Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Excerpt from The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy:


In an informal, but recorded chat with President Reagan aboard the royal yacht Britannia off the coast of Florida in 1991, Queen Elizabeth II said something intriguing. Responding to Reagan’s expressed desire to cut costs and scale back government, Her Majesty replied, “Well, you see, all the democracies are bankrupt now”.

That was a surprisingly opinionated socio-economic commentary for an old lady some would have us believe is out of touch with the modern world. And starting a sentence with “Well, you see” when addressing the 40th President of the United States of America seems patronizing as, indeed, does her tone throughout the entire filmed discussion. At least to our ears it does.

Immediately after informing Reagan that “all the democracies are bankrupt now,” Her Majesty added, “because of the way the services are being planned for people to grab”.

In the footage, Reagan can be seen nodding enthusiastically. No doubt he’d found a like mind in the Queen as he was notorious for keeping a tight reign on America’s purse strings during his time in office, especially with respect to social services.

Reagan’s political stance during his two terms in office had been mirrored on the other side of the Atlantic, in Britain, where British PM Margaret Thatcher drastically slashed public services and welfare for the poor.

It’s not too much of an assumption to believe the Queen’s opinions on the dangers of providing people with welfare services stems from Britain’s ugly class system. A system which for centuries dictated that the elite – including and especially the Royals – were entitled to almost everything and the commoners and the poor were left with scraps.

Judging by her comments, the Queen did not – and perhaps to this day does not – understand that welfare keeps millions afloat. It was, and is, the compassionate lifeline that civilized societies provide to assist those in genuine need. Yes, abuse of social welfare is rife, but the politics known as Thatcherism and Reaganism were not called brutal without reason.

Such comments about the lower classes by the Queen are not a one-off when it comes to the Windsors. In fact, they have sadly been echoed numerous times by the likes of the Queen’s husband Prince Philip and their son and first in line to the throne, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales.

Here's a link to part of the filmed conversation between Ronald Reagan and The Queen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLIJT...

Dallas Celebrity in the Glamorous 1980s Era of Ronald and Nancy Reagan: When Dallas Leaders Hosted Queen Elizabeth, Elizabeth Taylor, and Hundreds of Superstars and Royalty

Brexit: The strings of democracy being pulled by royalty https://independentaustralia.net/poli...

I'm not sure on which side the Independent hangs, Lance, but from that excerpt it would appear to be blatantly republican at least. Whilst there is anger and controversy about Johnson's move to try to stop Remainers preventing the democratic result of a referendum, noone (other than Aussie republicans) in any way suggested that the Queen was helping him in his endeavours by signing off on progrogation of parliament. She had no choice. If a PM requests a legitimate order of procedure she has to agree otherwise she would definately be obstructing the office of the executive - which really would be the crown interfering with parliamentary procedure. Legally, there was nothing wrong with the request for prorogation. The fact that it was for an unduly long period is neither here nor there. The facts are that there is a titanic struggle going on; Remainers against the democratic will of the people. They all have their individual agendas just to muddle the arguments but that basically is what is happening. Parliament want to stop Brexit and the executive want to honour the result of the referendum.

P.K. wrote: "I'm not sure on which side the Independent hangs, Lance, but from that excerpt it would appear to be blatantly republican at least. Whilst there is anger and controversy about Johnson's move to try..."

What interesting times we live in. The coming days will be interesting!

P.K. wrote: "noone (other than Aussie republicans) in any way suggested that the Queen was helping him in his endeavours by signing off on progrogation of parliament. She had no choice...."

Some of those statements are debatable in my opinion, P.K.

For example, you say the Queen "had NO choice". But I think she actually does have a choice (to defy the parliament and usurp democracy), unfortunately. Sure it last happened in the 20th Century, but a British monarch refused to follow the advice of their government in 1936, right? When King Edward VIII married American Wallace Simpson. Sure that didn't end well for the Royals to go against parliament...but doesn't that perhaps prove the point that the Windsors involvement in Britain in general represents something VERY different to say the US version of democracy?

Further afield, the Queen also dismissed ruling Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam (via her official Australian representative the Governor-General) in 1979 as well.

So why can't the ruling British monarch in future repeat that 1936 event, or the 1979 event, and defy British parliament (and therefore the voting public) and override the will of the common people/voters?

The Queen SHOULD have no choice when ordered by a British PM as you state, but it appears she still does have a choice. Furthermore, she could even go as far as removing a British PM (see end of this post for quotes re that legislation). So what happens in future if you get a nutter on the throne? Maybe Charles is eccentric and less stable, for all we know, or maybe William will go insane, who knows. Remember that the Queen is the least politically assuming of any sovereign before her. She's always politically neutral, right? But I don't think we should confuse her almost apolitical or at least bipartisan approach with the actual powers or negative potential of the monarch. Granted, they have very few powers compared to medieval times, but the main question for money, is: Do the Windsors' remaining powers (and subtle but yet consistent influence beyond official powers) clash with British democracy as a whole?

Furthermore, you say nobody at all apart from obscure Australian Republican online magazines are implying or even remotely suggesting the Queen was helping Boris in his endeavours by signing off on progrogation of parliament. Not sure that's completely true either, (although granted the majority of the press are not suggesting she did anything untoward).

For example, this article here does indicate it's not a black and white issue and the Queen may have responsibilties to the British people: "Queen backs Johnson's ploy to run down the clock on Brexit resistance" https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/q...

And this article in the Guardian before the Queen was called in by Boris implies she could have powers or influence beyond official democracy:

Democracy is overrated – let the Queen sort out Brexit https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...

Perhaps more importantly tho, various UK politicians (both Labour and Tory ones) have also explicitly stated or else strongly implied that the Queen's consultation on Brexit has exposed a weakness in the British political system...i.e. that the Monarch is still too involved, even with its diminishing powers.

Here's one such comment from a British politician:

“We can’t run a country like this, we need a written constitution,” said Conservative MP Rory Stewart. “We’re only able to survive with an unwritten constitution because people behave, but as people push the limits more and more we need to clarify this stuff.”

And another:

Labour MP and former frontbencher Kate Osamo said “The. Queen. Did. Not. Save. Us,” And added: “The queen should look at what happened to her cousin Tino ex-King of Greece when you enable a right-wing coup! Monarchy abolished!”

Another British MP, Clive Lewis, also made statements criticizing that the Queen needed to be consulted AT ALL. “We have a political constitution that is barely fit for the 19th century, let alone the 20th or 21st,” Lewis said. “It’s high time, once the dust has settled on Brexit, that this country really begins to understand that a democratic constitutional convention is necessary to work out what structure we are going to have for the United Kingdom. I’m not sure what the appetite is for a republic but I think that should be on the agenda as something we should discuss,” said Lewis.

And human rights barrister and constitutional law expert Adam Wagner stated: “On one hand, you could have a written constitution that puts the monarch as a purely titular head of state that does not even have the formal power that she has now. Or you write exactly what powers the monarch has into the constitution. You could also have a president, and the queen could be a figurehead rather than have any political role at all.”

Another (scary) point is it was only 8 ago that the Queen/monarch had the power to dissolve British parliament:

"The Queen previously wielded the power to dissolve Parliament and call a general election, but the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act put an end to that in 2011."

And in this article headed "What power does the Queen have?" https://www.theweek.co.uk/royal-famil... it asks "Can the monarch dismiss the prime minister? Crucially for Brexit, the Queen retains the power to dismiss a sitting PM and appoint a new one. Robert Hazell, professor of government and constitution at UCL, told The Guardian: “The Queen could dismiss Boris Johnson if he lost a vote of no confidence and refused to resign."


So it seems to me the monarch's powers and influence need to be further curtailed...and that the Windsors are still an obstacle to Brits getting the the sort of democratic freedom Americans have or others in republics enjoy. Sure, there haven't been too many hiccups under the Queen, but there's no guarantees those who sit in the throne after she's gone will be so politically neutral.

James, you want the "sort of democratic freedom Americans have"? Where one guy can effectively start a war?

I also do not agree with some of the MPs who are bitching because the Queen did not stamp down and give them what THEY wanted. The majority vote to hand in the leave notice was huge - the fact that so many have continued to do what they can to sabotage it is not democracy at all. Especially from the Labour party, where their voters gave the "leave" option in the referendum the big tick. How can you claim to be undemocratic when you do not do what your voters want.

In the UK the monarch has very little power. The government is effectively a Republic. The one of the few times they tried democracy - the referendum - the MPs are doing their best to reject it. If you have a constitution, should you not say a REFERENDUM IS FINAL?

I agree with most of what you say Ian and being staunchly apolitical I wouldn't ever support anything politicians say. But the points about the Monarch's underrated powers that those politicians made, are true in this instance.

Are their powers much compared to their medieval-era powers? No, not at all. But my point was their remaining powers could not exist in any state governed by something like the US Constitution.

We foreigners can laugh all we like at America, and she is stumbling a lot since WW2 for sure, BUT a constitution with statements like "Of the people, for the people and by the people" is still yet to be replicated in any other nation on Earth as far as I can tell. And the key point is that constitution was set up in opposition of older nations that had things like royals interfering...

James, my complaint is not about the American constitution, but rather the fact that as time passes it gets out of hand, and politicians seem to find all sorts of ways to use it as a club to belt in various regulations. The constitution was brilliant at its time, but the founding fathers could hardly envisage a Trump coming. Similarly, by casting it in stone, we have the options relating to the ability to have unlimited supplies of automatic weapons, and I am sure that was not the intention of the founding fathers. I suspect that any system will work reasonably as long as all the participants work to make it work for the benefit of the people. Up until this latest farce, the UK did rather well, I thought. maybe constitution would have avoided it because then they could never have gone into the EU in the first place because the UK would have to remain sovereign.

Ian wrote: "James, my complaint is not about the American constitution, but rather the fact that as time passes it gets out of hand, and politicians seem to find all sorts of ways to use it as a club to belt i..."

Three small points:

1.) The Framers did worry about the possibility of a would be dictator coming to power. That is why they pitted the branches against each other. We can still read much of their debates from the Constitutional Convention in The Federalist Papers and their letters and diaries.

2.) The Constitution was not set in stone. It was written with the expectation that it would have to be modified. That is why Article V lays out the paths to amending the Constitution. So far it has been amended twenty-seven (27) times.

3.) Contrary to what the media would have us believe, the US is not swimming in machine guns. Automatic firearms fall under the National Firearms Act. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulat... Legally owning one is an expensive and time consuming act, which requires an FBI background check. Semi-automatic firearms are readily available, but they are not the "spray and pray" machines that some would have you believe.

You have given a lot of false-flag information there, James. You are wrong about the abdication of 1936; The King was advised by the governemnt and, most emphatically, by the Archbishop of Canterbury that the public would not accept a marriage to a divorced woman. Nick Miller, (Sunday Morning Herald); I can't see that he made any point about the constitutional status of the UK. He just reported from overseas a review of what was happening. Rory Stewart; one of the runners in the Conservative leadership contest; Impressive intellect but rabid Remainer in Brexit context. What he said was what many of us have been saying, but wanting to avert similar scenarios in future does not a republican make; there is a good case to be made to try to put our constitution onto paper and many people keep making it. But how does one precis eight hundred years of parliamentary history? Clive Lewis; a long-time republican activist. When he gets up to speak most people either walk or yawn. I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make with these excerpts but they do nothing for me.
The point I think you are trying to make is that the Queen did have a choice about signing the proroguation paper. She didn't. She found no unlawful reason why the government should not prorogue to present a new session of parliament. The fact that the period was longer than usual is neither here nor there and, as your quote from Jacob Rees-Mogg (Leader of the House) demonstrates, it was treated as a customary request - although I'm not sure his diminutive style was totally accurate as to the conversation.
As to the finite detail of the use of powers of the monarchy, that is a subtle balance enacted over time since Parliament took control of it from the crown in the seventeenth century. We fought a civil war to sort that out and after six years of the most frightful bloodletting between family members and after an enforced period under Cromwell our 'Lord Protector' (our republican experiment), the monarch was invited back with defined and diminished powers. It is always possible that we might get a monarch as awful as some of our MP's (or everyone else's Presidents) but I think we have enough precedent to deal with that eventuality. The monarch is mostly a ceremonial Head of State - with one exception; she, or he is the supreme judicial appeal of the land ( and still of some of the Commonwealth, as demonstrated by Gough Whitlam's expulsion when he refused to obey his parliamentary judiciary). That is something the US constitution does not have; an independent judge of injustices, untrammelled by influence and incorruptible. I think many in the US envy us that.

Ian wrote: "James, my complaint is not about the American constitution, but rather the fact that as time passes it gets out of hand, and politicians seem to find all sorts of ways to use it as a club to belt i..."

You make good points as usual, Ian. As I tried with James, above, the difference between the two countries is not the fact that we have a monarchy but the way in which it works with all the other articles of democracy that we developed here and others have copied in various ways. There is also the difference that we have a parliament with real powers that only reside in a President over there. The other point you make about the gun-laws is that they exist only because of a written constitution, written at a different time for different reasons other than that every Tom, Dick and Harry can keep an armoury at home to kill anyone he feels like killing. There is probably no perfect system that is fair to all, life is not that as we know, and we can only find what works best for us. On the surface the UK Parliament seems to many of us and certainly to outsiders, in a state of madness and incompetence. But what is happening is a live demonstration of democracy working. You are right to say that Parliament has vetoed a democratic vote of the people by taking the issue away from the executive, but what many of those MP's passionately believe is that the result of that vote in its simplistic form would damage the country economically and bring terrorism again to Ireland. I know they all have their agendas, the most relevant being that most of those who voted on many occasions to defeat the government do not want us to exit the EU. But the detail of the arguments cannot be ignored by any neutral observer. The mechanics of separation are, so far, insurmountable other than crashing out and sorting the chaos afterwards. What we are witnessing is the problem of a minority government v a hostile parliament and only an election might, only might, sort that out. But what it demonstrates is the unattractiveness of a hung parliament. It will all come out with the wash eventually.

J., some minor responses. I am aware that the constitution has been amended, so yes, "set in stone" was not strictly accurate, but it is really difficult to amend.

The defence against a dictator coming to power was a genuine advance, but one can also see there are now flaws, as there are in any system, when players do their best to use it to get around what its spirit included. The same is occurring now in the UK. My argument is basically that the UK happens to have a problem right now, but it is not a commonly occurring type of problem, and in this case it is because half the population (approximately) disagree with the other half and there is no easy resolution

As for guns in the US, I have seen film clips of people going to a range and firing 50 cal machine guns. It may not be common, but that is not a weapon that civilians can possibly use. And of course, we have lots of shooting incidents. And yes, the US is not alone in this and it has a far bigger population, but I still feel the relevant amendment does prevent certain gun control. When it is even difficult to stop people with clear mental disability from buying AR 15s with big magazines, something is not as good as it might be,

Ian,

I agree that the US Constitution is difficult to amend. The three quarters majority requirement is a high hurdle that guarantees that an amendment is ratified without the danger of a split electorate. There is a lesson there. How much Brexit BS would have been negated if that referendum had required a similar super majority to pass?

For guns it is important to remember that US legal and personal philosophy is largely governed by the Castle Doctrine.

Most Americans agree that keeping guns out of the hands of the violently mentally ill is wise. The problem is due process. In the US, the legal system and the mental health system have a weird relationship in which you can be consigned to the mental health system by due process, but once you are in, it is entirely up to the MDs whether you get out again. Once you are declared "not sane" there is no legal recourse for you to regain your rights by proving your sanity in the court of law that said you were nuts. We all know people who have gone through a bad spell, but got help and worked through it. Is it right for them to lose their rights permanently for it?

J.,

I agree that gun legislation is not an easy issue because it raises a lot of other issues. I also agree the government just rushing in and "doing something" is bad. You may be aware we had a mass shooting in Christchurch mosques recently, and the government immediately jumped in to bring in gun legislation. The problem here was the fast action was as much for political benefit as anything else, and there are a number of minority groups who are really annoyed. There is one group of people who compete in international shooting events and found that a [iece of the badly thought out legislation bans (accidentally) what they need to practice and compete. Meanwhile the Prime Minister basked in a huge rise in the polls.

As for a supermajority for Brexit, there is the issue of how the UK got into this position. It first joined the Common Market simply as a trading bloc, and that went well, and if it had stopped there none of this would have happened. However, the bloc expanded, both in the number of countries (fine) and in regulatory control, and I believe it is the regulatory expansion that hs led to Brexit. Essentially, som of the Euiropeqans are heading towards a United States of Europe, but the European parliament seems to be only moderately effective, and a lot of power resides in an unelected Commission. Since there was no real election to join such a Union, maybe a simple majority is OK?

J. wrote: "Ian,

I agree that the US Constitution is difficult to amend. The three quarters majority requirement is a high hurdle that guarantees that an amendment is ratified without the danger of a split el..."
Once the guns are out there, J, it is very tricky to wheel them in, but not impossible. We had our own shooting in Scotland a few years ago and, like Ian was saying about NZ, we immediately passed legislation even tightening up on sporting gun groups and not allowing them to keep guns at home. We haven't had any such incident since and I doubt if NZ will. Most of it is about public perception of gun use; it is part of US culture and that is very difficult to overcome - but not impossible. Education works generationally, like changing racist attitudes. Medical certification is a waste of time; any forensic psychiatrist could tell you that motivation is seldom recogniseable. How many ex-cons released into society re-offend in serious sexual or violent ways having been declared fit to do so?
In retrospect I agree that a 2/3rd majority would have been a good idea for the Brexit referendum but, as Ian says, a majority is a majority and our party system has relied on the first past the post system for three hundred years - and it hasn't done much harm.

P.K.,

The difference between the British and American mindsets is the reason that we have been separate nations for over two centuries. In fact, that seperation took a big step into being when a loyal servant of the crown suggested removing guns from American homes, hence the Castle Doctrine.

Re: Brexit

Aside from how well this mess has fed my schadenfreude, I have little to no skin in this one. So as far as I'm concerned, it's the Brit's nation, they can do what they like. That said, this mess has only become the two PM destroying tsunami of shit that it is, because of the split electorate. The Brexit win was a statistical coin flip, so both sides of this parade o' political pussy-footing are about equally right. If it had been a true majority, the MPs would be bound to get to it, but as it stands about half of the people will support them either way. Perhaps the UK will get lucky, and the EU will deny the next extension, ending this charade. As for the rest of us, the lesson is, "if it will possibly save or destroy your nation, then make sure that everyone agrees."

P.K. wrote: "You are wrong about the abdication of 1936; The King was advised by the governemnt and, most emphatically, by the Archbishop of Canterbury that the public would not accept a marriage to a divorced woman...."

"And the last time a British monarch refused to follow the advice of their government was in 1936 when King Edward VIII wanted to marry American socialite Wallace Simpson, said Robert Hazell, a professor of government and the constitution at University College London. Edward was forced to abdicate after holding the throne for just 12 months."

A royal mess: How Brexit has tarnished the crown https://www.politico.eu/article/a-roy...

That Politico article's statement above was my point exactly. Operative words are: "refused to follow the advice of their government".

And further to the article above, and further responding/correcting PK's statement earlier in this thread when he said the Queen "had NO choice" re PM Johnson's recent request (and also never has any choice to defy the parliament and usurp democracy), and further to earlier examples I've listed of the Monarch's powers beyond parliament (i.e. 1936 in the UK with King Edward and also in 1979 in Australia when the Queen removed the sitting Australian Prime Minister) here is a list of examples, powers and potential that still exists with the Monarch according to Wikipedia (none of which could ever exist under the US Constitution):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve... Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom
In the UK, the monarch has numerous theoretical personal prerogatives, but beyond the appointment of a prime minister, there are in practice few circumstances in modern British government where these prerogatives could be justifiably exercised; they have rarely been exercised in the last century.

In October 2003 the Government made public the following prerogatives but it said at the time that a comprehensive catalogue of prerogative powers could not be supplied:[20]

To refuse to dissolve Parliament when requested by the prime minister. This was last reputedly considered in 1910, but George V later changed his mind. Harold Wilson, leading a minority government in 1974, was advised Elizabeth II might refuse to dissolve Parliament if she could identify an alternative prime minister able to command a cross-party majority.[21] See Lascelles Principles.

To appoint a prime minister of her [his] own choosing. This was last done in Britain in 1963 when Elizabeth II appointed Sir Alec Douglas-Home as prime minister, on the advice of outgoing Harold Macmillan.

To dismiss a prime minister and his or her government on the monarch's own authority. This was last done in Britain in 1834 by King William IV.

To summon and prorogue Parliament

To command the armed forces

To dismiss and appoint ministers

To commission officers in the armed forces

To appoint Queen's Counsel

To issue and withdraw passports

To create corporations via royal charter

To appoint bishops and archbishops of the Church of England

To grant honours

To grant the prerogative of mercy

To delay a bill's assent through the use of his or her reserve powers in near-revolutionary situations, thereby vetoing the bill[22]

To refuse the royal assent of a parliamentary bill on the advice of ministers,[23] last exercised by Queen Anne when she withheld royal assent from the Scottish Militia Bill 1708

To declare war and peace

To deploy the armed forces overseas

To ratify and make treaties

To refuse the "Queen's [King's] Consent", where direct monarchical assent is required for a bill affecting, directly or by implication, the prerogative, hereditary revenues—including ultimus haeres, treasure trove, and bona vacantia—or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament.

In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II, acting on the advice of the government, refused to signify her consent to the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which sought to transfer from the monarch to Parliament the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq.

These powers could be exercised in an emergency such as a constitutional crisis (such as surrounded the People's Budget of 1909) or in wartime. They would also be very relevant in the event of a hung parliament.

For example, in the hung parliament in 1974, the serving Prime Minister, Edward Heath, attempted to remain in power but was unable to form a working majority. The Queen then asked Harold Wilson, leader of the Labour Party, which had the largest number of seats in the Commons but not an overall majority, to attempt to form a government. Subsequently, Wilson asked that if the government were defeated on the floor of the House of Commons, the Queen would grant a dissolution, which she agreed to.[24]

------------------

Again, just because the Queen has generally stayed out of politics should not be confused with the Monarch's potential to interfere in future when she is replaced.

J. wrote: "The difference between the British and American mindsets is the reason that we have been separate nations for over two centuries...."

"A government of the people, by the people, for the people,” is in my view one of the most noble statement's ever put in text. And of course, that was set down partly because of the memory of the crimes of Royalty in the Old World (in the UK and Europe) for many centuries before America was formed... For "the people" cannot include "also for Royalty"...

The division in this charade, as far as I can see from this distance, includes those who have significant interests in Europe and those who are mainly focused on working near home. To some extent, those with money favour staying because they make more; those who work near home they see their livelihood taken by immigrants who work for lower wages and make the richer ones even richer. Worse, the mess was caused by Cameron who called the referendum for no better reason than to shut up some right-wing politicians. He called it believing there was no chance of losing. Good call, David.

Ian wrote: "The division in this charade, as far as I can see from this distance, includes those who have significant interests in Europe and those who are mainly focused on working near home. To some extent, ..."

You're commenting on Brexit, it appears?
Others, like myself, are commenting on royalty given this is a thread about the Queen/Monarch and her/its underreported powers, influence, position...

I have no skin in Brexit and don't care what's the outcome. But I do think it's obvious if the people voted to leave, then the British parliament should act upon that.

But in my opinion, Brexit is a trivial matter and just a surface detail compared to things like elitists pulling strings, royal influence, banksters, etc that have existed for many centuries -- and all of whom repeatedly usurp democracy in creative ways. In my opinion, the political charade underneath that power structure often just has the illusion of democracy to placate the masses.

My personal view is the royals currently do a good job - thy trudge around filling in a lot of ceremonial roles that would otherwise waste a lot of politicians' time and should leave them to do something more useful. Unfortunately, the politicians don't.

The one institution that seems missing from your criticism, James, is the Lords. Now the Royals, as I say, can break bottles on ships, and do all that sort of thing, but the Lords do have a privileged position in government. My personal view is a second house is desirable, but not one based on that.

Ian wrote: "My personal view is the royals currently do a good job - thy trudge around filling in a lot of ceremonial roles that would otherwise waste a lot of politicians' time and should leave them to do som..."

Perhaps Dame Helen Mirren should have the last word on this. After all, she did play The Queen...

"I still loathe the British class system, and in many ways—in all ways, the royal family are the apex of the British class system, and it's a system that I absolutely hate."

Ian wrote: "The one institution that seems missing from your criticism, James, is the Lords. Now the Royals, as I say, can break bottles on ships, and do all that sort of thing, but the Lords do have a privileged position in government. My personal view is a second house is desirable, but not one based on that...."

They are on the Undergound's hit list too, Ian!
I'm factoring in the Lords as further examples of the sorts of unelected elitists the US Constitution looked to eradicate when forming America.

I agree with you Ian, that in recent decades the Royals have not done too much damage. But I think that's because the Queen has restrained herself, so it's a misleading picture -- hell, as recently as 2011 she still had the power to to dissolve Parliament and call a general election ALL BY HERSELF. I think the Queen is more focused on soft power, invisible asset accumulation etc, she's very knowledgeable about the true nature of the City of London (separate to London) and those little known financial nuances.

However, the next person on the throne could decide to be much more interfering in British politics and not respect the UK's rather eccentric version of democracy which is full of loop-holes for elitists. I think there's been more than enough examples in this discussion thread alone of legal powers the Monarch still has that could be utilized by some nutcase on the throne in future. Just one case of that is in special circumstances, like wartime I seem to recall, the Monarch's powers increase...

Since there is no constitution, it is somewhat unclear what the Monarch's power is. Admittedly, I favour having them because they are on the other side of the world and do nothing. The alternative would be a President here, which would probably end up as some sort of appointed ex politician (because we have no constitution either). I used to think we needed a constitution, but when the issue came up I changed my mind when I saw all the ex-politicians and lawyers lining up to write it - undoubtedly in favour of their pet favourites. The great thing about the US Constitution is that it was put together by genuinely great people who were thinking only of the Republic, and not of themselves. I would not expect that to occur here, now. The problem with a constitution is the people who write it should get no personal benefit from it, and must be thinking of the greater good, and have far more wisdom than I have seen in many recent politicians.

Good point Ian. Designing a constitution in this era could be a very dirty affair!

J. wrote: "P.K.,

The difference between the British and American mindsets is the reason that we have been separate nations for over two centuries. In fact, that seperation took a big step into being when a l..."

Yes J, and in retrospect I think the loyal servant might have been clairvoyant. I'm not sure what the situation is now but until a few years ago all Swiss men of National Service age had to keep a carbine at home, but I don't recall anyone there being murdered with one.

James wrote: "And further to the article above, and further responding/correcting PK's statement earlier in this thread when he said the Queen "had NO choice" re PM Johnson's recent request (and also never has a..."

Well, James, all very interesting but none of that has any bearing on what has happened now. Nor does it deny what I said about HM having no choice but to sign off on the prorogation as it had been recommended by her government. Nor does it disagree with anything I have here said. On the contrary, the point you made in a previous tab was that the abdication of 1936 was somehow the monarch interfering in government, it was exactly the opposite; it demonstrated that the monarch had to obey the advice of the government - or get to the hell somewhere else. It was a momentary crisis that had not been exercised previously and was the first challenge by a monarch to parliament since 1662.
Your preference for the American Presidential system was well picked-up by Ian; a president is no different from a monarchical system. Even where a parliamentary system runs in tandem the President (all of them) still has the ability to cause severe havoc without any curtailment. That is not possible here. You think that a future monarch might do what Charles 1 tried; to dismiss parliament or to defy parliament. Parliament has just demonstrated its power by forcing a PM to obey its bidding and signed into law a bill that he opposed. If the PM had had a majority in the House that would not have happened, so majoritive democracy is still intact and healthy.
I am pleased by all this outside interest in our old-fashioned ways but they have done us well for four hundred years and I don't have any reason to doubt that they will do the same for a further four hundred years.
You may be interested in the Breaking News; the High Appeal Court of Scotland has just ruled that the prorogation was illegal on the grounds that it was granted by the Queen being misled as to its purpose. So parliament, that quit yesterday, can reopen for more mahem. There is a further legal challenge to the prorogation by a private individual supported by ex-PM John Major (who signed up to the Maastricht Treaty that took us deep into EU). That is to be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday. It will be interesting if the Supreme Court disagrees with the High Court of Scotland. It would add more grist to the mill of the Scotish Nationalists; we have to put down another Monmouth rebellion.

Added to what P.K. said, in our news today a similar case was sent to an equivalent court in England, and it dismissed the case on the grounds that the courts were to enforce the law, and not become involved in political behaviour. That is also being appealed in the Supreme Court so we have two opposite appeals to two court positions. Lucky Supreme Court!

To try to cut thru all this analysis on whether the Monarch actually does technically/legally have an option to refuse a British parliamentary request (that was my simple point all along), I'm reposting this Politico article (written by a UK-based political reporter who is directly quoting a British professor who was consulted) for P.K.'s benefit, except this time I've CAPPED the operative words the journalist/professor stated as a precedent example in regards to whether the Queen technically had any option to refuse PM Boris Johnson (and note this 1936 royal episode has been worded in similar fashion by various other mainstream news media outlets as well as history professors, so either their combined analysis of this historical event is wrong or P.K. is right):

"And the last time a British monarch REFUSED to FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF THEIR GOVERNMENT was in 1936 when King Edward VIII wanted to marry American socialite Wallace Simpson, said Robert Hazell, a professor of government and the constitution at University College London." https://www.politico.eu/article/a-roy...

Where our resident Monarchist P.K. is differing, as far as I can tell, is he's focusing on what happened next with parliament successfully fighting back against King Edward's refusal (that's correct and would have been impossible in medieval times and it also supports the fact there is now British democracy or democracy within a Monarchy at least). However, the point is that there was then and still remains an option for a Monarch to refuse any parliamentary order and effectively block demands -- i.e. it's not a law that the Monarch has to do anything. In fact, I think (from memory) you'll find the Monarch can never be prosecuted or face trial in the British legal system anyway...

If we cannot agree on that 1936 event, then let's just agree to disagree and move on to more recent history before we bore readers of this thread...

According to Wikipedia, in 1999, the Queen also "refused to signify her consent to the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which sought to transfer from the monarch to Parliament the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq." -- However, I believe that was on the advice of some parliamentary members (so it may not have been a total refusal against the entire parliament), but it does further indicate the Monarch does have options to refuse an entire government's request in future (again, that was the only point I was trying to make).

Wikipedia also says the Queen/Monarch has the power to "refuse to dissolve Parliament" and that that "was last reputedly considered in 1910, but George V later changed his mind. Harold Wilson, leading a minority government in 1974, was advised Elizabeth II might REFUSE to dissolve Parliament if she could identify an alternative prime minister able to command a cross-party majority.[21]."

And that the Monarch can also "delay a bill's assent through the use of his or her reserve powers in near-revolutionary situations, thereby vetoing the bill[22]"

And none of that is to even mention that the Monarch can "appoint a prime minister of her [his] own choosing" (as the Queen herself did in 1963 when selecting Sir Alec Douglas-Home as PM) or that the Monarch can "dismiss a prime minister and his or her government on the monarch's own authority"...

And you wonder why America's Founding Fathers wrote statements into their Constitution like "A government of the people, by the people, for the people”!!!!

At the risk of boring our readers, as you suggest, James, I have to niggle away at your points. You seem to be coming from the argument that the monarch has powers beyond her ministers. Unfortunately none of the excerpts you cite say this. In 1936 the monarch refused to take the advice of her ministers but did not overrule them as you suggest. If Edward had refused to abdicate and went ahead with marrying a divorcee then that would have been defying her government and would have been a very serious constitutional crisis. But that didn't happen. He did take the advice of his government and the only alternative then was to go.
The 1999 case about the Iraq war was technically interesting. The monarch is, as is the US president, head of the armed forces. Blair cleverly overcame labelling her with declaring war by giving her the option of declining and transferring her part of the shared powers over to Parliament so that Parliament only was responsible for going to war. In view of the fact that two million people demonstrated against the war by marching in London proved that Blair realised that not involving the monarch was a clever thing to do.
The 1974 incident might have happened if Harold Wilson had not been able to form a consensus. That is because the constitution is that the monarch gives assent to whoever has a majority to form a government. It is in his/her power to judge whether someone has the support in Parliament to form a government. If it ever happened that that support was not forthcoming the monarch would advise her ministers that they would have to go back to the country and try again. That happened in the seventies when
Callaghan could not sustain a majority and another election was declared and Ted Heath was returned. The Douglas-Home incident was because the outgoing Harold MacMillan's conservatives could not decide on a successor and he advised the Queen to appoint Alec Douglas-Hume - he didn't last long.
So what this demonstrates is that our unwritten constitution is a set of balances between the people, represented by Parliament, the Law and the monarch. It is, like law, influenced by precedent over many years and experiences.
The one statement I don't understand is your final one that the monarch can dismiss a prime ministand and his or her government on royal authority. I can think of no precedent for that. The last time a monarch tried to do that was in 1638 when Charles 1 marched into parliament to dismiss the Speaker and take away the mace only to find that neither were there. We then had a civil war to sort that out.
Finally, I'm sorry you define my arguments as to my being a monarchist. I am merely arguing the details and trying to explain the subtleties of our system of government. I do understand that foreigners find them baffling.

Ian wrote: "Added to what P.K. said, in our news today a similar case was sent to an equivalent court in England, and it dismissed the case on the grounds that the courts were to enforce the law, and not becom..."

Yes, Ian you are right. It is a fine kettle of fish. The legal system in Scotland is a little different from that of England and Wales and,as I hinted at, it could well bring those differences to a head. The appeal judges in Scotland ruled that Johnson misled the Queen when he asked for a prorogation. Personally, I don't know how they could do that without knowing what was said to the Queen and if they did not know that they were making assumptions - which is not a good way of legal argument. In August the High Court in England ruled that the prorogation was not illegal on the grounds that it was a political decision and the law had no rights to overturn a political decision. Whereas, the Scottish judges think they did have such a right and that might be so in Scottish precedent as their system was alligned very much with French law from their association with that country. So the Supreme Court will have to decide who is right and I cannot think that they will differ from the ruling made in the High Court of England. But it will awaken difficulties and differences between our two countries and will very much feed into the Scottish Nationalist Party's agenda.

One question, if I may. Other than us uncouth Americans sending a strongly worded letter, which we backed up with powder and shot, has anyone, since Cromwell, told the monarchy NO?

My guess is the SNP brought that charge to the Scottish court with the view of enhancing the chances of leaving the UK rather than seeking "true justice". Theirs would be a political agenda, and the chances are the Scottish judges realised that too. The mess just gets deeper.

P.K. wrote: "Finally, I'm sorry you define my arguments as to my being a monarchist. I am merely arguing the details and trying to explain the subtleties of our system of government. I do understand that foreigners find them baffling...."

Foreigner yes, but not unfamiliar with the UK's political system. Former London resident here and Waterstones Bookseller...
Unfortunately my store on the Old Brompton Road in South Kensington (the original Waterstones) is now closed due to all the radical changes in book publishing in recent years.

J. wrote: "One question, if I may. Other than us uncouth Americans sending a strongly worded letter, which we backed up with powder and shot, has anyone, since Cromwell, told the monarchy NO?"

hahaha!

J. wrote: "One question, if I may. Other than us uncouth Americans sending a strongly worded letter, which we backed up with powder and shot, has anyone, since Cromwell, told the monarchy NO?"

I can't think of anyone doing that, J, but I think the Duke of Edinburgh might have done so once or twice.

James wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Finally, I'm sorry you define my arguments as to my being a monarchist. I am merely arguing the details and trying to explain the subtleties of our system of government. I do understan..."

I know you are almost one of us, James. May the days of Antipodean Earls Court soon return after Brexit. I think the first Waterstones was in Kensington High St. I used to have a coffee with the founder there quite often.

Cool P.K., but I tried to stay away from Earl's Court, felt like being Down Under!

Tim Waterstone, the founder, set up the first branch on Old Brompton Road, South Kensington (I had a colleague who helped Tim set up that store). I think that nearby one you refer to in Kensington High Street was the 2nd or 3rd one perhaps.

Waterstones are the best bookstores I've ever been in, in terms of franchise stores anyway.

James wrote: "Cool P.K., but I tried to stay away from Earl's Court, felt like being Down Under!

Tim Waterstone, the founder, set up the first branch on Old Brompton Road, South Kensington (I had a colleague wh..."

You are probably right, James. I think your memory is younger than mine. But Tim seemed to be in the Ken branch whenever I went in there. He got very friendly with friends of mine who lived around the corner and came to an Art For Youth charity for us a few times. Waterstones changed the dynamic a bit but there was always ( and still is I expect) Foyles in Tottenhame Crt Rd - four floors of it. Since then of course, Waterstones has changed hands at least twice and they are still closing the few stores left. I don't know what its like where you are but here bookstores are getting a bit rare, although we have one in our little Somerset country town.

Yeah, it's a bit sad how bookstores have almost become a thing of the past.

The news from the UK this morning is that its Supreme Court ruled that Johnson's prorogation of Parliament for an excessive period was unlawful. Parliament will now go back to work tomorrow morning. The precedent the Court found was from 1611 which ruled the courts had the right to defend and uphold the rights of Parliament to assemble in order to hold a government to account.
In NY Boris Johnson said his government would abide by the ruling but that he 'strongly disagreed with it'. A PM saying he strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court should be a case of treason, I would think.

I strongly disagree that disagreeing with a court decision is treason, particularly as Johnson said that while he thought it was wrong, he would respect the decision. I also think it was wrong to assert that Johnson was trying to avoid being held to account. The place to hold politicians to account is an election, and Johnson has twice offered one. There is also no evidence whatsoever that Parliament will resume work for the betterment of the country - instead the holders of all the hidden agendas will be working flat out to destabilize progress. I see Amber Rudd has railed against Johnson for having prevented Parliament from passing a deal. First, under May, they managed to vote out just about every plausible possibility that any of them could raise and no new [proposals have been made, as far as I know. Second, any deal has to have EU approval. The UK is only half of a deal. The one thing it does is make it that much more difficult for Johnson to get a deal.

What should he do? I can't think of any rod to any reasonable outcome. He could have a vote of confidence, in which case the Tory rebels then have to decide whether to support Corbyn. If Corbyn were to go to Europe, he would have to get off the fence, and recall so many of his MPs have electorates that want to leave. A Corbyn government, held together by rebel Tories, would be something of a farce. And if Corbyn took requested the leave notice to be cancelled, I rather fancy there would be real trouble downstream.

Anyway, time to resupply my stock of beer and popcorn. This farce has miles to go yet. Unfortunately for the Brits, though.

To my way of thinking, disagreeing with a court ruling is your right. You can talk all that you want, but you have to comply.

If Boris fails to comply with the ruling, I imagine that he would be at risk of a no confidence vote. So it seems likely that he will do the minimum necessary to comply with the courts and parliament, in hopes that the EU will give him the hard Brexit he wants, out of exasperation.

As for Corbyn, if he ends up dealing with the EU, he has no leverage either way. He can't win until after it all goes to Hell.

Queen crisis: What the Supreme Court ruling means for Queen - is the Queen above the law? https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/...
THE SUPREME Court has ruled Boris Johnson’s five-week prorogation of Parliament - which was approved by the Queen - was unlawful. But what does Supreme Court ruling mean for the monarchy? Is the Queen above the law?

On Tuesday the Supreme Court announced its decision on Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament, declaring it to be unlawful. Delivering the decision, Supreme Court president Lady Hale said: “The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices.” She added it was up to “Parliament, and in particular, the speaker and the (House of) Lords speaker, to decide what to do next.”

But what does this mean for the Queen?
After the Scottish Court ruled Mr Johnson’s prorogation was unlawful, SNP MP Joanna Cherry said the ruling was a “victory for the rule of law and democracy”.

Ms Cherry was one of the MPs to bring the case against Mr Johnson's prorogation to the Scottish Courts.

She added the ruling was in keeping with the Scottish constitution, which says “the government nor indeed the monarch are above the law”.

A statement on the official British Monarchy Website, explains: “Although civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.”

The Queen is at the centre of the justice system in the United Kingdom, as all authority for justice is carried out on her behalf.

Judges carry the title of QC, which stands for ‘Queen’s Counsel’.

Cases are brought to the court by Crown Prosecutors and are tried as The Crown versus (or R versus, where R stands for Regina, Queen in Latin).

Her Majesty no longer plays an active role in the administration of justice but is still in a position legally where she could if she so chose.

People detained are often described as being held at “Her Majesty’s pleasure”

This is a legal term of art referring to the indeterminate or undetermined length of service of certain appointed officials or the indeterminate sentences of some prisoners.

Prisons are also referred to as HMP or Her Majesty’s Prisons.

Buckingham Palace has not yet commented on the ruling.

The Queen is still at Balmoral in the Scottish Highlands, where she is spending her annual summer break.

Republic, which campaigns for an elected head of state, argued that the Queen was "given an instruction to do an unlawful thing, and she did it".

Graham Smith, a spokesman for the group, said: "If parliament had been prorogued by an elected head of state, on the advice of the prime minister, that head of state would now have to resign.

"The Queen was given an instruction to do an unlawful thing, and she did it.

"We're always told she has the benefit of decades of experience and yet she couldn't see what was obvious to everyone else, that the PM's motives were not honest.

"It cannot be the case that a head of state is constitutionally bound to do an unconstitutional thing. And 'I was doing what I was told' is no defence."

He added: "The Queen has abdicated all responsibility for her actions and that is not a sustainable position.

"We need a democratic alternative to the monarchy, a written constitution and an accountable and effective head of state."

Full article: https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/...

James, the Republicans would say that, wouldn't they? As would the Scots, to stick it to the English. However, in my opinion, the Court was wrong to consider THAT proroguing wrong because it stated that progroguing in itself was lawful, but this example was not, but it did not explain why. In short if it were setting a precedent, it did not define what qualified for the precedent. It said that Boris had mislead the Queen, but there is no evidence of that at all. It stated it prevented the politicians from going about their work, but that happens in any prorogue and it ducked away from saying all others were also unlawful. Finally, to say something is unlawful, you have to state what law was broken, and it did not. Arguing that it was unconstitutional is fatuous when there is no written constitution and convention has permitted it for centuries. To say Boris did not want to be held to account is worse because he offered an election, and what is better for holding politicians to account? I am afraid that like it or not, the SC entered the political domain, and it has done so in a way that may have unforeseen consequences, depending on what Parliament does now.

As for the Queen being above the law, what law? What are the laws that mention the monarch?

Royal news: Queen Elizabeth II concern as 'hurricane' Supreme Court ruling to rock royals | Royal | News | https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/...
QUEEN ELIZABETH II is facing “a constitutional and political hurricane” as the Supreme Court ruling generates fears that it may lead to reconsiderations of the role of the monarchy.

Following yesterday’s extraordinary ruling, Queen Elizabeth II has now found herself in a position of intense scrutiny. The Supreme Court officially ruled that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was “unlawful”. In order to suspend parliament until October 14, the Prime Minister was required to advise the Queen to do it on his behalf.