Queens Speech

So if it's OK for an unelected H of S to interfere in legislation would it also be OK if we had an elected Hof S? Would you expect a H of S to make themselves and their family richer whilst in office and exempt themselves from the law? Or is it just one of those weird things people accept because of birth?

I’m not being patronising - if you want to be better informed about the convention of Royal Consent you must look it up.

That's you told maddyone

Is that you Jacob?

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.

14:30. I know. I'm not stupid. Perhaps you didn't understand the rest of my post

14:32. Time for a revolution then.

volver 13.40. Yes.

volver 13.37 - I was agreeing with Daisy.

Germanshepherdsmum

Perhaps people should read up on Royal Consent to get a rounded view. It’s not all about saving money. Mr Google will help you.

Giving a patronising answer isn’t an answer at all, it’s merely patronising. The fact is that people who support this behaviour are saying that it’s fine to have one family in the country who are able to lobby government in order to protect their wealth. I can’t do this, neither can anyone else. And it’s viewed as completely acceptable by many people.

Don't feel you have to answer this GSM, because obviously all posts on here are pointless, but when the Queen's lawyers wanted to get things changed so that her possessions in Scotland weren't subject to environmental regulations, was that just the exercise of "Royal Consent"?

Germanshepherdsmum

I agree. Pointless. Just wanting an argument.

What?

Do you just want people to come on and say they like her hats and everything in the garden is lovely?

Well that's not going to happen.

If a particular family is exploiting their place in the governance of this country to make themselves rich, you better believe somebody is going to argue about it on social media.

But then of course maybe all the threads are pointless. The ones expressing disagreement with the government. The ones complaining about Climate Change. The ones saying some drama series or other is good. Maybe we should all just get off GN and stop expressing our views altogether.

That's not going to happen either.

Perhaps people should read up on Royal Consent to get a rounded view. It’s not all about saving money. Mr Google will help you.

Germanshepherdsmum

I agree. Pointless. Just wanting an argument.

No I don’t want an argument. I want a reasonable reason as to why this is acceptable.

But why is there a legal entitlement to interfere with the law to make themselves richer?
As far as I’m aware no one else has such an entitlement. Is campaigning to change the law seriously the only suggestion as far as this entitlement is concerned? And why will no one say why this entitlement is perfectly acceptable when to anyone with a sense of social justice it should not be.

I agree. Pointless. Just wanting an argument.

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s not abusing a position of trust. It’s exercising a legal entitlement.

Exactly GSM. If we wanted this changed, I imagine we could do so. Why not campaign properly rather than coming on here and attacking those who cannot and may not answer back?

Why should the royal family have a legal entitlement to interfere with the law to make themselves richer?
Can somebody tell me why this is acceptable?

I agree Glorianny

Ouf! One of those "speechless" moments.

They have a legal entitlement to secretly interfere with the law to make themselves richer?!?!?

It's worse than I thought.

It’s not abusing a position of trust. It’s exercising a legal entitlement.

Of course they have GSM and I have actually lobbied for a charity, but you surely aren't saying that viewing bills before they are submitted to parliament, meeting the PM every week, and having your solicitor suggest alterations which might be advantageous for yourself, or your relatives, is anything like having meetings with MPs, or providing them with a free lunch at conference. How can it be anything other than abusing a position of trust?,A position which is supposedly (and according to all the guff we are fed about the monarchy) a position of public service and not something which enables the holder to amass greater wealth and adapt legislation to their personal advantage.

Glorianny, wealthy people, businesses and organisations such as the National Trust have always lobbied parliament to protect their interests in one way or another. There are loads of lobbyists to approach. It’s by no means unique to the RF.

Thanks Lucca

If anyone really wants to see people being nasty to the Queen they should see some of the comments on a Facebook page local to us asking people if they would like to come to a street party for the Jubilee

volver

25Avalon

Well plenty of well wishers asking Charles “How’s your mum?” when he went walkabouts in a South London market today. Some of the 61% in favour of the monarchy.

I'd ask him how his mum was. I'd probably say I wish her well. It's what a polite person would do.

Still a republican though.

I think I’ll keep a copy of this for the next time you are accused of being “nasty” about the queen.
?

DaisyAnne

Glorianny

DaisyAnne many of us have provided links to examples of how HM has had legislation adapted to protect her and her family's interests you appear to think it hasn't happened.
So please can you tell me
Is it OK that she had legislation adapted so she wouldn't have to pay tax in the 1970s?
Is it OK that members of the RF can have the contents of their wills made private and unavailable to the public for long after their death?
Is it Ok that the Queen's private estates in Scotland (which are nothing to do with being royal) will be exempt from legislation about environmental issues?

I don't know who you think you are lady, but I'm not on this earth to aid you to pursue political views backed by the repetion of arguments generally used by the extremes of politics. All I have asked for on this thread was that people find the truth behind what backs their opinions. If you now feel you have done that "Bravo".

Personally, and this is only my OPINION, if we can get away from the Johnson method of gaining undemocratic power, our traditional and historical way of having a Head of State will continue to change over the years, as it has always done.

At some point, when we haven't got a government that isn't deliberately fomenting civil unrest (I wonder where that idea came from?) we will probably change how we do things. But I won't join your attempt at culture wars and I won't attempt to destroy the reputation of other people for the sake of a liar and a lawbreaker or those who hang on to his coat tails.

No idea what Johnson has to do with this. HM has pursued her own and family interests since the 1970s regardless of who was PM. I have no doubt she will continue to do so and so will Charles. Is it politically extreme to find that unacceptable?

Glorianny

DaisyAnne many of us have provided links to examples of how HM has had legislation adapted to protect her and her family's interests you appear to think it hasn't happened.
So please can you tell me
Is it OK that she had legislation adapted so she wouldn't have to pay tax in the 1970s?
Is it OK that members of the RF can have the contents of their wills made private and unavailable to the public for long after their death?
Is it Ok that the Queen's private estates in Scotland (which are nothing to do with being royal) will be exempt from legislation about environmental issues?

I don't know who you think you are lady, but I'm not on this earth to aid you to pursue political views backed by the repetion of arguments generally used by the extremes of politics. All I have asked for on this thread was that people find the truth behind what backs their opinions. If you now feel you have done that "Bravo".

Personally, and this is only my OPINION, if we can get away from the Johnson method of gaining undemocratic power, our traditional and historical way of having a Head of State will continue to change over the years, as it has always done.

At some point, when we haven't got a government that isn't deliberately fomenting civil unrest (I wonder where that idea came from?) we will probably change how we do things. But I won't join your attempt at culture wars and I won't attempt to destroy the reputation of other people for the sake of a liar and a lawbreaker or those who hang on to his coat tails.

DaisyAnne many of us have provided links to examples of how HM has had legislation adapted to protect her and her family's interests you appear to think it hasn't happened.
So please can you tell me
Is it OK that she had legislation adapted so she wouldn't have to pay tax in the 1970s?
Is it OK that members of the RF can have the contents of their wills made private and unavailable to the public for long after their death?
Is it Ok that the Queen's private estates in Scotland (which are nothing to do with being royal) will be exempt from legislation about environmental issues?