Blocks100 wrote:The only good thing to come out of this whole pathetic Platty Jubbly so far is this:
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1532667634877087749?t=am_ORPwrQUG27tk7YE3_2A&s=19b
davyK wrote:Do you really think I believe the monarchy organises flybys? It gives the occasional reason for one. Why else would be do them?
Blocks100 wrote:Constitutional crisis a go-go.
Diluted Dante wrote:None of the things she does actually matter. You could have a rotating series of actors and it would make no difference.
Raiziel wrote:What about every day life or even in the broader scheme of things would be different? She had no idea other than to repeat that it wouldn’t
Diluted Dante wrote:davyK wrote:Do you really think I believe the monarchy organises flybys? It gives the occasional reason for one. Why else would be do them?
Iron Maiden had one at Download.
Bruce Dickinson actually did a flyby for one of his own shows at some point as well.
Experiment626 wrote:Blocks100 wrote:Constitutional crisis a go-go.
Not really. While the monarch provides royal assent to legislation, and gives permission to a party leader to form a government, they can’t really say no. Much of the monarch’s power is devolved and performed in their name, and if a monarch refused either of these things, it would conflict with the other processes. We really only pay lip service to being a constitutional monarchy, and when the leader of the majority party asks permission to form the Government, it’s a (pointless) formality.
The reason nobody is calling for her abdication is because it doesn’t remotely matter, even in the slightest, if she is capable of being a functioning head of state, because the ‘functioning’ part hasn’t mattered for some time. Incapable of giving royal assent? There’s not really anything stopping Charles from doing it in her name, because basically ever other function is performed by others in her name.
It’s a ceremonial position these days, and litttle more.
Diluted Dante wrote:His claim to the throne is that he was the first one out of the Queen's Vag. I'm not sure how much more our constitutional experts have to recognise.
Escape wrote:She's going for gold, clearly. And slowly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs
Blocks100 wrote:However, if and when Charles has to start giving assent in lieu of the queen, he automatically gets labelled 'not good enough to be King' - a sort of stand in for his mum, who is never going to make the grade. Her refusal to abdicate is undermining his claim on the throne. Our 'constitutional experts' must be recognising this surely?
g.man wrote:...WITH STRACZYNSKI AT THE HELM TOO!
Experiment626 wrote:.I’m pretty certain that, like me, our constitutional experts wouldn’t have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!