Biden’s ratings are now dire but he’s still the nomination favourite – politicalbetting.com

Farooq said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?

The Queen did not save us.

Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.

I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.

How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.

As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.

I thought you were a Muslim, and a good one at that.

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

He's still more popular than Trump was at the same stage.

But about as popular as Trump was near the end, although not right at the end admittedly.

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?

The Queen did not save us.

Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.

I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.

How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.

As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?

The Queen did not save us.

Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.

I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.

How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.

As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.

As an agnostic republican the Tory Party was never designed for you either

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?

The Queen did not save us.

Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.

I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.

How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.

As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).

We had the Christian hymns as well.

Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?

The Queen did not save us.

Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.

I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.

How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.

As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).

We had the Christian hymns as well.

Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.

I don't think he thought that all the way through.

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sort of on topic.

Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.

Can't wait.

I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.

Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so

Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.

It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws

Yeah, they would change that.

Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

People decide what is legal afterwards.

But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.

They can't change that.

Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative

I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.

Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too

That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.

No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands

Benpointer said:

RobD said:

Benpointer said:

He's still more popular than Trump was at the same stage.

But about as popular as Trump was near the end, although not right at the end admittedly.

No. After the first 5 days Trump never reached the heady heights of Biden's current 44.6% popularity, according to 538's average.

another_richard said:

Re previous thread.

The best Bond is the one you saw first particularly if you were young - You Only Live Twice was mine.

Wasn't Anne the last monarch to refuse royal approval for something parliament had passed ?

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?

The Queen did not save us.

Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.

I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.

How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.

As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).

We had the Christian hymns as well.

Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.

I don't think he thought that all the way through.

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sort of on topic.

Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.

Can't wait.

I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.

Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so

Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.

It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws

Yeah, they would change that.

Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

People decide what is legal afterwards.

But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.

They can't change that.

Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative

I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.

Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too

That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.

No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands

I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.

Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law

And we'd now be a republic

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sort of on topic.

Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.

Can't wait.

I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.

Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so

Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.

It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws

Yeah, they would change that.

Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

People decide what is legal afterwards.

But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.

They can't change that.

Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative

I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.

Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too

That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.

No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands

I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.

Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law

And we'd now be a republic

Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sort of on topic.

Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.

Can't wait.

I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.

Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so

Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.

It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws

Yeah, they would change that.

Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

People decide what is legal afterwards.

But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.

They can't change that.

Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative

I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.

Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too

That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.

No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands

I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.

Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law

You now seem to have made my point for me.

You started out by saying parliament couldn't change rules around royal assent as it would require royal assent etc, that is, you made a legal objection to them doing so. I suggested they could just do it and make it legal.

You now appear to agree that they could as winners can make anything legal, and are simply disagreeing that they would, as they would lack the popular support to do so. That is, if they had the popular support for it they absolutely could make it legal.

Thanks!

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sort of on topic.

Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.

Can't wait.

I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.

Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so

Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.

It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws

Yeah, they would change that.

Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

People decide what is legal afterwards.

But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.

They can't change that.

Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative

I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.

Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too

That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.

No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands

I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.

Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law

And we'd now be a republic

Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)

Believe what Farooq is saying, is that a divine right monarchy would have led - as in France & Russia - to a REAL revolution culminating in an English / British Republic.

HYUFD said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sort of on topic.

Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.

Can't wait.

I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.

Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so

Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.

It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws

Yeah, they would change that.

Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

People decide what is legal afterwards.

But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.

They can't change that.

Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative

I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.

Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too

That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.

No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands

I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.

Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law

And we'd now be a republic

Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)

Believe what Farooq is saying, is that a divine right monarchy would have led - as in France & Russia - to a REAL revolution culminating in an English / British Republic.

The English Civil War is also known as the English Revolution by some historians, if it was defeated it would show the Monarch had enough support in the country and its key institutions and the military to defeat any Revolution in this hypothesis

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sort of on topic.

Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.

Can't wait.

I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.

Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so

Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.

It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws

Yeah, they would change that.

Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

People decide what is legal afterwards.

But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.

They can't change that.

Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative

I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.

Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too

That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.

No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands

I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.

Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law

And we'd now be a republic

Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)

Believe what Farooq is saying, is that a divine right monarchy would have led - as in France & Russia - to a REAL revolution culminating in an English / British Republic.

The English Civil War is also known as the English Revolution by some historians, if it was defeated it would show the Monarch had enough support in the country and its key institutions and the military to defeat any Revolution in this hypothesis

How on earth can you know what would have happened in the next 300+ years if the Royalists had won. None of us know that.

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were

Just finished episode 1. One thing that comes across is how seriously party conferences were treated by BBC compared to now. I remember them anyway, but it is obvious from the clips that in 1980s and 1990s the Beeb pulled out the stops with hours of coverage and serious reporting.

Now?

We get an hour at best on BBC 2 between programmes about antique markets.

I don't like BBC bashing but as the public service broadcaster they should show big chunks of the conferences.

HYUFD said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sort of on topic.

Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.

Can't wait.

I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.

Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so

Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.

It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws

Yeah, they would change that.

Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

People decide what is legal afterwards.

But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.

They can't change that.

Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative

I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.

Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too

That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.

No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands

I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.

Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law

And we'd now be a republic

Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)

Believe what Farooq is saying, is that a divine right monarchy would have led - as in France & Russia - to a REAL revolution culminating in an English / British Republic.

The English Civil War is also known as the English Revolution by some historians, if it was defeated it would show the Monarch had enough support in the country and its key institutions and the military to defeat any Revolution in this hypothesis

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sort of on topic.

Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.

Can't wait.

I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.

Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so

Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.

It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws

Yeah, they would change that.

Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

People decide what is legal afterwards.

But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.

They can't change that.

Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative

I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.

Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too

That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.

No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands

I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.

Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law

How did the Divine Right of Kings work out in other countries where it was tried?

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Perhaps, maybe, could be worth noting, that the 1862 midterms were a bummer for Lincoln & the Republican Party. And that was with only the states North of the Mason-Dixon line voting!

In fact, #16's re-election prospects looked dire right up to September 1864, when Gen. Sherman & his army finally won the Battle of Atlanta.

Is Uncle Joe a 3rd-millennium reincarnation of Honest Abe? Doubtful. But certainly a wee bit tooooo soon to scratch him from your racing form.

Farooq said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?

The Queen did not save us.

Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.

I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.

How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.

As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).

We had the Christian hymns as well.

Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.

It probably was, for most. Wasn't there a story that the Queen Mum popped into Eton and no-one told the headmaster?

I don't reckon most parents would trade in the birth of their first child for that time they saw the Queen three hundred yards away when they were 9. But I guess there are a few who really, really like the Royals that much.

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were

Just finished episode 1. One thing that comes across is how seriously party conferences were treated by BBC compared to now. I remember them anyway, but it is obvious from the clips that in 1980s and 1990s the Beeb pulled out the stops with hours of coverage and serious reporting.

Now?

We get an hour at best on BBC 2 between programmes about antique markets.

I don't like BBC bashing but as the public service broadcaster they should show big chunks of the conferences.

Yes, they did not even show much on BBC Parliament either.

It was mainly the leaders speeches and an hour at lunchtime on BBC2

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were

Just finished episode 1. One thing that comes across is how seriously party conferences were treated by BBC compared to now. I remember them anyway, but it is obvious from the clips that in 1980s and 1990s the Beeb pulled out the stops with hours of coverage and serious reporting.

Now?

We get an hour at best on BBC 2 between programmes about antique markets.

I don't like BBC bashing but as the public service broadcaster they should show big chunks of the conferences.

Indeed, one wonders why they don’t. Cheap to produce, automatic balance as long as you show all the main conferences.

Stark_Dawning said:

Hmm - wonder how much AUUKUS has to do with Biden's ratings slump. America's alliance with France is surely the oldest in its history, the War of Independence was won with French help, and the sense of being revolutionary soulmates - symbolized by the very Statue of Liberty itself - is burned into to soul of either nation. Humiliating the French while being in cahoots with the old colonial oppressor may not impressed some Americans of a particular mindset and historical perspective.

rottenborough said:

turbotubbs said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were

Just finished episode 1. One thing that comes across is how seriously party conferences were treated by BBC compared to now. I remember them anyway, but it is obvious from the clips that in 1980s and 1990s the Beeb pulled out the stops with hours of coverage and serious reporting.

Now?

We get an hour at best on BBC 2 between programmes about antique markets.

I don't like BBC bashing but as the public service broadcaster they should show big chunks of the conferences.

Indeed, one wonders why they don’t. Cheap to produce, automatic balance as long as you show all the main conferences.

iirc they claimed it was too expensive.

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sort of on topic.

Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.

Can't wait.

I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.

Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so

Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.

It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws

Yeah, they would change that.

Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

People decide what is legal afterwards.

But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.

They can't change that.

Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative

I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.

Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too

That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.

No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands

I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.

Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law

How did the Divine Right of Kings work out in other countries where it was tried?

France did not have a Revolution or Civil War of any significance on Monarchical power until the French Revolution, had the Englsh Monarchy won the Civil War that would have entrenched Divine Right for centuries

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sort of on topic.

Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.

Can't wait.

I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.

Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so

Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.

It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws

Yeah, they would change that.

Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

People decide what is legal afterwards.

But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.

They can't change that.

Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative

I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.

Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too

That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.

No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands

I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.

Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law

How did the Divine Right of Kings work out in other countries where it was tried?

France did not have a Revolution or Civil War of any significance on Monarchical power until the French Revolution, had the Englsh Monarchy won the Civil War that would have entrenched Divine Right for centuries

You're almost certainly wrong about that; the Enlightenment was a driving force behind the political currents that culminated in the French revolution. The scientific, literary, philosophical, and economic progress made during the 18th century would have happened anyway, and the dissemination of ideas that challenged the ossifying grip of kingly absolutism would have been in continuous conflict with it until the kingly absolutism broke.
The liberalism of the 17-20th century Europe was an unstoppable tide, and the only options were to accommodate it or get smashed to bits by standing in its way.

Stark_Dawning said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Hmm - wonder how much AUUKUS has to do with Biden's ratings slump. America's alliance with France is surely the oldest in its history, the War of Independence was won with French help, and the sense of being revolutionary soulmates - symbolized by the very Statue of Liberty itself - is burned into to soul of either nation. Humiliating the French while being in cahoots with the old colonial oppressor may not impressed some Americans of a particular mindset and historical perspective.

Unless AUKUS was announced in August, nothing.

AUUKUS was announced on 16 September. I'm seeing a dip from around that time.

Stark_Dawning said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Hmm - wonder how much AUUKUS has to do with Biden's ratings slump. America's alliance with France is surely the oldest in its history, the War of Independence was won with French help, and the sense of being revolutionary soulmates - symbolized by the very Statue of Liberty itself - is burned into to soul of either nation. Humiliating the French while being in cahoots with the old colonial oppressor may not impressed some Americans of a particular mindset and historical perspective.

Unless AUKUS was announced in August, nothing.

AUUKUS was announced on 16 September. I'm seeing a dip from around that time.

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sort of on topic.

Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.

Can't wait.

I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.

Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so

Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.

It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws

Yeah, they would change that.

Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

People decide what is legal afterwards.

But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.

They can't change that.

Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative

I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.

Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too

That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.

No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands

I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.

Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law

How did the Divine Right of Kings work out in other countries where it was tried?

France did not have a Revolution or Civil War of any significance on Monarchical power until the French Revolution, had the Englsh Monarchy won the Civil War that would have entrenched Divine Right for centuries

You're almost certainly wrong about that; the Enlightenment was a driving force behind the political currents that culminated in the French revolution. The scientific, literary, philosophical, and economic progress made during the 18th century would have happened anyway, and the dissemination of ideas that challenged the ossifying grip of kingly absolutism would have been in continuous conflict with it until the kingly absolutism broke.
The liberalism of the 17-20th century Europe was an unstoppable tide, and the only options were to accommodate it or get smashed to bits by standing in its way.

TimT said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sort of on topic.

Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.

Can't wait.

I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.

Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so

Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.

It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws

Yeah, they would change that.

Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

People decide what is legal afterwards.

But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.

They can't change that.

Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative

I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.

Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too

That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.

No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands

I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.

Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law

How did the Divine Right of Kings work out in other countries where it was tried?

France did not have a Revolution or Civil War of any significance on Monarchical power until the French Revolution, had the Englsh Monarchy won the Civil War that would have entrenched Divine Right for centuries

I guess the Huguenot rebellions were only a little local difficulty, then.

rottenborough said:

Allie Hodgkins-Brown
@AllieHBNews
·
2m
Tuesday’s Daily MAIL: “Covid: Elderly Were Just An Afterthought” #TomorrowsPapersToday

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?

The Queen did not save us.

Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.

I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.

How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.

As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.

I am the Only Republican In The PB Village!

Not quite...

I have been a Republican most of my life, but of recent times I have had a great admiration for the Queen and she will be a great loss on her passing

Thereafter the monarchy needs to be downsized considerably and even constitutionally

Being a Republican (in a British sense) has nothing to do with like or dislike of the current Monarch. It is a dislike of the institution.

Farooq said:

MattW said:

Question for @NickPalmer

Was the housing stock in Denmark badly damaged in WW2?

I'm looking for a comparator country for improvement to Housing Stock over a decade or two, to get a handle on how we compare with Energy Efficiency etc.

I need one with a broadly similar age profile of stock to the UK.

Very difficult as many countries were heavily demolished by either Germany or the UK, and that makes a huge difference to age profile of housing stock, which is a big difference.

I think my only options with a similar climate which also matters, and emerged relatively unscathed, are Ireland or Denmark. Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and the rest having all been bombed heavily or fought over - if I have my history about right. Even in the UK, around 10% of housing stock was destroyed or damaged.

I think the British probably did more damage to Copenhagen in 1807 than the Germans did in the 1940s.

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?

The Queen did not save us.

Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.

I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.

How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.

As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.

I am the Only Republican In The PB Village!

Not quite...

I have been a Republican most of my life, but of recent times I have had a great admiration for the Queen and she will be a great loss on her passing

Thereafter the monarchy needs to be downsized considerably and even constitutionally

Being a Republican (in a British sense) has nothing to do with like or dislike of the current Monarch. It is a dislike of the institution.