The monarchy

Dickens

happycatholicwife1

Yawn

Try an early night or two.

?

happycatholicwife1

Yawn

Try an early night or two.

Quebec has always been a law unto itself!

80% speak French as a first language.
When some of our family moved there years ago from the UK their Y1 DD had to rapidly learn French as all lessons at school were in that language.

Yawn

Ludicrous indeed. Good to see people wanting change.

No country should force its politicians to swear allegiance to a foreign king or queen. They probably should enact laws to stop this ludicrous situation and appoint their own HofS.

MEMBERS of the Quebec parliament have sparked a conversation in Canada after refusing to swear allegiance to King Charles III.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, who leads the pro-independence Parti Québécois, said the oath of fealty to the King was a “straitjacket that condemns each elected representative of the people of Quebec to hypocrisy”.

Speaking in French, he went on: "A straitjacket that forces democrats of all parties to take an oath they do not believe in and therefore to perjure themselves, to sully the value of their word and to do that in the first act they are called on to take as representatives of citizens."

On Monday, a crowd gathered outside the parliamentary building in Quebec City to show support for the three MNAs under the Parti Québécois banner, as well as the 11 under the Québec solidaire banner, who refused to swear to the King.

Twitter

The King and the Prime Minister have been in audience for around 40 minutes now.

The late Queen kept these meetings to 15 minutes.

His Majesty likes a good chat.

No doubt setting out what laws he wants to be exempted from.

Yes agree really relevant point. well Said Normandygirl

This proves monarch has no power to intervene on behalf of the people of this country if a PM breaks the laws of our land.

But he does have Kings Consent to vet laws that affect his own interests. So the monarchy serves the Royals and politicians not the people.

Yes we deserve much better.

"But there are - or were - checks and balances, until the last few years. when the attitudes of Trump in the US and Johnson in the UK toward anything that cramped their style led them to make changes that eroded those balances and tried to give more power to a single leader."
Elegran
This is a really relevant point. I didn't really think about the role of the monarchy in a modern democracy, until the shenanigans by government. In particular, Johnson brought into sharp focus the absence of any meaningful brake on rogue leaders. The proroguing of Parliament was the last straw for me. Johnson could only have done that because he knew the Queen had no power to stop it. He knew that the courts would rule it unlawful but would take time and the intended damage was done by then. In some respects, the USA is slightly better as they at least have a written constitution, we don't even have that. The people of the UK deserve so much better than this.

Nice posts Caleo

What was that you told me about acknowledging sources, Volver dear?

It's not impossible that some very rich king or capitalist will break away and defend God not Mammon

I have been thinking again.

I now view the Windsors as belonging to the set of very rich people who not only feel entitled to their wealth but also have the actual power that wealth brings to protect that wealth.

There have been some remarkable exceprions to the rule that wealth and power go hand in hand notably Jesus, Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Bill and Melinda Gates.


It's true I have imbibed respect for royalty
"with my m other's milk" and have been trying to defend my old belief.

Queen Elizabeth , among other talents, was a super diplomat !

I mention the south of England only because houses are so expensive there, but there are other expensive areas.

Whatever you would like, it should be the same for everyone.

Yes it should. Why is it in any way right, or democratic, when ordinary people living in an ordinary house in the south of England, have to pay inheritance tax (because their ordinary house is so expensive) whilst the royal family pay no inheritance tax on their millions and their several privately owned houses? And keep their wills sealed so we can’t see just how much money they have. I’ve just sent my mother’s will off to probate and it will not be returned because it will be available for anyone to see because it’s a public document. This is not applying the law equally to all and is therefore undemocratic.

GrannyGravy13

Grany to be fair regarding inheritance tax I would like to see it abolish for everyone.

Whatever you would like, it should be the same for everyone.
Would you not agree?

Will he give up the Lancaster Duchy money or William the Duchy Cornwall money that gives them £44 million to share.

How do monarchists defend this income?

Grany to be fair regarding inheritance tax I would like to see it abolish for everyone.

They already get a huge amount from the Sovereign Grant that goes up every year

£100 million

I am all for a slimmed down 21st century modernised Monarchy.

King Charles has only had the crown for a few weeks, I am happy to wait and see how his reign progresses before calling for his P.45

Political ups and downs? We as a country are a laughing stock.
Unelected PMs
Unelected HoS
Monarchy costs £345 million one of the most expensive in Europe.

Its undemocratic

Monarchy is there only to serve the Royals and the politicians not the people

Does Charles who says wants to modernise will he say I'll pay inheritance tax not yet. On his mothers vast amount of money?

Will he give up the Lancaster Duchy money or William the Duchy Cornwall money that gives them £44 million to share.

Seeing that there is a cost of living crisis in this country.

I wasn't even thinking about the political daftness

I was thinking about the fact we have someone sign off documents that he has (apparently ?) no input to or influence over.

I was thinking about the fact that we think duty trumps suitability for the role.

I was thinking about the fact that we have a HoS who nominally has the power to prevent a PM going rogue, but who will not do anything if they do in case they are seen as being political.

Its all daft. ?

We’re a daft little Country, getting dafter by the minute

volver no, just having a few months of political ups and downs.

Our HoS, currently Charles, has to sign off on every law that enters the statute books. Yet there is much insistence above that he has no power.

So what is the point of that exercise, exactly?

We're a daft little country, getting dafter by the minute.

But there are - or were - checks and balances, until the last few years. when the attitudes of Trump in the US and Johnson in the UK toward anything that cramped their style led them to make changes that eroded those balances and tried to give more power to a single leader.

There are three prongs to the workings of Government in the UK.

Parliament as a whole makes the laws which all, including the lawmakers, must abide by., Parliament as a whole consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Bills for potential Acts of Parliament are read and discussed in each House, and go back and forth a set number of times with amendments from each house before they are voted on and become law. In the background, the Civil Service undertakes the research and the drafting of papers.

The legal establishment (judges and courts of law) rules on questions of whether something that someone has done is according to those laws or not, and applies the penalty for breaking them.

The police force investigates the actions of those accused of breaking the law, and presents its findings (or its information that they can't find enough evidence) to the Crown Prosecutor (in England and Wales) or the Procurator Fiscal (in Scotland) who decides whether they are " satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant" in a prosecution.

The law of the land applies to all, including the lawmakers, the law-definers, and the law-enforcers.

That was your phrase -why did you mention that Volver dear, that unless it’s what you think?

It was Jane71 who mentioned "milk and honey" first.

Perhaps in your rush to malign me you missed that.