Queens Speech

‘If you can get away with it’? That implies doing something you’re not legally entitled to do.

This Clip Shows Everything Wrong With Britain

m.youtube.com/watch?v=yJq96UltjB4

The cost secrecy and dishonesty of the Royals. m.youtube.com/watch?v=pSQyDNN4BYg

Apparently that's the standard now- if you can get away with it it's OK. Even so it might not be so bad if the person doing it didn't pretend to be serving the country and the head of the church.

Surely it is a -Fact -

DaisyAnne the Queen is doing nothing illegal.

Is that really the standard by which we judge public figures in this country now?

When was the country ever ‘more equal, ‘no need to reply it never has been,, the World is not equal, it never will be….. how can it be that millions are starving whilst we pontificate on our computers , …. communism was supposed to be the answer, yeah right that went well…. Not

maddyone

Incidentally I’m not attacking anyone, it’s against Gransnet rules. I’m voicing my opinion, which is not against Gransnet rules.

Nobody is stopping you voicing your opinion. The only objection was to you demanding an answer to that opinion.

This is still not helping.

The Queen looked good at The Royal Windsor Show today. Maybe she just wanted to hand over the ‘boring’ reading of ‘her’ speech which she did not write

When the country as a whole was more equal, I didn't resent or care really about the ostentatious wealth of the Royal family, any more than I thought it was wrong that people on benefits could go on holiday or save up for Christmas.

Now though, when there is so much poverty in the country and so many people are really finding it very difficult to live a decent life with a few treats, the trappings of wealth exhibited by the Royal family has started to look a bit "off" to me.
Crowns and coaches and robes and so on are, to me, starting to look a bit tasteless.

(I mention the benefits, holiday, Christmas because there were once a few threads on here saying that benefit claimants should not be able to afford these things.)

Thanks Daisy. I really don't give a toss about lobbying by interested parties, be they the RF, the National Trust, a businessman or a trade union. I know and accept the current position. I'm a fairly placid person and happy to have an easy life nowadays. I've had enough stress to last me a lifetime without inviting more. There are far worse things going on in this world to get worked up about. I really CBA about who may be lobbying for privileges. In some cases it benefits many people, in others it doesn't. I really do not care. C'est la vie.

Actually I think your post is attacking me, calling me rude because you disagree with what I have said. I have simply asked not to be patronised.

Incidentally I’m not attacking anyone, it’s against Gransnet rules. I’m voicing my opinion, which is not against Gransnet rules.

You’re right, I would like change. I would like a republic.

maddyone

Germanshepherdsmum

maddy I have said above that lobbying is widely done. And I’m not being patronising - if you want to be better informed about the convention of Royal Consent you must look it up. All the information you need is freely available.

I don’t want to be better informed about the convention of Royal Consent. It is perfect legal, as you know, for the royal family to lobby on behalf of themselves in order to protect their wealth. I know that too. And suggesting I look it up is patronising. You are deliberately avoiding the question, which I am sure you well know, is actually a moral one. Why should one family be allowed to lobby on behalf of themselves in order to protect their wealth? I didn’t ask if it’s legitimate, I know it is. I asked why it is acceptable in today’s supposedly democratic society, is it acceptable. It seems you can’t give an answer to that apparently.

That isn't helping. You asked why it is "acceptable" in today's ... society. GSM has given you her answer. It seems you agree that the Queen is doing nothing illegal.

You don't seem to know, or possibly don't care, about the difference between opinion based on law and gossip or why that difference is essential to democracy.

Democracy is constantly changing. You insist on discussing what you see as a moral problem with people who have clearly said they have no interest in that conversation. You want a different answer and demand to have it. By that demand, you just appear exceedingly rude.

Democracy can be changed by you, if you want to work at doing so. If you can pursade enough people to vote for a government prepared to make the changes you want, it will be changed. It will not be changed by agressive posts directed at other members and it will not be changed if you are in a minority however much you attack others.

And Glorianny.

Well said volver and Petera.

Germanshepherdsmum

maddy I have said above that lobbying is widely done. And I’m not being patronising - if you want to be better informed about the convention of Royal Consent you must look it up. All the information you need is freely available.

I don’t want to be better informed about the convention of Royal Consent. It is perfect legal, as you know, for the royal family to lobby on behalf of themselves in order to protect their wealth. I know that too. And suggesting I look it up is patronising. You are deliberately avoiding the question, which I am sure you well know, is actually a moral one. Why should one family be allowed to lobby on behalf of themselves in order to protect their wealth? I didn’t ask if it’s legitimate, I know it is. I asked why it is acceptable in today’s supposedly democratic society, is it acceptable. It seems you can’t give an answer to that apparently.

volver

Well I did as I was told and consulted Mr Google. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not even going to get into a discussion with a lawyer about the rights and wrongs of Royal Consent.

But as the woman on the Clapham Omnibus, I will tell you what I think of a system that allows any resident of this country to exercise rights to view and amend proposed legislation before it is put into law. That person can use their no-doubt vast ranks of solicitors and lawyers to scrutinise the laws and prevent them for being passed into law if they don't like them. They can request that changes are made to them before they allow them to be passed.

Now whether that resident is you or me, or whether they hold the position of Monarch, any system that allows that situation to occur is ripe for corruption. And none of us know how many times, or how much, the Queen has asked for laws to be changed to her advantage. And we will never know.

Well Said Volver

Germanshepherdsmum

Being consulted in accordance with the Royal Consent convention is not ‘interfering in legislation’ or being exempted from the law. If you are consulted about your neighbour’s planning application are you interfering?

I don't think the analogy really holds. Obtaining personal exemption from legislation is not like commenting on a planning application.

Well I did as I was told and consulted Mr Google. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not even going to get into a discussion with a lawyer about the rights and wrongs of Royal Consent.

But as the woman on the Clapham Omnibus, I will tell you what I think of a system that allows any resident of this country to exercise rights to view and amend proposed legislation before it is put into law. That person can use their no-doubt vast ranks of solicitors and lawyers to scrutinise the laws and prevent them for being passed into law if they don't like them. They can request that changes are made to them before they allow them to be passed.

Now whether that resident is you or me, or whether they hold the position of Monarch, any system that allows that situation to occur is ripe for corruption. And none of us know how many times, or how much, the Queen has asked for laws to be changed to her advantage. And we will never know.

Germanshepherdsmum

Being consulted in accordance with the Royal Consent convention is not ‘interfering in legislation’ or being exempted from the law. If you are consulted about your neighbour’s planning application are you interfering?

No but if I insisted my piece of land shouldn't be subjected to the same laws my neighbours are and I was in a position to do that I would be (and HM is!)
If we are using the planning analogy. If the law said my neighbours couldn't build higher than two storeys and I stuck up a ten storey building because I made sure the law didn't apply to me is that OK?

Campaigners have called for an inquiry into the use of the Royal Consent rule, which allows the Queen and Prince Charles to insist on personal exemptions from the law.

There is absolutely no justification for the Queen and Prince Charles to have this power to demand exemptions from the law.

This represents a systematic abuse of power by the royals that goes back decades, using a little-known parliamentary rule to ensure that laws the rest of us must abide by don't apply to them.

Third of Britons think the Queen should retire
A sharp shift in opinion in new poll.

She was at the Royal Windsor Horse Show this morning and has 14 horses competing at the show. 14 Horses that's a lot.

Being consulted in accordance with the Royal Consent convention is not ‘interfering in legislation’ or being exempted from the law. If you are consulted about your neighbour’s planning application are you interfering?