[QUOTE=jjimm]
Though you’re really looking for far-flung views, I’ll give you my 2p’s worth.
On principle, like so many aspects of how the British system actually works, it doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny: heredity sucks; the fawning deference to the royals embarrasses me. I also disapprove of the amount of money they have, and that is paid annually to the institution of the monarchy - in particular, individual payments from the exchequer to the minor royals (the “Civil List”), many of whom do nothing for the country, really piss me off.
Regarding the queen as a person and a professional, I agree with what TLD said about her maj.
Officially the queen can veto any bill going through Parliament. In practice, if she used it, it’s highly likely that the monarchy would be disbanded immediately.
[/QUOTE]
The Civil List is paid ONLY to the Queen who then decides as to what it will be spent onTthe R.F. has voluntarily agreed to give up all its revenues from the Crown estates to the treasury in exchange for the Civil List payment while in power.
So in actuality we’re almost certainly making a profit out of the Windsors.The Crown estates are the personal property of the monarch NOT the government.
Charlie and Camilla receive no money from the taxpayer as they live on Charlies income from the Duchy of Cornwall which is his personal property and once again NOT the property of the gov./taxpayer, but they do have their expenses paid for on official duties and their security is supplied by government as is any high profile official of state.
The Queen will not in the normal course of things veto any legislation except when the government is illegally holding on to its position by say refusing to accept the result of a democratic ballot,refusing to seek reelection after the customary duration,declaring an unnecessary state of emergency or trying to enact something of grave importance (such as nationalising the banking system)that was not in their election manifesto,this would also be the case if we were occupied by a foreign power with an appointed puppet government.
In the event what would happen is after the government repeatedly ignored the opposition and press demands for a general election,(and no doubt more then a few riots) the opposition would go to the Queen,the Queen would consult with her constitutional lawyers and then command the prime minister to dissolve parliament
.Until a new government had been democratically elected the Queen would be "on strike "and no new legislation would become law,civil servants individually and as a group would refuse to put new legislation through the process and could not be punished for their refusal,the police and armed serviceswould refuse to enforce new laws and the treasury would refuse to collect new taxes.
Finally foreign governments and their ambassadors would not recognise the government as legitimate so there could be no deals on treaties ,pacts and similar.
The beauty of the system is that all politicians of what ever persuasion know this so dont even bother TRYING to usurp power illegally.
The R.F being apolitical and not being reliant on politcal parties or even the electorate for their position can not be threatened ,blackmailed or influenced by offers of political positions,being rich and having nowhere to really spend the money they cant be financially bribed and having had so many knighthoods and noble ranks plus being made generals,air commodores and admiral of this that and the other almost willy nilly they cant even be swayed by the offer of honours.
They are as near as dammit the closest it is possible to having a genuine honest broker as Head of State.
When last I looked ;the Wiki entry on this subject had been glaringly amended apparently by extreme socialist republican party activists and contained many innacuricies too blatent to be accidental!
I dont know if this is still the case but Iwould view any “facts” on there with a jaundiced eye.
