[gladders]

(Original post by Alistair122)
And I suppose its part of her duty to have so many servants, which, I may add have terrible pay and working conditions.

Evidence, please, of both the number of servants the Queen has, compared to the number of servants the average other Heads of State have in Europe. Also some evidence of the poor pay and working conditions of these servants.

(incidentally, if the later were true, that’s up to us as taxpayers to supply more money to them)

And yes she does take money from the taxpayers, which come from farming subsidies from the EU.

Nothing to do with the Queen – she didn’t create those farming subsidies.

The queen gets approximately £500k and prince Charles £100k for simply owning land!

And? You have something against land ownership?

Please tell me also how with the threat that roads are going to be privatised, as well as many public spaces, we cannot instead privatise the royal art collection valued at at a minimum of £4bn.

Are you proposing selling off the royal art collection, when it makes much more money being put on display?

The money that you speak of is not earn't honestly by hard work, but instead through ownership, and paid by the people who work.

It’s wealth that is passed down and it’s privately held – which is something we all have the right to benefit from. If we became a republic tomorrow the Windsors would continue to have that right and have the same wealth.

You’re complaining about something separate from the monarchy and has much more to do with basic property rights. You’re welcome to criticise them, but it’s not for this thread.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Roaroaroar)
If she did dissolve parliament on her own accord then we would simply get rid of her and become a republican.

How do you "simply get rid of" someone with complete legal control over the armed forces? An armed forces with the 4th largest budget in the world. Good luck with that.

[gladders]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
How do you "simply get rid of" someone with complete legal control over the armed forces? An armed forces with the 4th largest budget in the world. Good luck with that.

People have been patiently explaining that if it came to the crunch the Armed Forces would side with the people. The Army is bound to the Queen only as long as she remains a constitutional monarch, and the Army is in any case the effective property of Parliament, not the Queen.

[Electronica]

I would support a monarch were it an elected figurehead. The Windsor family would still be allowed to compete but they would be pitted against the likes of Stephen Fry and Boris.

I do not think that the queen is worth the money that we pay her, and her family would be wise to terminate the outdated heirarchy when it gets to their turn.

Undermines democracy, certainly. Undermines democracy a significant amount - not really. But most people would be shocked to hear how much taxpayers money goes into that crown of hers and her massive tracks of land.

[Alistair122]

(Original post by gladders)
Evidence, please, of both the number of servants the Queen has, compared to the number of servants the average other Heads of State have in Europe. Also some evidence of the poor pay and working conditions of these servants.

(incidentally, if the later were true, that’s up to us as taxpayers to supply more money to them)

No. They shouldn't have servants/ have fewer if she is going to remain head of state. William and Kate are a young and able couple, I'm sure they can help cook and clean. If they used less of the palace I'm sure the job would become a lot easier.

Nothing to do with the Queen – she didn’t create those farming subsidies.

No but because the royal family pay no inheritance tax they benefit from them to a ridiculous extent.

And? You have something against land ownership?

Yes, but on a small scale this is besides the point. What gives them the right to assume the right to land is theirs to be born into? They own 3000 km^2 of land! If they, like everybody else paid inheritance tax, their land would diminish considerably over generations. They do not need this wealth to represent Britain.

Are you proposing selling off the royal art collection, when it makes much more money being put on display?

You think we make £4bn from the art collection? After googling it, it seems I was wrong- the estimated value is now approximately £10bn, and it is a charity, meaning that the proceeds gained from it go into its upkeep. In other words it doesn't benefit the nation in any way unless you're into diamonds and pretentious **** like that.

It’s wealth that is passed down and it’s privately held – which is something we all have the right to benefit from. If we became a republic tomorrow the Windsors would continue to have that right and have the same wealth.

Yes, but they would also pay inheritance tax.

You’re complaining about something separate from the monarchy and has much more to do with basic property rights. You’re welcome to criticise them, but it’s not for this thread.

[/QUOTE]
...well at least you asked me to leave politely, Im sure the queen would be proud. Haha, no but as stated above they have certain exemptions from the law which are blatantly unfair.

[Alistair122]

(Original post by gladders)
Evidence, please, of both the number of servants the Queen has, compared to the number of servants the average other Heads of State have in Europe. Also some evidence of the poor pay and working conditions of these servants.
.

Oh and its about 800. I read an article about it I cant find any stats atm.

[gladders]

(Original post by Alistair122)
No. They shouldn't have servants/ have fewer if she is going to remain head of state. William and Kate are a young and able couple, I'm sure they can help cook and clean. If they used less of the palace I'm sure the job would become a lot easier.

I think you misunderstand what many of these servants are for. The royals have fantastically busy schedules, and the Queen at 85 is less able to do as much as she was when she was younger. The 'servants' maintain the buildings, do records management, financial management, provide constitutional and legal advice, manage correspondence from the public, the government, the Commonwealth, diplomats and others, manage transportation and other matters. It's not out of laziness that they don't do it - but out of sheer time pressure. Honestly, this is like expecting the PM to do his own washing up while he's got laws to draft and speeches to prepare.

Ironically, the royals have been known to get up to cooking and cleaning, and Tony Blair mentioned it in his memoirs. I can't imagine any elected official doing that.

No but because the royal family pay no inheritance tax they benefit from them to a ridiculous extent.

The non-payment of inheritance tax has a function, however; constitutionally the monarch is expressly forbidden to engage in profit-making work - they are not permitted to make money directly. This is intentional: otherwise they will generate personal, vested interests and will be tempted to bend lawmaking for personal gain.

Therefore, they have no means to reimburse any losses made from inheritance tax. Moreover, if they had a string of early royal deaths, their money could be practically annhiliated - and then we'd have to start paying them a salary or they'd not be able to feed and clothe themselves!

There is a logic behind the non-payment of inheritance tax - the avoidance of tempting the monarch into using their position for personal gain - which is compensated for by the fact that they are not permitted to enrich themselves further. It balances out.

Yes, but on a small scale this is besides the point. What gives them the right to assume the right to land is theirs to be born into? They own 3000 km^2 of land! If they, like everybody else paid inheritance tax, their land would diminish considerably over generations. They do not need this wealth to represent Britain.

What gives anybody the right to inherit land? It's common law, and an essential and basis property right. Are you proposing we violate the law and seize their property simply because you don't like them owning it? If so, what's to stop you coming for my property?

You think we make £4bn from the art collection? After googling it, it seems I was wrong- the estimated value is now approximately £10bn, and it is a charity, meaning that the proceeds gained from it go into its upkeep. In other words it doesn't benefit the nation in any way unless you're into diamonds and pretentious **** like that.

With that logic, should we sell off every simply piece of public treasure for short-term gain? For example, the Tower, Big Ben, the National Gallery, the British Museum. After all, it's all just trinkets, isn't it?

You need to look at more than monetary benefit and the benefit given from the enjoyment of the thing - the pleasure derived from it on an individual basis.

Yes, but they would also pay inheritance tax.

Quite so - but they would at least then be able to have salaried jobs and not be worried about being impartial national symbols.

...well at least you asked me to leave politely, Im sure the queen would be proud. Haha, no but as stated above they have certain exemptions from the law which are blatantly unfair.

I think the exemptions, such as they are, are an unavoidable part of having a nonpolitical Head of State.

[Alistair122]

(Original post by gladders)
I think you misunderstand what many of these servants are for. The royals have fantastically busy schedules, and the Queen at 85 is less able to do as much as she was when she was younger. The 'servants' maintain the buildings, do records management, financial management, provide constitutional and legal advice, manage correspondence from the public, the government, the Commonwealth, diplomats and others, manage transportation and other matters. It's not out of laziness that they don't do it - but out of sheer time pressure. Honestly, this is like expecting the PM to do his own washing up while he's got laws to draft and speeches to prepare.

Yes I can appreciate that some of these are advisors are needed for diplomacy work, accounts etc, but the fact is that her living in a massive mansion which
requires the use of all these people is a representation of the ridiculous extravagance of the rich. Besides this, the job requires no particular skill. As much as I disagree with many policies the current and last prime ministers have put through, their job requires much more skill and thought. I would be surprised if the prime minister (well maybe not a Tory one) had 800 servants.

Ironically, the royals have been known to get up to cooking and cleaning, and Tony Blair mentioned it in his memoirs. I can't imagine any elected official doing that.

The non-payment of inheritance tax has a function, however; constitutionally the monarch is expressly forbidden to engage in profit-making work - they are not permitted to make money directly. This is intentional: otherwise they will generate personal, vested interests and will be tempted to bend lawmaking for personal gain.

Oh please. Corruption in the royal family isn't going to occur just because they have to obey laws. Paying inheritance tax would still make them one of the richest families in the UK.

Therefore, they have no means to reimburse any losses made from inheritance tax. Moreover, if they had a string of early royal deaths, their money could be practically annhiliated - and then we'd have to start paying them a salary or they'd not be able to feed and clothe themselves!

I'd feel more comfortable with them receiving a small but adequate salary than each generation inheriting a billion pound legacy.

There is a logic behind the non-payment of inheritance tax - the avoidance of tempting the monarch into using their position for personal gain - which is compensated for by the fact that they are not permitted to enrich themselves further. It balances out.


What gives anybody the right to inherit land? It's common law, and an essential and basis property right. Are you proposing we violate the law and seize their property simply because you don't like them owning it? If so, what's to stop you coming for my property?

But they do enrich themselves!! they receive land subsidies form CAP which taxpayers contribute to. Do you really think the queen would earn £500k if she didn't have her wealth? Your conflating law with what is right and wrong. Well a rental system firstly could ensure temporary rights to land whilst ensuring that inequality is not passed on. THEY already have an exception to the law, by not paying tax.

With that logic, should we sell off every simply piece of public treasure for short-term gain? For example, the Tower, Big Ben, the National Gallery, the British Museum. After all, it's all just trinkets, isn't it?

You need to look at more than monetary benefit and the benefit given from the enjoyment of the thing - the pleasure derived from it on an individual basis.

Some of these have great educational value, and much more than the royal art collection. I wouldn't class it as a public treasure, more a tribute to pointless wealth. If it is a trade off between having public woodland and the queen owning a load of diamonds, which is a serious possibility, the one most people would benefit from is the public space.

Quite so - but they would at least then be able to have salaried jobs and not be worried about being impartial national symbols.



I think the exemptions, such as they are, are an unavoidable part of having a nonpolitical Head of State.

I wouldn't say the royal family is politically impartial. Prince Philip is known for being a Nazi sympathiser, who told western students in Hong Kong that they should leave before they turn all "slitty eyed". Moreover it does not have to be a political post. The head of state could have no political power, but instead represent something we want Britain to stand for, which is currently inequality and extravagant wealth.

[gladders]

Yes I can appreciate that some of these are advisors are needed for diplomacy work, accounts etc, but the fact is that her living in a massive mansion which requires the use of all these people is a representation of the ridiculous extravagance of the rich.

She has the massive ‘mansion’ as it is a combined conference hall, office block, place of residence and ‘hotel’ (if you will) for visiting dignitaries whom the Head of State is expected to entertain. Other Heads of State have such mansions too.

Besides this, the job requires no particular skill. As much as I disagree with many policies the current and last prime ministers have put through, their job requires much more skill and thought. I would be surprised if the prime minister (well maybe not a Tory one) had 800 servants.

I have no numbers for the PM, so we can’t tell, but then they two offices have very different jobs. His is an executive job – not a symbolic one.

Oh please. Corruption in the royal family isn't going to occur just because they have to obey laws. Paying inheritance tax would still make them one of the richest families in the UK.

I didn’t say that. I said corruption would be more likely if they are forced to seek out material security – it’s nothing to do with obeying the law. Yes, they’d be rich now, but without any legal means for them to work or recuperate money, they could – even if it’s in a century’s time – find themselves in a position where they will have to make difficult choices.

I'd feel more comfortable with them receiving a small but adequate salary than each generation inheriting a billion pound legacy.

Be that as it may, but as the entire royal family shares in these functions, you’d have to pay all of them – not just the Queen.

But they do enrich themselves!! they receive land subsidies form CAP which taxpayers contribute to. Do you really think the queen would earn £500k if she didn't have her wealth? Your conflating law with what is right and wrong. Well a rental system firstly could ensure temporary rights to land whilst ensuring that inequality is not passed on. THEY already have an exception to the law, by not paying tax.

Every landowner receives those subsidies. If you don’t like those subsidies, take them up with the EU and their CAP.

Some of these have great educational value, and much more than the royal art collection. I wouldn't class it as a public treasure, more a tribute to pointless wealth. If it is a trade off between having public woodland and the queen owning a load of diamonds, which is a serious possibility, the one most people would benefit from is the public space.

A lot of the Crown Estate is used without you even noticing it’s crown land. For example, much of the Strand, or much of the Bluewater shopping centre in Essex. It’s not just hived off and blocked from the public.

I already told you that the Queen does not and cannot just spend that money on new diamonds. The Crown lands are given to the Treasury, and Privy Purse lands are used to pay staff pensions and benefits.

I wouldn't say the royal family is politically impartial. Prince Philip is known for being a Nazi sympathiser,

Eh, what???

who told western students in Hong Kong that they should leave before they turn all "slitty eyed".

He’s a 90 year old man who grew up in a time when it wasn’t considered too disgraceful to say such things. I’ve heard worse from my own mother.

Moreover it does not have to be a political post. The head of state could have no political power, but instead represent something we want Britain to stand for, which is currently inequality and extravagant wealth.

Seems that an awful lot of the country disagrees with you. I certainly do. I consider that they represent continuity and change and the supremacy of the rule of law, and of constitutional government, and the ability of the British to resolve conflict through peaceful deliberation rather than recourse to violent revolution. They represent something more than politics at the heart of the State.

The extravagant wealth is a non-starter: the coaches, crown jewels, artwork and so on are not the Queen’s personal property and are effectively run by the State, just used by the monarch for official purposes. Any wealth they do have is legally acquired and not gained through taxpayer’s money. You might as well gripe at Richard Branston or Alan Sugar as gripe at the Queen for that.

[Pindar]

(Original post by gladders)
People have been patiently explaining that if it came to the crunch the Armed Forces would side with the people.

How do you remotely even know this would happen? The Armed Forces have sworn an oath to protect the monarch. To disobey her would be treasonous and mutinous, they'd legally be in the wrong and would have no reason to do this.

They are legally obliged to follow her orders as she is the Head of the armed forces and also the Commander-in-Chief. How do you know the army would side with the "people" as if there's going to be a single unitary "people" to side with?

If Parliament has been suspended then the people aren't exactly going to have a voice, that's if Parliament doesn't side with the Queen anyway.

(Original post by gladders)
The Army is bound to the Queen only as long as she remains a constitutional monarch, and the Army is in any case the effective property of Parliament, not the Queen.

The Army is not the "property of Parliament" and never has been, the army is the property of the monarch and always has been. Parliament has no control over the army, it has nothing to do with the army. The Queen is the only person to declare war or peace. The Army does not take its orders from Parliament, but the Queen. You obviously have no idea of how the system works.

"On enlistment, the Army and Air Force Acts require members of the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Marines to take an oath of allegiance to the Monarchy as Head of the Armed Forces."
http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchuk/ar...medforces.aspx

The Queen can "take advice" from ministers, but she does not have to.

[ChocoholicPolyglot]

No because she isn't "ruling" in the literal sense. However, one may say that a portion of our taxes is given to her and I doubt many people actually want that which may lead one to believe it undermines decomracy. I'm not too sure myself about what I agree with...

[gladders]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
How do you remotely even know this would happen? The Armed Forces have sworn an oath to protect the monarch. To disobey her would be treasonous and mutinous, they'd legally be in the wrong and would have no reason to do this.

I think history has shown that it's never as clear cut as this - otherwise there would have been no French, Russian or American Revolutions, for one thing. Soldiers will eventually come down to what they believe to be right - particularly as the Head of State is also bound by oath to follow the law themselves.

They are legally obliged to follow her orders as she is the Head of the armed forces and also the Commander-in-Chief. How do you know the army would side with the "people" as if there's going to be a single unitary "people" to side with?

How has this been managed in other such instances? I think history has shown us that it's not the oath that is the motivator but the politics of the time and the soldier's individual situation.

If Parliament has been suspended then the people aren't exactly going to have a voice, that's if Parliament doesn't side with the Queen anyway.

If Parliament were to side with the Queen on the issue then the Queen’s going to be the least of your concerns.

The Army is not the "property of Parliament" and never has been, the army is the property of the monarch and always has been.

Not since 1689. Read your history. Parliament approves the continued existence of the Army annually. It’s one of the reasons it’s not the Royal Army.

Parliament has no control over the army, it has nothing to do with the army.

It has as much control over the Army as any other legislature in the world. It approves the Articles of War, sets pay and pensions, approves supply, and holds the Ministry of Defence to Account.

The Queen is the only person to declare war or peace.

And she would only ever do so on the advice of the Government – which is accountable to Parliament.

The Army does not take its orders from Parliament, but the Queen. You obviously have no idea of how the system works.

No, it’s you who is ignorant. The Prime Minister issues formals orders and makes promotions through the Queen, but actual deployments and engagements are authorised by the Prime Minister, as is constitutionally proper.

[quote]"On enlistment, the Army and Air Force Acts require members of the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Marines to take an oath of allegiance to the Monarchy as Head of the Armed Forces."
http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchuk/ar...medforces.aspx

Which is only half the story, as we keep telling you. The monarch is the impartial head of the Armed Forces, but is not the person autocratically issuing commands. The Army is very, very much used to this arrangement, and is not going to blindly accept a sudden change in such an arrangement without a great deal of questions being asked.

The Queen can "take advice" from ministers, but she does not have to.

Yes she does. If she didn’t, we’d have a republic in a week.

[Torpedo Fish]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
No she doesn't.

*yawn* I'm not going to play this petulant game any longer.

For anybody else reading this thread, details of the Queen's constitutional powers can be read here

In short, they include the powers to:

* to appoint the Prime Minister
* dissolve Parliament
* dismiss the Government
* to withhold royal assent to legislation passed by the Houses of Parliament

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Yes, it is. They're payed by the government, supplied by the government and run by the government. The Oath means nothing. I suppose you also believe people always tell the truth in court?

I don't care who they are "payed" [sic] by, supplied by or run by, the British Army's allegiance is to HM Queen Elizabeth II as can be seen here. In any case, the Queen can appoint whomever she pleases to the role of PM and can thereby take control of the means to pay, supply and run the armed forces.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
We're not debating the Monarch's constitutional powers you little ingrate, we're debating what would happen in reality in a conflict between the Crown and the Commons. Your inherit belief that some cosmic universal power is going to force people to follow the letter of the law is rather amusing. Since the Glorious Revolution, Parliament has taken steps to insulate the Crown from the running of the country. Today, the Crown exists because Parliament says that it can. The Crown has no leverage or clout at all to force Parliament to do anything. The moment Her Majesty attemps to interfere in politics, you can say good bye to the United Kingdom, hello British Republic.

My "inherit" [sic] belief is that the letter of the law is the only concrete data on which to base a conjecture of some validity. Speculation such as yours is completely baseless, totally unverifiable and utterly worthless, I consequently have little to no interest in it. What would actually happen in reality is dependent on the context and a multitude of variables; far too many variables to reach a satisfying or compelling conclusion, it is a futile pursuit. Your repeated references to the Glorious Revolution are therefore somewhat malapropos considering that the circumstances and context would likely vary greatly from those of 1642. Essentially, to use a greatly simplified analogy, your logic amounts to: I rolled this dice once and got a 6, therefore if role it again I will again role a 6. Most five year olds could recognise that this is somewhat of a non-sequitur conclusion.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
I brought up my 'brief stint' (don't pretend that you know anything about me) to counter your comments regarding the chain-of-command, which were utterly false.

You quote your age in your profile as 20: one cannot join the army until the age of 16 and cannot be deployed in active service until the age of 18. Thus one can deduce that you have a maximum of 2 years active duty experience, a short period of time that I believe is aptly described by the phrase 'brief stint'. Furthermore, the fact that you joined at the age of 16 rules out the possibility that you joined as graduate, meaning you would have had to start at the very bottom as a private. It is therefore highly unlikely that you would have attained sufficient rank in order to facilitate the significant contact required with high level decision makers to render your anecdotal experience anything other than useless in the context of this discussion.

[Pindar]

(Original post by gladders)
I think history has shown that it's never as clear cut as this - otherwise there would have been no French, Russian or American Revolutions, for one thing. Soldiers will eventually come down to what they believe to be right - particularly as the Head of State is also bound by oath to follow the law themselves.

And you know for a fact that they will consider breaking their oath of loyalty to the Queen, breaking the law in disobeying their commander-in-chief the "right thing to do"

"The armed forces are loyal, and we live in a democracy, but actually their ultimate authority is the Queen."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7758314.stm

"The prime minister can sack the chief of the defence staff. But only the Queen can approve the appointment of a new one."

The Queen has supreme power over Britain's nuclear arsenal. You really don't think one person, unaccountable and picked hereditarily, under obligation to serve no ones interests but their own, with total control over weapons of mass destruction which could obliterate millions of people is an issue?

What about the next person in line who might decide to use them for the wrong reasons?

(Original post by gladders)
How has this been managed in other such instances? I think history has shown us that it's not the oath that is the motivator but the politics of the time and the soldier's individual situation.

Soldiers being shot for not following their orders?

(Original post by gladders)
If Parliament were to side with the Queen on the issue then the Queen’s going to be the least of your concerns.

Not since 1689. Read your history. Parliament approves the continued existence of the Army annually. It’s one of the reasons it’s not the Royal Army.

That's why it's "Her Majesty's Armed Forces" then is it?

The Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, Royal Marines don't exist then do they?

(Original post by gladders)
It has as much control over the Army as any other legislature in the world. It approves the Articles of War, sets pay and pensions, approves supply, and holds the Ministry of Defence to Account.

All of which wouldn't be necessary if the army takes control of the country under the monarch's orders and Parliament is suspended.

(Original post by gladders)
And she would only ever do so on the advice of the Government – which is accountable to Parliament.

Orly?
Is she obligated to "seek advice"? Yes or no.

(Original post by gladders)
No, it’s you who is ignorant. The Prime Minister issues formals orders and makes promotions through the Queen, but actual deployments and engagements are authorised by the Prime Minister, as is constitutionally proper.

So the Prime Minister cannot issue formal orders and make promotions without the Queen's permission? Thought so.

(Original post by gladders)
Which is only half the story, as we keep telling you. The monarch is the impartial head of the Armed Forces, but is not the person autocratically issuing commands. The Army is very, very much used to this arrangement, and is not going to blindly accept a sudden change in such an arrangement without a great deal of questions being asked.

Who's "we"? It's only you who keeps spreading misinformation about how the UK system actually works. Everyone knows all ultimate sovereign power rests with the Queen, including the power to control the army which is the only power required when it comes down to it.

(Original post by gladders)
Yes she does. If she didn’t, we’d have a republic in a week.

How in a week are unarmed British civilians going to overthrow the British army, the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Marines?

Look at Syria, look how much luck they're having deposing their dictator. And that's with Al Qaeda and foreign backed mercenaries. Only the armed forces have any means to exert violent force. And they're controlled by the Queen.

[gladders]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
And you know for a fact that they will consider breaking their oath of loyalty to the Queen, breaking the law in disobeying their commander-in-chief the "right thing to do"

I think they will, yes – they’re human after all, and capable of independent thought.

Again: by your logic, the American, Russian, French and Spanish revolutions must have been impossible – but they happened.

"The armed forces are loyal, and we live in a democracy, but actually their ultimate authority is the Queen."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7758314.stm

As opposed to loyalty to the PM? The purpose of the Oath is to signify the Army is separated from politics.

"The prime minister can sack the chief of the defence staff. But only the Queen can approve the appointment of a new one."

And she will always accept the PM’s choice. You know this.

Please give an example of when the Queen has refused the PM’s recommendation.

The Queen has supreme power over Britain's nuclear arsenal. You really don't think one person, unaccountable and picked hereditarily, under obligation to serve no ones interests but their own, with total control over weapons of mass destruction which could obliterate millions of people is an issue?

Has she tried it so far?

What about the next person in line who might decide to use them for the wrong reasons?

For what benefit? How long, exactly, do you think they would remain in power if they tried to rule through force against the express wishes of the people?

Soldiers being shot for not following their orders?

Are you arguing that no Army has ever rebelled?

That's why it's "Her Majesty's Armed Forces" then is it?

The overall structure is royal because she is c-in-c, yes; but the Army is under the 1689 Bill of Rights the possession of Parliament. The very problem of control of the Army was the origin of that Act.

The Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, Royal Marines don't exist then do they?

You really are thick. Yes, they do, but a sea-based and an air-based force are not quite capable of asserting overwhelming force like an Army is.

All of which wouldn't be necessary if the army takes control of the country under the monarch's orders and Parliament is suspended.

So your attitude is that no army has ever rebelled because of their oath. I think history disagrees with you.

Orly?
Is she obligated to "seek advice"? Yes or no.

If she wants to remain on the throne, yes. You seem to be intent on contradicting every authority on the Constitution.

So the Prime Minister cannot issue formal orders and make promotions without the Queen's permission? Thought so.

That permission is under no doubt – it’s the fact that he’s consulting with her that’s the point. You are determined to ignore the experience of history and create a paranoid dystopia in your mind.

Who's "we"?

Don’t be flippant. You know perfectly well who I mean – the others on this thread who are arguing with you.

It's only you who keeps spreading misinformation about how the UK system actually works. Everyone knows all ultimate sovereign power rests with the Queen, including the power to control the army which is the only power required when it comes down to it.

I really wish there was a way of explaining this to you with sock puppets and single-syllable words. You really are mentally deficient.

I’ve told you this time and again and you are incapable of grasping it: the Constitution works on two levels. There is the formal level, that the monarch exercises executive power on their own dint. But there’s the ‘actual’ level, which is that this power is only ever used with the advice (read: instruction) of the PM.

‘Everyone knows?’ Really? Well, it seems the Parliament and the majority of constitutional experts don’t know, then, as they all claim the monarch acts on the advice of the PM.

Quickly, please, go alert the BBC!

How in a week are unarmed British civilians going to overthrow the British army, the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Marines?

Go and read my comment again. I said the Army will not automatically and blindly follow the Queen’s orders. They have been used to three centuries of such orders being corroborate by parliamentary government.

Look at Syria, look how much luck they're having deposing their dictator. And that's with Al Qaeda and foreign backed mercenaries. Only the armed forces have any means to exert violent force. And they're controlled by the Queen.

Parts of the Syrian Armed Forces actually broke away and rebelled, so you’ve just offered a contradiction to your claim. What you’re complaining about is a danger to every state in the world – monarchy or republican.

[Pindar]

(Original post by gladders)
I think they will, yes – they’re human after all, and capable of independent thought.

Just like how the German guards broke their oath to the Fuhrer and blew the whistle on the millions of people being systematically killed in the holocaust death camps because they knew what they're doing was wrong. Oh wait. No that never happened.

You have a very poor understanding of human psychology. Humans obediently obey orders, follow what society expects of them. Particularly if they have been indoctrinated and brainwashed to follow any orders such as in the military or armed forces. Look at the Stanford prison experiment. Look at the Milgram tests. This is very basic.

(Original post by gladders)
Again: by your logic, the American, Russian, French and Spanish revolutions must have been impossible – but they happened.

Because those people took up arms you idiot. The British people do not have any arms, all the arms are in the hands of the armed forces. What are we going to be to do against the army? Fight hand to hand against the Police and our own government?

Your idea that the monarchy will somehow automatically self-abolish if they ever lost support is naive. All institutions have an interest in self-preservation. Everything in Britain today is geared towards the preservation and protection of the monarchy and the elite, and that's how it always has been.

(Original post by gladders)
As opposed to loyalty to the PM? The purpose of the Oath is to signify the Army is separated from politics.

The Army is separated from politics? What planet are you on?

(Original post by gladders)
And she will always accept the PM’s choice. You know this.

Yes because you are a clairvoyant psychic and you know every decision someone will ever make in the future, and you even know every decision her successors will make even, you know they will go against their own interests even when they are not legally bound to do so.

(Original post by gladders)
Please give an example of when the Queen has refused the PM’s recommendation.

How would you know that she hasn't? How would you know she wouldn't if she wanted to in the future? Why would you refuse a recommendation when they just happen to suit your interests?

(Original post by gladders)
Has she tried it so far?

Probably.

(Original post by gladders)
For what benefit? How long, exactly, do you think they would remain in power if they tried to rule through force against the express wishes of the people?

Their own benefit. And they've managed pretty well so far.

(Original post by gladders)
Are you arguing that no Army has ever rebelled?

No, but are you arguing that every Army has always sided with the people?

(Original post by gladders)
The overall structure is royal because she is c-in-c, yes; but the Army is under the 1689 Bill of Rights the possession of Parliament. The very problem of control of the Army was the origin of that Act.

How would Parliament "control" the army when the head of the armed forces and their commander-in-chief is solely the Queen? The Armed forces would have already assumed control before Parliament would have been able to do anything. Parliament would have already been dissolved by the Queen long before this.

(Original post by gladders)
You really are thick. Yes, they do, but a sea-based and an air-based force are not quite capable of asserting overwhelming force like an Army is.

I'm really thick for proving you wrong?

Last time I checked the Queen is Commander-in-chief of the armed forces. That includes the Army. Do some research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army
Allegiance: HM Queen Elizabeth II

Where does it say "Allegiance: the British people"?

(Original post by gladders)
So your attitude is that no army has ever rebelled because of their oath. I think history disagrees with you.

Why would they automatically rebel? The whole purpose of the army is to protect the Queen and her land.

(Original post by gladders)
If she wants to remain on the throne, yes. You seem to be intent on contradicting every authority on the Constitution.

Oh please enlighten me on the exact mechanism which automatically removes the Queen from the throne if she doesn't 100% of the time follow the advice of her ministers? You're living in cloud cuckoo land.

(Original post by gladders)
That permission is under no doubt – it’s the fact that he’s consulting with her that’s the point. You are determined to ignore the experience of history and create a paranoid dystopia in your mind.

It's not my fault you are too blind to see the truth. Our elected prime minister has to consult with an unelected dictator every week in order to do anything. You have some naive notion that the unelected dictator HAS to listen to her prime minister's advice otherwise she would be automatically ejected from the throne. When that is the most absurd load of *******s I've ever heard. Why would this happen?

If anything the PM has to make recommendations which the Queen approves of.

(Original post by gladders)
I really wish there was a way of explaining this to you with sock puppets and single-syllable words. You really are mentally deficient.

I’ve told you this time and again and you are incapable of grasping it: the Constitution works on two levels. There is the formal level, that the monarch exercises executive power on their own dint. But there’s the ‘actual’ level, which is that this power is only ever used with the advice (read: instruction) of the PM.

I understand fully. So there's no reason why the monarch can't exercise executive power apart from an unwritten convention which she doesn't have to follow but easily could if she ever wanted to? Nice one.

(Original post by gladders)
‘Everyone knows?’ Really? Well, it seems the Parliament and the majority of constitutional experts don’t know, then, as they all claim the monarch acts on the advice of the PM.

They're fully aware of the state of affairs, unlike you.

Btw, how would you know the monarch acts of the advice of the PM and not the other way round?

(Original post by gladders)
Quickly, please, go alert the BBC!

I already quoted the BBC admitting that the Queen is the only person with ultimate authority over the whole of the armed forces and Britain's nuclear arsenal. It seems now you are disagreeing with every informed opinion and the BBC. You have this confused idyllic notion that the Queen is only ceremonial, when her real powers are far from ceremonial.

(Original post by gladders)
Go and read my comment again. I said the Army will not automatically and blindly follow the Queen’s orders. They have been used to three centuries of such orders being corroborate by parliamentary government.

No because nobody in the Army EVER follows orders, they are allowed to stop and question orders and analyse the political repercussions and morality of such actions before they ever go through with it. Then gladders wakes up from his probably drug induced reality.

(Original post by gladders)
Parts of the Syrian Armed Forces actually broke away and rebelled, so you’ve just offered a contradiction to your claim. What you’re complaining about is a danger to every state in the world – monarchy or republican.

No, in my world the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces would be appointed by someone who is elected. Not on birthright. You're comparing institutional systems of authoritarian dictatorship with one another, it's not exactly meaningful.

Armies wouldn't need to rebel if they were bound to the people, not some unelected monarch/dictator.

[gladders]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Just like how the German guards broke their oath to the Fuhrer and blew the whistle on the millions of people being systematically killed in the holocaust death camps because they knew what they're doing was wrong. Oh wait. No that never happened.

You're being selective. How about the oath they broke in siding with Hitler in the first place? Or the many other occasions where Armies have not upheld their oath?

You have a very poor understanding of human psychology. Humans obediently obey orders, follow what society expects of them. Particularly if they have been indoctrinated and brainwashed to follow any orders such as in the military or armed forces. Look at the Stanford prison experiment. Look at the Milgram tests. This is very basic.

And your claim is flatly contradicted by the many occasions in which armies have disobeyed commands, or understand when a command is highly irregular.

Because those people took up arms you idiot. The British people do not have any arms, all the arms are in the hands of the armed forces. What are we going to be to do against the army? Fight hand to hand against the Police and our own government?

Irrelevant: I'm talking about the armed forces in those countries. As for resistance by the civilian population, such a concern would not be resolved by the creation of a republic.

Your idea that the monarchy will somehow automatically self-abolish if they ever lost support is naive. All institutions have an interest in self-preservation. Everything in Britain today is geared towards the preservation and protection of the monarchy and the elite, and that's how it always has been.

Did I ever claim the monarchy would self-abolish? I said it has insufficient power to sustain itself if the rest of the state chose to destroy it.

The Army is separated from politics? What planet are you on?

Excuse me? This is pretty basic knowledge. Name a source showing army involvement in politics in this country. You're a paranoid nutter.

Yes because you are a clairvoyant psychic and you know every decision someone will ever make in the future, and you even know every decision her successors will make even, you know they will go against their own interests even when they are not legally bound to do so.

I don't claim that, but you certainly seem to claim as such. There is zero danger from a seizure of power from the monarchy, as the idea of the monarchy holding direct executive power is long moribund.

How would you know that she hasn't?

Do you seriously think a failed attempt by the monarch to seize power would be kept secret? I think it'd be the scoop of a century.

How would you know she wouldn't if she wanted to in the future? Why would you refuse a recommendation when they just happen to suit your interests?

Why wouldn't the Queen try in the future? Because she has nothing to gain from it.

Probably.

Evidence, please. You're making yourself look ridiculous.

Their own benefit. And they've managed pretty well so far.

You claim that the monarchy rules directly, and against the wishes of the people?

Blimey. The news really has been lying to me. What's your source?

No, but are you arguing that every Army has always sided with the people?

I never said that. I said your claim that Armies always blindly follow orders is contradicted by history, which has shown that they are quite likely to rebel.

How would Parliament "control" the army when the head of the armed forces and their commander-in-chief is solely the Queen? The Armed forces would have already assumed control before Parliament would have been able to do anything. Parliament would have already been dissolved by the Queen long before this.

Because the Army, even with its oath of loyalty, knows full well that this loyalty comes with the expectation that the Queen will not take direct control of the state or the army. They haven't had a direct and autonomous command from the monarch, without ministerial advice, in over three hundred years, and they are thoroughly educated on the significance of Parliament in the British constitution.

I'm really thick for proving you wrong?

You haven't proven me wrong at all. You've made yourself look ridiculous, Saying things that fly in the face of every constitutional authority that exists.

Last time I checked the Queen is Commander-in-chief of the armed forces. That includes the Army. Do some research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army
Allegiance: HM Queen Elizabeth II

Where does it say "Allegiance: the British people"?

Irrelevant. The German Army pre-Hitler made an oath to the German people and constitution, and they didn't pay attention to it. I understand the Syrian Army oath says similar, but the Army has split down the middle over the present rebellion. Your claim that they will blindly follow their oath is contradicted by history.

Why would they automatically rebel? The whole purpose of the army is to protect the Queen and her land.

Why has any army automatically rebelled? You tell me. Because the soldiers disagree with their orders; that the person to whom they hold an oath they feel is no longer worthy of that oath; or that circumstances have changed to such a critical degree that the oath is meaningless.

Oh please enlighten me on the exact mechanism which automatically removes the Queen from the throne if she doesn't 100% of the time follow the advice of her ministers? You're living in cloud cuckoo land.

Why do you seek to contradict the accepted understanding of centuries of constitutional lawyers? I would not be surprised at all if it were the army who forced her out - although i reckon it'll be merely the police.

Tell me: the French Army used to swear authority to the monarch, back in the day. Who do you think it was that escorted the King to the gallows for execution?

It's not my fault you are too blind to see the truth. Our elected prime minister has to consult with an unelected dictator every week in order to do anything.

Yes, yes. Of course he does.

You have some naive notion that the unelected dictator HAS to listen to her prime minister's advice otherwise she would be automatically ejected from the throne. When that is the most absurd load of *******s I've ever heard. Why would this happen?

Because it does: because if she didn't, she would institute a constitutional crisis and it is very, very easy for the monarch to be removed from power. You seem to be the only person who is under the illusion that the Queen is some kind of dictator. Heck, the most fervent republican I've encountered merely sees the Queen as a powerless ornament. I think that kind of argument is much more persuasive.

If anything the PM has to make recommendations which the Queen approves of.

Automatically. Name a single event where she has said no, or the PM has declined to give her a choice she didn't want to hear.

I understand fully. So there's no reason why the monarch can't exercise executive power apart from an unwritten convention which she doesn't have to follow but easily could if she ever wanted to? Nice one.

No, you don't. There's every reason she can't exercise executive power - because every constitutional expert agrees that Parliament holds all the power. You're the only person who believes otherwise. Give it a rest.

They're fully aware of the state of affairs, unlike you.

Btw, how would you know the monarch acts of the advice of the PM and not the other way round?

The many, many books that are in libraries throughout the country, such as biographies of PMs, MPs, civil servants and Private Secretaries. Not one of them mentions a single command coming from the monarch down to the PM.

If you have any contradicting sources, please provide them.

I already quoted the BBC admitting that the Queen is the only person with ultimate authority over the whole of the armed forces and Britain's nuclear arsenal. It seems now you are disagreeing with every informed opinion and the BBC. You have this confused idyllic notion that the Queen is only ceremonial, when her real powers are far from ceremonial.

For Pete's sake. I've already told you about the two-fold level of the constitution: the formal and the actual. Go and read it again.

No because nobody in the Army EVER follows orders, they are allowed to stop and question orders and analyse the political repercussions and morality of such actions before they ever go through with it. Then gladders wakes up from his probably drug induced reality.

Did I claim any of this?

No, in my world the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces would be appointed by someone who is elected. Not on birthright. You're comparing institutional systems of authoritarian dictatorship with one another, it's not exactly meaningful.

The powers of the C-in-C are in reality exercised by the PM. He simply gives the monarch instructions in the form of advice.

Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, cite it.

Armies wouldn't need to rebel if they were bound to the people, not some unelected monarch/dictator.

History disagrees with you.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
*yawn* I'm not going to play this petulant game any longer.

For anybody else reading this thread, details of the Queen's constitutional powers can be read here

In short, they include the powers to:

* to appoint the Prime Minister
* dissolve Parliament
* dismiss the Government
* to withhold royal assent to legislation passed by the Houses of Parliament

I don't care who they are "payed" [sic] by, supplied by or run by, the British Army's allegiance is to HM Queen Elizabeth II as can be seen here. In any case, the Queen can appoint whomever she pleases to the role of PM and can thereby take control of the means to pay, supply and run the armed forces.

My "inherit" [sic] belief is that the letter of the law is the only concrete data on which to base a conjecture of some validity. Speculation such as yours is completely baseless, totally unverifiable and utterly worthless, I consequently have little to no interest in it. What would actually happen in reality is dependent on the context and a multitude of variables; far too many variables to reach a satisfying or compelling conclusion, it is a futile pursuit. Your repeated references to the Glorious Revolution are therefore somewhat malapropos considering that the circumstances and context would likely vary greatly from those of 1642. Essentially, to use a greatly simplified analogy, your logic amounts to: I rolled this dice once and got a 6, therefore if role it again I will again role a 6. Most five year olds could recognise that this is somewhat of a non-sequitur conclusion.

Wow, you are an unbelievable tool. A law is only relevant so long as someone is willing to enforce it. The government is the enforcer of law in this country. Now tell me, exactly why would the government enforce laws that are contrary to their own interests? Do you not realise that all revolutions, civil wars and coups are 'illegal'? We are not debating what the statutes say, we are debating what would happen in real life. There is no cosmic universal power that forces people to obey contempary law, and you are dull beyond comprehension if you unable to understand that. The government is not going to take orders from the Monarch, they are not going to accept a pawn PM and they are not going to cede control of the armed forces, and there is absolutely nothing the Monarch can do about that.

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
You quote your age in your profile as 20: one cannot join the army until the age of 16 and cannot be deployed in active service until the age of 18. Thus one can deduce that you have a maximum of 2 years active duty experience, a short period of time that I believe is aptly described by the phrase 'brief stint'. Furthermore, the fact that you joined at the age of 16 rules out the possibility that you joined as graduate, meaning you would have had to start at the very bottom as a private. It is therefore highly unlikely that you would have attained sufficient rank in order to facilitate the significant contact required with high level decision makers to render your anecdotal experience anything other than useless in the context of this discussion.

Believe it or not, but the Army doesn't keep one holed up inside a broom closet until one turns 18. Nor do they treat us like simpletons. Of course you wouldn't know that, since you clearly don't have a clue about how the Army operates. During my 'brief stint', in which I was a lance jack thank you very much, I visited some three dozen different locations and interacted with hundreds and hundreds of soldiers, both non-commissioned and commissioned. I took dozens of courses and, being the nature of army life, worked pretty much every day. The oath of allegiance means nothing. It is a mere formality. The loyalty of the army is to the country. I find it amusing that you, a civilian, a dull one at that, believes you have a greater understanding of how the Army works than me. Stick to reading stuff off of wikipedia.

[Suetonius]

(Original post by gladders)
So...you're ignoring the many years of constant debate on this forum, let alone decades of it in the wider world, and the fact that the republicans lost a forum-wide referendum a week or so ago, and still claim there's 'scarcely' an argument?

Good grief.

I said there's scarcely an argument about the fact that an unelected hereditary monarchy undermines democracy. That's true by definition. No monarchist genuinely argues that it doesn't; they simply argue about the degree to which it does. They see the absence of an elected head-of-state as a trivial matter, and believe that the monarchy should be exempt when it comes to democratization of our state institutions (for pathetic, traditionalist, sentimental, and nostalgic reasons that certainly aren't grounded in a respect for democracy or principle). That there is a democratic deficit created by the monarchy isn't a debatable point, and monarchists gave up trying to argue otherwise long ago.

[gladders]

(Original post by Suetonius)
I said there's scarcely an argument about the fact that an unelected hereditary monarchy undermines democracy. That's true by definition. No monarchist genuinely argues that it doesn't; they simply argue about the degree to which it does. They see the absence of an elected head-of-state as a trivial matter, and believe that the monarchy should be exempt when it comes to democratization of our state institutions (for pathetic, traditionalist, sentimental, and nostalgic reasons that certainly aren't grounded in a respect for democracy or principle). That there is a democratic deficit created by the monarchy isn't a debatable point, and monarchists gave up trying to argue otherwise long ago.

I see what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree: I think a ceremonial Head of State's source of appointment (election, selection, heriditament or otherwise) is irrelevant to democracy, because they have no impact on governance. If it had actual executive power, I think you'd have a point.

But having our Head of State elected would not make us more democratic in any way.