Prince Charles vetoed gov't bills

Prince Charles vetoed gov't bills

www.presstv.ir

Revelations that Britain's heir to the throne has used a 'veto' power on certain government bills have placed him at the center of yet another controversy amid concerns that the monarchy could be back to a “princes and paupers” culture.


While the British monarchy claims to be a democracy where royals' power is limited by the law, the new revelations show Charles has overridden the British policy wherever he has seen fit for his purpose.

Ministers from six government departments have been forced to seek his approval to their bills for at least a dozen times since 2005 due to a

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
my.news.yahoo.com
www.linen ewsonline.com

Well, well, well. I don't know if I am surprised or shocked by this. I mean I know we don't really live in a democracy, but the future monarch, vetoing proposed laws?

Any Bills being put forward by parliament can be vetoed by Prince Charles, a power that dates back to the middle ages.

No fewer than Twelve Bills have been vetoed since 2005 and there are no plans to re-visit the ancient constitution in order to remove this power.

Effectively he has the power to veto any law that may impact on his interests, whether financial, business or pleasure.

Although from the outside it looks like the Royal Family perform a purely ceremonial role, this just demonstrates how much power they really have.

Unfortunately for many of the poor in the U.K, I doubt you will see any veto from him when the welfare reform bill lands on his desk, if indeed it does.



www.presstv.ir
(visit the link for the full news article)

The government is a talk-show. You got your speaker of the house (host) and your 2 parties arguing over nothing because it's an act created by the show's Creative director who pays each side to pretend.
Meanwhile everyone behind the scenes is making money because the audience, unaware or just don't care because it's entertaining is zoned out watching the show.

lol.

The monarchy still has absolute power there. The government is a talk-show.

I think Prince Charles is going mad

Prince Charles Says He’s Related to Dracula

news.yahoo.com...

It's just like in Canada where the Governor General has the power to Veto federal bills within one year of being passed on behalf of the monarch. They arn't ever supposed to use it as as soon as they do the democracy is over.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


I still think we live in a feudal system. It's just that it's covered up with the illusion of democracy we have.

I'm pretty sure the royal family still believe they have some divine right to rule over us serfs, your story just counts as evidence to these theories.

Originally posted by xavi1000
I think Prince Charles is going mad

Prince Charles Says He’s Related to Dracula

news.yahoo.com...

I 've read that long ago. The bloodline trees have already been published. Bush goes back to him too. And they all go back to Ancient Egypt/Sumar. Thats the true meaning of the merivingian line. Note though they marry carefully, spreading out over the whole group, so as not to be inbred as in the past, this bloodline game is for real, and they carefully stack all 4 sides of their family trees.

reply to post by xavi1000


Take away his body, with them ears he looks like a bloody bat in flight.

We need to kick these out the country, another vampire joke about Charles sucking Britain dry would suffice here.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


It's silly season again. This story is utter bull#. I would expect a non-story like this to be more the work of The Daily Sport,

Originally posted by xavi1000
I think Prince Charles is going mad

Prince Charles Says He’s Related to Dracula

news.yahoo.com...

I think it's correct that he's descended from Vlad the impaler, obviously he's related to a lot of European royalty. I doubt Charles thinks his ancestor was Dracula but David Icke would probably disagree

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

It's silly season again. This story is utter bull#. I would expect a non-story like this to be more the work of The Daily Sport,

The guardian also ran this story.

A minister's private secretary must write to the prince's private secretary, enclosing two copies of the draft bill, to "explain the purpose of the bill and how it would affect the crown, and asking for consent". Copies should be send to the secretary of the Crown Estate Commissioners and Farrer & Co, a legal firm that advises the crown, "who will advise the secretary of the Duchy of Cornwall of the nature of the legislation and the potential impact it may have on Duchy operations and\or privileges".

Convoluted perhaps, but the effect is clear: in 2011 a private individual enjoys a veto on public legislation because he is responsible for, and enjoys the benefit of, a huge private estate.

The Duchy of Cornwall is no sleepy backwater unaffected by changes to legislation. It is a target-oriented investment portfolio, headed by the prince with a £200,000-a-year chief executive, Bertie Ross, who oversees the equivalent of 91 full-time staff. While investors everywhere have been buffeted by financial turmoil in recent years, the value of the Duchy portfolio has risen from £618m in 2006-7, to £712m in 2010-11. The prince's annual income from the duchy has risen over the same period from £15.2m to £17.8m.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by Cobaltic1978

 

It's silly season again. This story is utter bull#. I would expect a non-story like this to be more the work of The Daily Sport,

You are entitled to your opinion, but there are several sources reporting this. Funny, I haven't read it on any of the MSM sites though, I wonder why? Would it expose the fact that they can and will veto anything? If one person has that absolute power, democracy in the U.K has been confirmed as an illusion.

ETA:- I didn't realise the Guardian had reported this.

reply to post by DrHammondStoat


They do have the right.
They own the land and they own the army.
Democracy is there to make you feel better.
It's always been this way and always will. Either accept it or somehow come up with an army strong enough to usurp. Be like Henry against Richard 3rd - bring in forign mercenaries and promise them land.
Just look at Cromwell. He brought down Charles 1st and then realized the country needed a King (or perhaps didn't have any choice) so brought in Charles 2nd.
Or the Magna Carta. The Barons protested and were given certain rights but as soon as they turned their backs John went on a slaughter fest. None of that was about the lowly serf but obly landed nobilility.
There is only one way to make any real change and that is to support the monarch, become enobled and then your descendents have the possibility of voting in the House of Lords. The monarch can still veto that but at least you can get very, very drunk and wear ladies underwear....

Cool. Did not know that. From what i understand from a source that does not to want vengeance due to being censured in UK , the veto can only be applied to laws concerning areas where he

has a formal role or private interests

news.yahoo.com...
but with right imagination and lawyers that can mean anything.
Not a fan of Monarchy myself, so not very fond of the idea.But not a citizen of UK ever though, so if they like the thing - it is their busyness.

reply to post by Aestheteka


Yes you are right on much of what you say.

However, Charles 2nd was reinstated after Cromwell's death. Cromwell was Lord Protector until his death. Why Lord? I have always wondered about that, being from a common background..

The people who were left behind after his death, must have thought that the Royals would try to re-gain their perceived right to rule. Therefore in order to avoid possible bloodshed, maybe even their own, they negotiated Charles 2nd return and Coronation.

We have then been fed absolute drivel relating to democracy ever since. This really does confirm it.

reply to post by DrHammondStoat


Vlad Tepes was not Dracula (Bram Stoker's fantasy). He was a psychopathic genius.
Much like Prince Phillip



Prince Phillip's great. Shame the Queen Mum's not still alive too....

Originally posted by Aestheteka
reply to post by DrHammondStoat

 

They do have the right.
They own the land and they own the army.
Democracy is there to make you feel better.
It's always been this way and always will. Either accept it or somehow come up with an army strong enough to usurp. Be like Henry against Richard 3rd - bring in forign mercenaries and promise them land.
Just look at Cromwell. He brought down Charles 1st and then realized the country needed a King (or perhaps didn't have any choice) so brought in Charles 2nd.
Or the Magna Carta. The Barons protested and were given certain rights but as soon as they turned their backs John went on a slaughter fest. None of that was about the lowly serf but obly landed nobilility.
There is only one way to make any real change and that is to support the monarch, become enobled and then your descendents have the possibility of voting in the House of Lords. The monarch can still veto that but at least you can get very, very drunk and wear ladies underwear....

Sorry I've always been an idealist, if I think somethings not morally right I find it hard to accept and no I don't have all the answers

Also hereditary peers don't exist anymore because it's wasn't considered democratic but the monarchy remains.

As for getting very, very drunk and wearing ladies underwear, you don't have to be a royal

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


If they constantly say they have no powers; you think they would actually remove their powers!
This is stupid, we need to get rid of this creeps already! The idea is so primitive that keeping it is seriously holding back the human race.
I dont know what the laws are but i think its irrelivant.
The monarchy is a scary thing, they creep me out.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


I do recall that it was Cromwell's wish to reinstate the monarchy.
I also recall that the whole thing was just an internal family power struggle (like most wars).
I honestly don't think we have any power or say in what goes on and we are so finely primed that with just a few triggers every man in England would be willing to lay down his life for the Queen.
Imagine, our population has been UTTERLY disarmed and we continuously find ways to hurt each other and other races. We're kept at a low simmer. Spitting Image and Ben Elton are all part of what it means to be British. We're allowed Punch and to lampoon the monarchy but only an immigrant straight off the boat doesn't get teary when listening to Charge of the Light Brigade or Land of Hope and Glory.
An example of brilliant people-playing and propaganda was the wedding this year. The future king of England married a peasant and now everyone is again in love with the monarchy. Any chance of a rebellion was nipped in the bud before it started. Plus, we're English. We don't rebel against the Queen, that's treason (a hanging offence) - we rail at the Etonians in Downing Street.

reply to post by DrHammondStoat


Morals don't enter into it.
You either own the land and the army or you don't.
The monarch still makes hereditary peers - it's just the government who makes life peers (or, at least recommends them). This was a Labour invention because most peers are obviously conservative. Besides, most knighthoods are given to TV stars and footballers so why not give a life peerage to a Leicester businessman who got a million pound house as a gift from a constituent?
The monarch still creates titles and the rights accorded to them - the Duchy of Cambridge, for example... Tell me that one was a life peerage.