loraward Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Source for that? It seems ... fanciful. http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/03/land-queen-world-australia The world's primary feudal landowner is Queen Elizabeth II. She is Queen of 32 countries, head of a Commonwealth of 54 countries in which a quarter of the world's population lives, and legal owner of about 6.6 billion acres of land, one-sixth of the earth's land surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 She has the power to go against the governments wishes but chooses not to wield that power. On paper the queens has some power, but she cannot go against the will of the commons. Her powers are only there because to remove them requires a complete constitutional re-jig which would not achieve anything in reality. Like I said, what they really have is influence as they have a direct line, metaphorically speaking, to the PM. This is apparent by the 'letters' sent by Charles becoming a matter of public knowledge despite his disapproval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 silly question. A Prime Minister can get rid of the Queen although it would be quite a job, it could still be done. But a Queen (or King) is not going to get rid of a Prime Minister. That was what our 17th century civil war was all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 silly question. A Prime Minister can get rid of the Queen although it would be quite a job, it could still be done. But a Queen (or King) is not going to get rid of a Prime Minister. That was what our 17th century civil war was all about. The queen can dissolve parliament at a whim, but if it returns to power after a new election, the royal family's influence would be diminished or totally cut off within weeks of the MP's sitting in the commons. This is why they do not use it (I heard). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 you are correct in the sense that you have spelt the queen in the more appropriate lower case, but that is the only thing you have got right. If Thatcher or Blair had been an ardent republican then they could have got rid of the monarchy however even these most successful British Prime Minsters would have had to try really hard to get the abolition of the monarchy done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Point of information: "The Queen of Great Britain"? Read that as "The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". ---------- Post added 30-03-2015 at 16:52 ---------- http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/03/land-queen-world-australia The world's primary feudal landowner is Queen Elizabeth II. She is Queen of 32 countries, head of a Commonwealth of 54 countries in which a quarter of the world's population lives, and legal owner of about 6.6 billion acres of land, one-sixth of the earth's land surface. The Crown may own quite a lot; HM The Queen does not. Read-up about what a Corporation Sole is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 not such a big secret the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is what is written on the front of each of our passports. Northern Ireland, is not part of Britain. It is however part of the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 The Queen has the right to be consulted by her ministers about pending legislation but the Prime Minister and the government obviously hold the power since they alone can pass laws to govern the country. That's how I understand it anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 The Queen has the right to be consulted by her ministers about pending legislation but the Prime Minister and the government obviously hold the power since they alone can pass laws to govern the country. That's how I understand it anyway True, but that assumes a clear General Election winning party! If there's none, HM has to invite a prospective PM to have a go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 It's going to be very interesting to read Prince Charles' scribblings to various government ministers in the near future. As for power, I don't think either the Queen or PM have it. As someone said, it's probably big business and Corporations. But if I had to chose, it would be the Queen, along with the Rothschilds, Rockerfellas, and the other super rich. Money rules. Always has, always will. What is going to be really interesting is if we find out that someone has taken action on his wishes and carried out some change purely on his request. He is perfectly entitled to write to anyone expressing his views, but not to expect that anything will be done about it. If an elected official has carried out the instructions of an unelected person for no other reason than a perceived entitlement then they need to be dealt with severely. And I agree with you, it's the Bankers, CEO's of Major Corporations and the Rothschilds who wield the power, and have for centuries. How well connected the royal family is would be down to how much influence they can apply to government policy when in the company of that lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now