Prince Charles vetoed gov't bills

reply to post by Aestheteka


Very well put.

I guess people are so conditioned now, but I do believe the views of the Royals have changed over the Generations. I appreciate that the wedding seemed to unite a lot of people. But when you compare it to the Jubilee or Charles and Diana's wedding, it doesn't match, despite an increase in population.

It's not about who is King or Queen, it's about having a Monarch. We, as Britons, NEED a monarch. We need a God-King. We're a brutal, savage island race of mixed races and languages. We have a thick smearing of diplomacy and culture to keep our anger in check - you be nice to me and I'll be nice to you, whether we hate each other or not.
We're a small population which managed to create the largest empire in history. The Queen is still head of state in many countries. When the UN sits down to vote, the Queen can rely on this little bunch (The Commonwealth) to vote in Her, and our, best interests -



Our national anthem is utterly unique in that it is about us worshipping the Queen. Americans should listen to the lyrics as I think they'll be surprised.



We also have an unoffical anthem


I am proud to be British. I am proud to be an Englishman. And I am proud to be subject to the Queen.
We don't need ID cards because She owns us and in return makes us great and gives us the most civilized country on Earth. Unlike every other country, citizenship is a gift from the Monarch as opposed to a birth right. We are born subjects and must earn that right.
I've been quite a rebel all my life and I've opposed just about everything I've come acrossm but in this I draw a line in the sand.
Cry God for Harry and Saint George!

A couple of articles shed some more light on it - but not the whole story -

The situation has apparently arisen through an unusual constitutional loophole that means the Prince must be consulted when legislation might affect his interests. It is not known if the Prince ever exercised this right and whether laws were changed with his input.

- Business Insider

So it has to do with bills that might affect his "private interests" - and the obvious corollory has been pointed out:

"We should know why he is being asked and the government should publish the answers," said Lord Berkeley, who was last month told to seek Charles' consent on a marine navigation bill. "If he is given these powers purely because he owns land in Cornwall it is pretty stupid. What about the other landowners who must also be affected by changes to legislation?"

- The Guardian

It is obviusly not something new - and indeed it is mentioned in the Wiki article on Royal Assent - as the "Prince's Assent" - apparently it applies to his 2 offices of "Prince and Great Steward of Scotland" and as Duke of Cornwall.

The link from Wiki goes to Hansard where there was a specific question in the house in 1996:

Prince of Wales's Consent

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances the Prince of Wales's consent is needed for a Bill. [26043]

The Prime Minister: Bills whose provisions affect the hereditary revenues, personal property or interests of the Duchy of Cornwall require the consent of the Prince of Wales to be signified in both Houses before they are passed. The same would apply to any Bill which affected the interest of the Prince of Wales in his capacity as Prince and Steward of Scotland.

Through the wiki links it turns out the Duchy of Cornwall actually has some archaic rights not shared by the rest of England that date back hundreds of years.

The Prince and Great Steward of Scotland also had some archaic rights and privileges especially due to being "Lord Paramount" over some specific areas of Scotland, whereas the Monarch is Lord Paramount everywhere else in Scotland. But they seem to have been cut back quite a lot in the last decade or 2.

It dates back to the early 1400's - when Scotland was a seperate soverign country - so it's nto even something the Perfidious English imposed on it!!

The title of Prince of Scotland originated from a charter granting the Principality of Scotland to the future James I of Scotland, the then heir apparent, granted on December 10, 1404, by King Robert III. During the reign of James III of Scotland, permanency was enacted to the title. The designation "Principality of Scotland" implied (and implies) not Scotland as a whole but lands in western Scotland, in areas such as Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and the Stewartry appropriated as patrimony of the Sovereign's eldest son for his maintenance.

(from the link to the Great Steward & Prince of Scotland above)

so it's not actually ever been much of a secret that he has this ability, it isn't a veto over all public law as people fear, it isn't really threatening the constitution of the UK, it isn't actually anything Charles has finagled at all, and I suspect the privilege probably won't actually last much longer!

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

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.

edit on 31/10/11 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)

BBC, Sky, Telegraph, Daily Mail and other so-called 'mainstream' news sources had published articles on this before PressTV.

Prince Charles vetoed gov't bills

Revelations that Britain's heir to the throne has used a 'veto' power on certain government bills…

...the new revelations show Charles has overridden the British policy wherever he has seen fit for his purpose...

The "revelations" posted by the Guardian do not include instances of him vetoing or altering bills.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

It is obviusly not something new

Well if you did read what I posted in the OP, I did mention this fact.

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

Maybe it has been out there, but let's be honnest, unless it is exposed like this, not everyone would realise this was going on.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

It is obviusly not something new

Well if you did read what I posted in the OP, I did mention this fact.

Yep - but a lot of people weer reacting as if it were.

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

the statement "Any Bills being put forward by parliament can be vetoed by Prince Charles..." is false.

Maybe it has been out there, but let's be honnest, unless it is exposed like this, not everyone would realise this was going on.

Sure - it takes some mock-outrage headline to make a story of it. no-one seems to have noticed the question about in Hansard 15 years ago......

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

the statement "Any Bills being put forward by parliament can be vetoed by Prince Charles..." is false.

Well, effectively it isn't. He could make any legislative Bill his business if he is lobbied enough. One person having so much power is open to corruption BIG time.

This reminds me of a new law that was recently passed making it more difficult for war criminals to be charged in the U.K. But that deserves it's own thread in all honestly.

ETA:- I think details of the Bills should be released, then we can all determine what actual power he has.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

the statement "Any Bills being put forward by parliament can be vetoed by Prince Charles..." is false.

Well, effectively it isn't. He could make any legislative Bill his business if he is lobbied enough.

His potential influence over legislation is limited to that which is actually enshrined in law - that which affects his holdings as Duke of Cornwall and Prince and Grand Steward of Scotland - it is not "any legislative Bill" at all.

There is no need to make these anachronistic powers any more than they are - IMO bringing them to public light like this will be enough to see them of fairly shortly.

The people of the UK will never cease to amaze me. This family has been a boot to your throat since the time that it rose to power and all you do is worship them as if theyre God reborn. Either abolish the royalty altogether or just officially give them back the power they already obviously hold. Oh theyre just there for show are they? This along with owning much of the land not only in the UK but also in Canada and Australia should prove otherwise.

The people of Britain should have hanged those scumbags a LONG TIME AGO...

All of them. Hang them, that's what ``we call ourselves Kings and Queens appointed by God`` deserve... that or be sent to a mental hospital.

Since I'm in Canada, I will say that we should have told them a long time ago to get lost and reformed the entire system so we don't have any mention of these scum anywhere, not in our money, not in our political institutions.

Royalty is the exact opposite of freedom.

Dracula was a real person so I dont really think Prince charles is going off the deep end.

Britain is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a democracy.

The source is from Presstv - the mouth piece of the Iranian Government.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


I dont like any of these peeps, but at the end of the day I think the royals do a better job than some too bit poltician. They have been breed for it.. They are not in it for short term political gain.

I should have expected something like this. I wonder what the crowns voting record is.

When I read this story it made me think that things haven't changed much in human history. There have been some convoluted behind the scenes connections going on for generations.

If the windsors still have this type of power over the commonwealth, and there are still kingdoms such as sweden, denmark, monaco, and many others...
en.wikipedia.org...
...what then of the distribution of power and wealth?
I recall some tidbit of trivia that the windsors are the largest non american property holders in the usa.
I'm not sure that is still true.

I get the feeling that much of the world is still connected via these royal/ancestral/hereditary links, and managed by some sorts of agreement which we rarely ever hear about.

Originally posted by xavi1000
I think Prince Charles is going mad

Prince Charles Says He’s Related to Dracula
news.yahoo.com...

The heir to the British throne was making the connection during an interview that will air as part of an upcoming TV show to promote the preservation of forests in Romania’s Transylvania region. “So I have a bit of a stake in the country,” the prince said.
news.yahoo.com...

He has a "bit of a stake" in the country he says. *Drum roll, high-hat*

On topic: That they have the ability to veto anything contrary to their 'interests' doesn't demonstrate their power as much proves it. I have a feeling that we'll be hearing more of Charles--on the world stage--soon enough.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Well said that man
On all counts

I think its time people start to wake up smell the fireworks here.

The idea that the people have the power through "democracy" has got to be the Greatest Lie in Modern Times.

Just Look at Every Country which is having mass protests right now, especially Greece.

Clear example of Government Fascism rather than democracy.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


I think you will find that it is merely following convention and custom and in actuality he has never exercised his right to veto.

If he, or any of his family, ever interfere in the governance of this country then they should go the same way as his ancestoral namesake.

It's an old anomoly that needs addressing so as to dispel any rumour or possibility of him or any of his offspring actually using this antiquated power.

reply to post by Aestheteka


Well....I too am a very proud Englishman and am proud of our great Union.

I honour and respect our heritage and culture and believe we as a nation should broadcast our Britishness with more pride and passion.

I am also very proud of our willingness to accept and integrate a diversity of cultures that allows us to continue growing and developing as a people and society.

But I disagree with you on one very important issue; it is the people of this nation that made it great and not the monarchy.
The Queen is a figurehead who represents Britain and that is something I respect, but I neither worship her or will blindly obey her and the instant she tries to interfere in the running of this country is the moment I will rise up against her and her family.

I am British by birth (English) and Australian by choice. We have just had a Royal Visit with Her Majesty and Prince Phillip which has done much for the Monarchy Movement her in Australia.
The Britain I knew 44 years ago is no longer and I think this taken from my home town football supporters site in England really sums it up:

reply to post by OzTiger


Its not much better in America, infact it might actually be worse, but atleast we make our own entertainment lol.