or not the Royal family of the UK specifically should be abolished, and all the facts that support their abolition. It seems that whenever I make an argument you can't refute, you abstract and draw further and further away from the specific issue and try to make it about broader, abstract ones.

I'm not falling for it. It is dishonest goal post shifting.

I'm intelligent enough to understand that this is quite obviously and undeniably a subjective issue.

I'm amazed you can't grasp such a simple fact.

If you think the moral superiority of a democratic system over a monarchy is subective, you are immoral. There is also nothing subjective about the fact that the Royal family:
- serve no practical function in our government
- cost hundreds of millions of tax-payer funds whilst adding little, if any, demonstrable value
- are an outdated institution no longer serving anything more than a ceremonial purpose
- are racist and out of touch

 

[Augustus]

If you think the moral superiority of a democratic system over a monarchy is subective, you are immoral.

The British constitutional monarchy is a democracy and the monarch can be replaced by democratic means.

Blah blah, dishonest goalpost shifting, blah blah

That is what we were discussing, the British democratic constitutional monarchy v a British democratic republic.

No, what we are debating is whether or not the Royal family of the UK specifically should be abolished, and all the facts that support their abolition...
I'm not falling for it. It is dishonest goal post shifting

If you want to quibble the difference between those 2 points and insist it is "dishonest goalpost shifting", it will be an even more pointless discussion that trying to discuss an issue with a person who claims they are objectively correct on an issue that is undeniably subjective.

I'll leave you to it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Suppose Charles becomes King and turns into some kind of Trump on steroids, would there be anything, short of military coup or outright revolution, which could prevent him from doing so?

Edward VIII suggests some interesting "what if?" scenarios, too.

He was king in 1936 until he abdicated. Later, he proved to be a Nazi sympathizer and collaborator. What would have happened in WWII if he had decided to stay on the throne?

 

[Kooky]

The British constitutional monarchy is a democracy and the monarch can be replaced by democratic means.

EDIT: Are you talking about the Edward VIII treatment, or the Charles I treatment?
Both were democratically legitimized.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The British constitutional monarchy is a democracy and the monarch can be replaced by democratic means.

Since every Act of Parliament requires Royal Assent, and since any Act that affects the powers or interests of the monarch requires Queen's Consent, I'm interested to hear what democratic mechanism you think is available to replace a monarch that doesn't want to be replaced.

 

[Augustus]

EDIT: Are you talking about the Edward VIII treatment, or the Charles I treatment?
Both were democratically legitimized.

The 21st century democracy treatment: an act of Parliament to abolish the monarchy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The 21st century democracy treatment: an act of Parliament to abolish the monarchy.

... which would require Queen's Consent before it would come into force.

... edit: and even before it got to that point, it would need to be approved by the undemocratic House of Lords.

 

[Kooky]

The 21st century democracy treatment: an act of Parliament to abolish the monarchy.

My bad, I thought you were talking about replacing individual monarchs.

You know, for an elected official to be replaced, it does not necessitate an entire new law; a simple election often suffices.

 

[Augustus]

Since every Act of Parliament requires Royal Assent, and since any Act that affects the powers or interests of the monarch requires Queen's Consent, I'm interested to hear what democratic mechanism you think is available to replace a monarch that doesn't want to be replaced.

Any constitutional crisis would ultimately be resolved in favour of Parliament as is long established precedent in British law.

... edit: and even before it got to that point, it would need to be approved by the undemocratic House of Lords.

Which can be bypassed also

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Any constitutional crisis would ultimately be resolved in favour of Parliament as is long established precedent in British law.

Parliament couldn't get Buckingham Palace to comply with anti-racism legislation or force them to respond to FOI requests, but you think they could take her crown away if they wanted? Interesting.

Which can be bypassed also

How do you think that would work, exactly?

 

[Augustus]

Parliament couldn't get Buckingham Palace to comply with anti-racism legislation or force them to respond to FOI requests, but you think they could take her crown away if they wanted? Interesting.

Some bureaucrat asked for the same exemption as the diplomatic service use for security purposes regarding residency, which was granted.

It wasn't the Queen taking a stand against "political correctness gone mad" and coming out on top.

You think the Queen would sit in the Palace like Scarface with a pile of coke and an M16 refusing to comply with an Act of Parliament? (or maybe it would be like Home Alone with her maj laying traps to take out the dastardly parliamentarians come to turf her out onto the street).

How do you think that would work, exactly?

According to the laws in place that allow exactly that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to the laws in place that allow exactly that.

"The laws in place" give the monarch an effective veto over any legislation, should she choose to use it.

Edit: those laws also give the monarch the power to prorogue Parliament, so even if Parliament decided to suspend Queen's Consent, the monarch still has the power to stop any legislation she chooses before it even gets to a vote. That's the "nuclear option," but it's available.

There's no mechanism for a British monarch to be removed if they don't consent and haven't committed a heinous crime (e.g. converting to Catholicism).

 

[Stevicus]

Some bureaucrat asked for the same exemption as the diplomatic service use for security purposes regarding residency, which was granted.

It wasn't the Queen taking a stand against "political correctness gone mad" and coming out on top.

You think the Queen would sit in the Palace like Scarface with a pile of coke and an M16 refusing to comply with an Act of Parliament? (or maybe it would be like Home Alone with her maj laying traps to take out the dastardly parliamentarians come to turf her out onto the street).



According to the laws in place that allow exactly that.

Do the British military officers and other personnel take an oath to the monarch? If they have to take an oath to the monarch, then they might be stuck.

 

[Augustus]

"The laws in place" give the monarch an effective veto over any legislation, should she choose to use it.

Edit: those laws also give the monarch the power to prorogue Parliament, so even if Parliament decided to suspend Queen's Consent, the monarch still has the power to stop any legislation she chooses before it even gets to a vote. That's the "nuclear option," but it's available.

There's no mechanism for a British monarch to be removed if they don't consent and haven't committed a heinous crime (e.g. converting to Catholicism).

The law states these can only be used in the public interest, not in the monarch's.

It's a nice fantasy that the Queen could go rogue and start trying to rule the country herself, in reality she can't.

That there is no mechanism to remove her is part of the nature of the UK legal system, and the nature of the UK legal system makes it unnecessary because precedent means Parliament quite obviously wins any constitutional standoff.

 

[Augustus]

Do the British military officers and other personnel take an oath to the monarch? If they have to take an oath to the monarch, then they might be stuck.

I'd say there is more chance of a military coup in the US than UK (albeit a very low one)

 

[Kooky]

You think the Queen would sit in the Palace like Scarface with a pile of coke and an M16 refusing to comply with an Act of Parliament?

I mean, that pile of cocaine is already sitting there in all likelihood, given the common proclivities of one percenters everywhere.