[News] Duke & Duchess of Sussex

[Simster]

You're like a dog with a bone. You have still to tell me which law the queen has refused to sign when it is presented for her signature for royal assent. The Queen will not refuse to sign a bill before her. That doesn't mean there hasn't been negotiation before it gets to that stage, I never implied one way or the other. Any government doesn't have to agree amendments or are you arguing that they have to? If push came to shove then parliament would win hands down.

And you're also like a dog with a bone, yet you're actually arguing black is white based purely on semantics.

You originally took issue with what I said which is "with the Queen vetting every single law on the statute book to ensure it doesn't apply to her and her family" by telling us that she has never refused to sign a law. But Bold Seagull has literally just given you an example of her vetting a law, making amendments and not even passing it back for members to check.

I am not arguing that she doesn't refuse to sign off new laws. I'm arguing that she vets them to ensure they don't apply to her, and that is true, and as such your assertion that she acts as "merely ceremonial head of state" with "no power" is completely wrong.

 

[beorhthelm]

Not just that the Queen was able to amend and alter legislation to suit Royal requirements, these amended versions were not presented to members as having been altered, so our elected officials were often unaware a previous version had been changed for the purpose of suiting the Queen. Particularly in Scotland, various bits such as forestry commissioners not being able to enter Royal land without the Queens permission, planning policy, emissions policy - all altered following vetting by The Queen, and passed without members knowing this had happened. There is hard evidence of lobbying, but the full extent of how much interference the Queen and her lawyers have had in bills and legislation is not fully known. It's certainly not 'merely ceremonial'...

what are the specifc examples of this? sounds like this would be crown holding sovereignty over parliament. changes cant be hidden, there is the draft passed by parliament and that published.

there is an old article on the Guardian that lists out many laws with a exemption for "Her Majesty", when you look at them it typically seperate the Crown state entity from the Queen as a person. example DPA covers Crown business but not Queen personally, just as you or I. i wonder if that the case with forest commission example, can they go on to private land without permission, or require some court procedure first?

 

[rippleman]

The monarch still has the constitutional right to refuse to grant Royal Assent but it has not happened since 1708.

What input the monarch may have into the Act prior to the final Act being presented for Royal Assent is, of course, an entirely different matter. I wouldn't know the answer to that. I suspect that with our current monarch one of her lackey's "would let it be known......". Perhaps any concerns would be raised at meetings with Her Majesty's Privy Council.

But the bottom line is that the monarch CAN refuse Royal Assent but does not, has not and will not!

 

[Bold Seagull]

what are the specifc examples of this? sounds like this would be crown holding sovereignty over parliament. changes cant be hidden, there is the draft passed by parliament and that published.

there is an old article on the Guardian that lists out many laws with a exemption for "Her Majesty", when you look at them it typically seperate the Crown state entity from the Queen as a person. example DPA covers Crown business but not Queen personally, just as you or I. i wonder if that the case with forest commission example, can they go on to private land without permission, or require some court procedure first?

Do some research and report back. I’ve posted links to further reading already.

 

[beorhthelm]

Do some research and report back. I’ve posted links to further reading already.

oh, didnt expect the good old "DYOR" gambit.

 

[wuntbedruv]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Remembrancer

This goon and his 600 taxpayer paid for staff present a greater danger to democracy. His chief duty as the only lobbyist allowed to take a seat in both houses of Parliament is to ensure the best interests of the City are well looked after.

 

[Icy Gull]

I wasn’t expecting this thread to go so far off piste that Lillibet would be getting the brickbats!

 

[drew]

Do some research and report back. I’ve posted links to further reading already.

I've read those links to the guardian and, apologies if I missed it, I can't see where a law was changed without then going back to parliament! I can see where there have been changes but that Parliament, either Westminster or Scottish, were not told the changes were due to lobbying by the Queen however the bill did seem to go back for debate.

 

[beorhthelm]

I've read those links to the guardian and, apologies if I missed it, I can't see where a law was changed without then going back to parliament! I can see where there have been changes but that Parliament, either Westminster or Scottish, were not told the changes were due to lobbying by the Queen however the bill did seem to go back for debate.

law wasnt changed without going back to parliament. misinterpreted the claim, it is that amendments are made without telling members they are based on Queen's input. maybe they are, i'd be more surprised if she never gave any input, and anyone can chip in to their MP who might table an amendment.

 

[Bold Seagull]

oh, didnt expect the good old "DYOR" gambit.

I didn't expect you to read the links so I guess we're even.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I've read those links to the guardian and, apologies if I missed it, I can't see where a law was changed without then going back to parliament! I can see where there have been changes but that Parliament, either Westminster or Scottish, were not told the changes were due to lobbying by the Queen however the bill did seem to go back for debate.

Good old semantics to back out of a previous statement. They're always there when you need them. I didn't state the Queen's role was purely ceremonial, I also didn't state she changes laws without going back to parliament. You seem to be reading only what you want to read.

 

[beorhthelm]

I didn't expect you to read the links so I guess we're even.

i have. as i said earlier, they dont really support the argument, mostly some boiler plate clause to seperate the Crown and Queen. and a memo that might prove something, bold stuff there. following the trail, seems this practice of review is so common that it seems to be the standard protocol, Guardian uses "vetted" when probably means "seen", because that makes for more of a story. as all legislation is published before going to parliament, as are amendments, seems a moot point if Queen sees them or not.

 

[Bold Seagull]

what are the specifc examples of this? sounds like this would be crown holding sovereignty over parliament. changes cant be hidden, there is the draft passed by parliament and that published.

there is an old article on the Guardian that lists out many laws with a exemption for "Her Majesty", when you look at them it typically seperate the Crown state entity from the Queen as a person. example DPA covers Crown business but not Queen personally, just as you or I. i wonder if that the case with forest commission example, can they go on to private land without permission, or require some court procedure first?

i have. as i said earlier, they dont really support the argument, mostly some boiler plate clause to seperate the Crown and Queen. and a memo that might prove something, bold stuff there. following the trail, seems this practice of review is so common that it seems to be the standard protocol, Guardian uses "vetted" when probably means "seen", because that makes for more of a story. as all legislation is published before going to parliament, as are amendments, seems a moot point if Queen sees them or not.

Why ask the questions in your first post when you have the answers for your opinion in your second - you didn't need any further info. Anyway both you and [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION] seem to be confusing two arguments here. I've not stated the Queen has some definitive power to legislate or interfere with Parliament, I only countered the statement that the Queen's role is purely ceremonial.

Beside the point, why should it be fine for the Crown to 'see' legislation prior to it being reviewed in parliament, whether you want to call it seen or vetted. There would be a draft of legislation prior to going to the published stage - that is the implication here, and if the Crown is able to review and have an influence on it at that point, then it is outside their constitutional remit, and there wouldn't be a record of it being amended on Royal request.

 

[drew]

Good old semantics to back out of a previous statement. They're always there when you need them. I didn't state the Queen's role was purely ceremonial, I also didn't state she changes laws without going back to parliament. You seem to be reading only what you want to read.

Apologies, I misread your original post.

 

[crodonilson]

Megan likens her wedding to Nelson Mandelas release from prison

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Megan likens her wedding to Nelson Mandelas release from prison

Only surprised she doesn't liken their 'separation' from the Royal Family to the death of Martin Luther King.

 

[rippleman]

Megan likens her wedding to Nelson Mandelas release from prison

What an embarrassment she is. Again manipulating the media she hates and despises so much to spout more bollocks (for a substantial fee no doubt).

Take their bloody titles away.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Part of me feels sorry for Prince Harry that on 25th anniversary of the death of his mother his wife is, once again, in the midst of a self-inflicted media storm.

 

[The Clamp]

Part of me feels sorry for Prince Harry that on 25th anniversary of the death of his mother his wife is, once again, in the midst of a self-inflicted media storm.

Ah! That’s why I’m seeing Diana stories everywhere. Of course.

As for Meghan and Harry. I’m in two minds;

1) You wanted to leave, go! Don’t shout names through the door. On your way.

2) Give the family a bit of stick, they could do with not taking themselves so bloody seriously. Nothing more than a bunch of ultra rich benefit cheats.

 

[carlzeiss]

So pleased for our Duke and Duchess , thoroughly deserved as I am sure that everyone will agree here

Harry and Meghan to receive award for stand against 'racism of royal family'

Tickets for the glitzy gala night are selling for up to $1 million, to rub shoulders with the ex-Royal couple.

metro.co.uk

Harry and Meghan to receive award for stand against ‘racism of royal family’​