Who is more powerful: The Queen or the Prime Minister?

[mjw47]

the crown is only a device civilian government uses it is difficult to see how they (civilian government) are not in control. Civilian government can have the mornarchy any time it wants. Vice-Versa, not so easy.

 

Then why not do it?

 

Why don't they clear up the whole situation and set everyone's mind at rest?

 

If the government is actually in charge, why don't they insist that the monarchy give up their right of ultimate ownership of all the land in the country?

 

A simple statement accompanied by a parliamentary agreement, declaration and inclusion in statute law would suffice .

 

" From henceforth any person of this realm/country who has purchased property, and or land, legitimately by virtue of their own endeavours does own that land or property with full title without let or hindrance from any other authority. "

 

Job done, whats the problem?

 

Are we not all entitled to the fruits of our labours?

 

Why would the crown wish to retain such arcane rights unless they have considered the possibility of maybe needing them in the future?

[psynuk]

It's not that no-one knows or cares. It's that there is little to be done without a civil war, which for obvious reasons not many want o go through to get the outcome.

You simply can't get allodial title to land in this country or on this island, if you were to try you'd end up in court/prison. But what can one expect when the head of the state, the one with the power to dissolve parliament, whose image appears on our currency is supposedly appointed by god.

 

The queen may not appear to wield more power, but why would she need to when she has obedience already. Only idiots whip cooperating men.

[Waldo]

Then why not do it?

 

I imagine it's a lot to do with PR. The monarchy are very good at it; judging by how many people (not me) seem to love and cherish them! They are also highly skilled when it comes to cementing their perceived authority through a variety of devices.

 

Hats off to them really! I'd do the exact same, given the opportunity; though I suppose, just like the mafia, the powerful don't wait for opportunity to be given...

[blake]

Then why not do it?

 

Why don't they clear up the whole situation and set everyone's mind at rest?

 

If the government is actually in charge, why don't they insist that the monarchy give up their right of ultimate ownership of all the land in the country?

 

 

these are reasonable arguments however the civilian government in Britain clearly believes it is better off in bed - even in a token way - with the monarchy than it would be if it were on its own and I cannot really fault them.

[mjw47]

It's not that no-one knows or cares. It's that there is little to be done without a civil war, which for obvious reasons not many want o go through to get the outcome.

You simply can't get allodial title to land in this country or on this island, if you were to try you'd end up in court/prison. But what can one expect when the head of the state, the one with the power to dissolve parliament, whose image appears on our currency is supposedly appointed by god.

 

The queen may not appear to wield more power, but why would she need to when she has obedience already. Only idiots whip cooperating men.

 

Have to agree, you more or less have it there.

 

This is a servile nation, most people appear to accept that they have 'betters', it probably accounts for the aggressiveness which manifests itself on sporting occasions.

 

Weird really, this is a nation that has achieved many things, including some terrific inventions.

 

But instead of holding up people such as Harry Brearley, Robert Stephenson, Tim Berners- Lee and Isaac Newton as our representatives we prefer to choose murderers and their descendants to represent us.

 

Well some of us do.

[Anna B]

Have to agree, you more or less have it there.

 

This is a servile nation, most people appear to accept that they have 'betters', it probably accounts for the aggressiveness which manifests itself on sporting occasions.

 

Weird really, this is a nation that has achieved many things, including some terrific inventions.

 

But instead of holding up people such as Harry Brearley, Robert Stephenson, Tim Berners- Lee and Isaac Newton as our representatives we prefer to choose murderers and their descendants to represent us.

 

Well some of us do.

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head. We are servile because we had our revolution so long ago, and then brought back the monarchy and with it the distinctions of 'class' and our 'betters.' This persists to this day in more ways than you care to imagine. We are far from an equal, or even a democratic nation, tho' we pay lip service to it. We still have an inate sense that the gentry are somehow 'better' than us, even when they demonstrate this clearly to not be the case.

 

France, on the other hand, is as bolshie as they come, lest anybody forget they chop the heads off their 'betters' if they get too uppity...

 

With few exceptions, the upper class have rarely done anything willingly to improve the lot of the poor. Everything the poor has gained in improving their lives, they have had to fight for every inch of the way.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Anna B

[newskulls]

So if it came to the crunch, i dont know say a government decided to have a go abolishing the monarchy, all the politics debating n legalitys have led to nothing, the countries loyalty, recources, everythin is spit in two, royal and anti royal violence is erupting everywhere. Both government and the monarchy have amassed huge armies, civil war is about to go with a bang all over again and your forced to choose whos side your on, your life could depend on it. Who would you choose? In your heart of hearts who do you think would win another civil war? Baring in mind the loyaltys of the other territories of which she is head of state around the globe are split over it to, so it is now a potential civil war right across the commonwealth. in that impossible scenario, who do you think would eventually win out?

[I1L2T3]

So if it came to the crunch, i dont know say a government decided to have a go abolishing the monarchy, all the politics debating n legalitys have led to nothing, the countries loyalty, recources, everythin is spit in two, royal and anti royal violence is erupting everywhere. Both government and the monarchy have amassed huge armies, civil war is about to go with a bang all over again and your forced to choose whos side your on, your life could depend on it. Who would you choose? In your heart of hearts who do you think would win another civil war? Baring in mind the loyaltys of the other territories of which she is head of state around the globe are split over it to, so it is now a potential civil war right across the commonwealth. in that impossible scenario, who do you think would eventually win out?

 

That would depend on the economic condition of the country. In dire times then people need a cause to pin their hopes and prejudices to and an antimonarchist movement might fit the bill.

 

That seems unthinkable now because the queen is generally inoffensive, keeps her idiot of a husband in check and does a good job of appearing neutral and detached from politics.

 

But if her son ascended to the throne the family would be in serious trouble. There is a reason Charles's scrawly letters are kept secret and many suspect they would show a person unashamedly in the camp of the establishment melding policy to suit himself, basically a rabid Tory. Neutrality out the window. It would be a toxic mix.

 

War? Unlikely, but if there was a war the antimonarchists would eventually win out IMO. Scotland would definitely go and maybe chunks of the north with it.