"The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian.
A series of government memos unearthed in the National Archives reveal that Elizabeth Windsor’s private lawyer put pressure on ministers to alter proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings from being disclosed to the public.
Following the Queen’s intervention, the government inserted a clause into the law granting itself the power to exempt companies used by “heads of state” from new transparency measures.
The arrangement, which was concocted in the 1970s, was used in effect to create a state-backed shell corporation which is understood to have placed a veil of secrecy over the Queen’s private shareholdings and investments until at least 2011."
Aight. I meant more like “the monarchy can’t order the military to detain people, or unilaterally pass decrees against the will of the people”.
Asking parliament to pass an abusive law isn’t the same type of abuse of power that would justify wanting a monarch to die in the short term in my view.
Charles is not Putin. I’m pretty firmly in the “overthrow the monarchy camp”, but that’s different from wanting an essentially harmless figurehead of an old man to have cancer.
Charles is not Putin. I’m pretty firmly in the “overthrow the monarchy camp”, but that’s different from wanting an essentially harmless figurehead of an old man to have cancer.
Who wants him to have cancer? You said they have no real power, I showed that they do. Obviously they can’t have people thrown out of windows but that wasn’t the point I was making.
I was more saying we seem to have different definitions of “real power”. You’re not wrong that they have influence, but the influence they have doesn’t seem like “dictator level” power. Simple disagreement of terms.
Given the context of someone asking “is it good the man has cancer”, people disagreeing with “there’s no real reason to want him to have cancer, so no” are easily mistaken as suggesting that maybe it is good he has cancer.
Yeh, I can actually - I can write to my MP, go and see them in the local surgery and persuade them to table questions and even draft legislation It’s quite cool.
There was a ruling put in place when Harry and William were young to prevent the press from being able to report their normal day to day lives, like going to playdates, or playing at the beach.
"The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian.
A series of government memos unearthed in the National Archives reveal that Elizabeth Windsor’s private lawyer put pressure on ministers to alter proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings from being disclosed to the public.
Following the Queen’s intervention, the government inserted a clause into the law granting itself the power to exempt companies used by “heads of state” from new transparency measures.
The arrangement, which was concocted in the 1970s, was used in effect to create a state-backed shell corporation which is understood to have placed a veil of secrecy over the Queen’s private shareholdings and investments until at least 2011."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth
Aight. I meant more like “the monarchy can’t order the military to detain people, or unilaterally pass decrees against the will of the people”.
Asking parliament to pass an abusive law isn’t the same type of abuse of power that would justify wanting a monarch to die in the short term in my view.
Charles is not Putin. I’m pretty firmly in the “overthrow the monarchy camp”, but that’s different from wanting an essentially harmless figurehead of an old man to have cancer.
Who wants him to have cancer? You said they have no real power, I showed that they do. Obviously they can’t have people thrown out of windows but that wasn’t the point I was making.
I was more saying we seem to have different definitions of “real power”. You’re not wrong that they have influence, but the influence they have doesn’t seem like “dictator level” power. Simple disagreement of terms.
Given the context of someone asking “is it good the man has cancer”, people disagreeing with “there’s no real reason to want him to have cancer, so no” are easily mistaken as suggesting that maybe it is good he has cancer.
“real power” to me, is being able to make the government craft legislation that suits you. I can’t do that, can you?
Yeh, I can actually - I can write to my MP, go and see them in the local surgery and persuade them to table questions and even draft legislation It’s quite cool.
Yes, we’ve already determined that we have different definitions.
To me, real power would be if they could just choose not to disclose the information.
Those with true power and wealth are rich and powerful enough to convince the world that they aren’t that rich or powerful.
So, 1 item, specifically connected to the monarchy in 70+ years.
That was the first result that popped up. There are more.
There are very very few. And all directly linked to the issue of monarchy itself
How many is too many?
In her lifetime the Queen gave royal assent to around 2,500 bills. If she directly influenced the contents of more than 3, I would be surprised
There was a ruling put in place when Harry and William were young to prevent the press from being able to report their normal day to day lives, like going to playdates, or playing at the beach.
I assume this guy is livid at that!
Why would you assume that?
Your general demeanor in this thread
Can you give an example?