Why did Brown have to 'ask' the Queen's permission to call an election ?

[andyofborg]

It's a daft hangover from the Civil War. The monarchy was stripped of the power but were allowed to remain in the ceremony of government. It's utterly insane really. The State Opening of Parliament is equally as pointless.

 

its more of a hangover from the early hanoverian rulers

[andyofborg]

You don't think that people would be outraged at one person overturning the results of a democratic election on a whim?

 

that would only be done if more people would be outraged by allowing the result to stand

[andyofborg]

Of course they are, they are monarchs. It's already been pointed out they are above the law, because they are the Head of the Courts, and Head of the Church, and Head of State. The only reason a problem doesn't exist is because she doesn't commit crimes.

 

no British monarch has been above the law since 1215 (the year, not the time)

[superblade1!]

Of course they are, they are monarchs. It's already been pointed out they are above the law, because they are the Head of the Courts, and Head of the Church, and Head of State. The only reason a problem doesn't exist is because she doesn't commit crimes.

 

HM's immune from prosecution anyway...

[HeadingNorth]

HM's immune from prosecution anyway...

 

But that immunity would be revoked in a heartbeat if we had a monarch that was committing crimes.

 

Or perhaps more likely, is that the offending monarch would first be forced to abdicate, and then tried as a citizen. This course of action would retain the "Crown is above the law" principle without actually giving whoever happens to be wearing the crown an immunity to prosecution.

[superblade1!]

But that immunity would be revoked in a heartbeat if we had a monarch that was committing crimes.

 

Or perhaps more likely, is that the offending monarch would first be forced to abdicate, and then tried as a citizen. This course of action would retain the "Crown is above the law" principle without actually giving whoever happens to be wearing the crown an immunity to prosecution.

 

Would never happen with HM anyway...ya never know what might happen with charles

 

long live the monarchy

[HeadingNorth]

Would never happen with HM anyway...ya never know what might happen with charles

 

 

True, I can't see that the question would ever arise. About the only real risk would be of some traffic offence, except that the monarch is always chauffeured anyway...

[happyhippy]

But that immunity would be revoked in a heartbeat if we had a monarch that was committing crimes.

 

Or perhaps more likely, is that the offending monarch would first be forced to abdicate, and then tried as a citizen. This course of action would retain the "Crown is above the law" principle without actually giving whoever happens to be wearing the crown an immunity to prosecution.

 

Technically, not true. The Crown can never be forced to abdicate. The Crown may be advised that it would be 'in the best interests of the Realm to abdicate', however.

 

In theory, the Crown does hold absolute power. In reality, of course, it doesn't. I'm now minded of the relationship between Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey as to where power really lies.

 

Even the person who's 'it' doesn't get to choose what happens .....

[HeadingNorth]

Technically, not true. The Crown can never be forced to abdicate.

 

 

It wouldn't take very long for a law to be forced through enabling it, though, if we had a lunatic for a monarch and it became necessary.

[happyhippy]

It wouldn't take very long for a law to be forced through enabling it, though, if we had a lunatic for a monarch and it became necessary.

 

That would still currently require the House Of Peers allowing the policy through though ..... I may be wrong, but isn't there a 'three hearings' law, or such?

 

As I understand it, no law can be forced through Parliament, but in effect, they all are