So what if the monarch is a "nutter" with all that inbreeding surely there will come a time when this happens (again) - is it not a little worrying that one person/family have so much power (if this is as you say)
They have no political influence, but they have the ultimate say on the military. Normally, if the government wanted to take a certain military action, she would not object. But the politicians are powerless to turn the military against HER people, because she'd just say 'no' and the military will not move without her orders. She is the commander in chief of the British military, and officers' allegiance is never sworn to parliament for that reason. This has been embedded in British law since 1660, and it will never be changed simply because it's so damned good.
Sorry mate, but it is parliament who decide any military action..Anything that the Queen has to do is just for show..
No because if a monarch was adjudged to be of unsound mind, etc., a Regent would be appointed, i.e. someone of sound mind and body. This did happen several times during the reign of George 111. But the military will never be subject to a politician - and when you consider what happened in Germany during the 1930s, isn't that a good thing?
Check out British constitutional law mate. You'll get quite a shock. Parliament does not authorize anything to do with the military. They ASK for Royal approval for it. True, they usually get it, but if they ever went for anything shady that didn't get Royal approval - particularly inside the British Isles - the military simply wouldn't obey it. That's why no oath of allegiance is ever given to parliament by military officers. It's unlikely ever to be put to the test, of course, because the future of a politician who has already been charged with Treason is pretty much zero. I don't know of a politician in the last 350 years who has questioned that principle. It's a good system, check it out.
Yes, but it is all protocol which in reality is that the Queen just ratifies what parliament have decided.. There has never been a single case in modern Britain where this has not happened..The Royal family are just there for show these days and have no real influence whatsoever..
There hasn't been a single case since 1649 mate! The reason is that no politician would be mad enough to question HM's military authority. They ASK for use of the military to further the perceived 'will of the people'. And for as long as it stays that way, the government will get it from her. But don't kid yourself, the reigning monarch gives the final order - and she doesn't have to. That is embedded in British law, and it's never going to be changed.
OK, so when Bliar wanted to send British troops to die in Iraq, which was no threat whatsoever to the UK, so that American oil companies could make a huge amount of profit from the oil, while the majority of the population opposed the war, when there was the biggest demonstration in British history, piss-takes of Bliar on Question Time as "Mr Vice President", and the Internet full of stuff ridiculing Bliar's lies ... ... the Monarch said no to the deployment of British troops. Er, must have missed that bit.
Other way round mate...The Queen would never dream of questioning parliament as they no there days would be numbered..They are only there for show these days, but you can kid yourself that they still wield real power if you want to..
All I can say is what I said to you a few posts ago - check out British constitutional law. You'll be very surprised.
As I have stated..It is all just for protocol and ritual. In reality the Queen just agrees with what parliament decide..
For a second time ; "All I can say is what I said to you a few posts ago - check out British constitutional law. You'll be very surprised."
You can say it as many times as you like, but I will stay say it is all just for show and the Queen would never ever question a decision made in parliament..
For a third time ; "All I can say is what I said to you a few posts ago - check out British constitutional law. You'll be very surprised."
No it didn't! And that's one of the reasons why the war was so controversial, because it was NOT UN supported.
Agree completely with RAW. Remember Gordon Brown two elections back when he realised the Con-Lib coalition could command a majority? I'm doing this from memory but it was something like "I am going to the Queen to recommend the next Prime Minister, I will recommend David Cameron" (I'm paraphrasing like). Sure the Queen ON PAPER does these things IN THE CONSTITUTION, but it's parliament that ultimately decides (or their paymasters, such as, er, American oil companies).
It certainly was U.N. requested on the grounds that Hussein had surrendered the first time with the condition that U.N. inspectors would have access wherever they wanted. Within two years, reports were reaching the western press that those inspectors were being denied access. If Hussein had got away with that, every tin-pot dictator in the world could have agreed a U.N. treaty when it suited him, and flouted it when it didn't suit him. Hussein just had to be seen to be punished. If he wasn't the U.N. would have been a lame duck ever afterwards.
