[Martyn*]

(Original post by gladders)
Only in the most formal sense. There's not a thing the Queen can do to force the PM or any minister to do what she commands them - they will flatly disagree.



That's your problem, not mine.

The Constitution has evolved to the point where exercise of power by the Monarch is unconstitutional.



She is perfectly accountable; no less accountable than a president, in any case. She does not exercise power, therefore there is no need for extensive accountability.

She is unaccountable having been protected from the dangers of the political process, including attacks from the media. She is safe and protected from the conflicts and divisions associated with political hostilities.

[boba]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Britain changed to a constitution in the overthrow of King James by William of Orange, who was asked to become king. Before that, though, Charles I was appointed king by Parliament. And before that William I set up the parliament. The bill of rights was not implimented to hand over power from monarchy to parliament, it was done to blend the powers of monarchy with parliament. If the Queen decided to go against parliament there would only be a 'constutional' crisis, but this is not always the case. Didn't the Queen (and this is only what I have read) refuse to sign the Race Discriminations Act?

I'm not sure what your point is showing some of the history of parliament it makes no difference to anything.
And the magna cartea was most definitely to restrict the power of the monarchy so that people have rights and can only be punished following a the established law no at the kings whim. I'm not sure how you could possibly interpretative that as not to limit the monarchs power. I said nothing of it giving power to parliament.
and i have no idea whether she refused to sign a particular act or what your point is if she did. I suppose your trying to use it to point out that she has power, but I've never denied that had any power only that it is not absolute as you stated.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by boba)
I'm not sure what your point is showing some of the history of parliament it makes no difference to anything.
And the magna cartea was most definitely to restrict the power of the monarchy so that people have rights and can only be punished following a the established law no at the kings whim. I'm not sure how you could possibly interpretative that as not to limit the monarchs power. I said nothing of it giving power to parliament.
and i have no idea whether she refused to sign a particular act or what your point is if she did. I suppose your trying to use it to point out that she has power, but I've never denied that had any power only that it is not absolute as you stated.

The Magna Carter was declared void by Pope Innocent III and revised by Henry III and the Knigths Templars.

[boba]

(Original post by Martyn*)
The Magna Carter was declared void by Pope Innocent III.

three clauses from the magna carter are still directly part of english and welsh law today..


in response to your edit:and yes documents can be revised I didn't present it as a document that is all completly relevent and directly enforced today just pointed out that the power of the monarchy has been limited since as early as then

[gladders]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Britain changed to a constitution in the overthrow of King James by William of Orange, who was asked to become king. Before that, though, Charles I was appointed king by Parliament.

No he wasn't.

And before that William I set up the parliament. The bill of rights was not implimented to hand over power from monarchy to parliament, it was done to blend the powers of monarchy with parliament.

No, it wasn't. The Bill of Rights declared certain prerogative powers to be illegal. It's only over time that the prerogative has become subject to Parliament's will; you're projecting modern circumstances on ancient intentions.

If the Queen decided to go against parliament there would only be a 'constutional' crisis, but this is not always the case.

I admit it would depend on circumstances, but it's safe to say that if it were a naked power-grab by the Queen, as opposed to a duty to remedy a serious constitutional defect, she'd be forbidden from doing so.

Didn't the Queen (and this is only what I have read) refuse to sign the Race Discriminations Act?

I have not seen any evidence of this. Source?

If it didn't have the Queen's signature, it wouldn't be an Act. Seeing as it is an Act, the Queen signed it.

[gladders]

(Original post by Martyn*)
She is unaccountable having been protected from the dangers of the political process, including attacks from the media.

I've seen plenty of attacks on the monarchy and the Queen in the media.

She is safe and protected from the conflicts and divisions associated with political hostilities.

Duh. Because she doesn't get involved. This would change if she got involved.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by gladders)
No he wasn't.



No, it wasn't. The Bill of Rights declared certain prerogative powers to be illegal. It's only over time that the prerogative has become subject to Parliament's will; you're projecting modern circumstances on ancient intentions.



I admit it would depend on circumstances, but it's safe to say that if it were a naked power-grab by the Queen, as opposed to a duty to remedy a serious constitutional defect, she'd be forbidden from doing so.



I have not seen any evidence of this. Source?

If it didn't have the Queen's signature, it wouldn't be an Act. Seeing as it is an Act, the Queen signed it.

No he wasn't what?

[Martyn*]

(Original post by boba)
three clauses from the magna carter are still directly part of english and welsh law today..


in response to your edit:and yes documents can be revised I didn't present it as a document that is all completly relevent and directly enforced today just pointed out that the power of the monarchy has been limited since as early as then

I don't dispute that.

[gladders]

(Original post by Martyn*)
No he wasn't what?

You claimed Charles I was chosen by Parliament. He wasn't.

[boba]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I don't dispute that.

how can you not dispute that the monarchys powers are and have for a long time been limited and also argue that they have absolute power.

limited and absolute are complete oxymorons

[Martyn*]

(Original post by gladders)
I've seen plenty of attacks on the monarchy and the Queen in the media.



Duh. Because she doesn't get involved. This would change if she got involved.

I haven't. Perhaps you could link some examples for me?

She doesn't need to get involved; her executive makes the decisions for good or bad, which leaves her unaccountable. She rules by proxy so-to-speak.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by gladders)
You claimed Charles I was chosen by Parliament. He wasn't.

Okay. I think I meant that he chose to assemble parliament, which he did.

[gladders]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I haven't. Perhaps you could link some examples for me?

Paul Flynn. The Guardian. The Republic organisation. To name a few.

She doesn't need to get involved; her executive makes the decisions for good or bad, which leaves her unaccountable. She rules by proxy so-to-speak.

Please give one example of a decision made by the Queen in defiance of the public's wishes. I guarantee you won't be able to provide one.

[gladders]

So Martyn, are you going to back up your claim that the Queen refused to sign that Bill, or that the Queen does things in defiance of Her Ministers?

[The_Great_One]

Even if the queen did get involved nobody would mind. If the queen refused royal assent the average man in the street wouldn't care all that would happen is the media would have a new story to write for a week then it would all blow over. I remember the queen is the exception every other monarch before her was really outspoken. King George said about the NHs in public "if I had no shoes and went to a shoe shop would they give me a free pair"