Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There was a three day period where Churchill almost wasn't prime minister, and English will was looking pretty flimsy and weak. Halifax was the prime contender (possibly for the PM job... or he was just the big organizer for the opposition to Churchhill, can't remember the details right now) for the other spots and his primary idea was to hide behind the Royal Navy and hope the Germans got bored and left as opposed to taking the fight to them else where like in North Africa.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Huh, I thought it was more along the lines of, "Hey this Churchill fellow is a badass who loves gunboats and believes in the Empire, lets make him the next PM." kind of deal instead of being the next in line in the party succession.

It wasn't a 'line of succession'-type deal, he was selected by his party.

I'm fairly certain Churchill just walked in to Parliament and started telling people what to do, and by around 1945 got bored and wandered off.

Ratbarf wrote:As to the poster who was aghast at the monarch or her representative having a veto power over a bill, it's no different then the President having a veto.

Well, y'know, except that the President is elected by the people...

 azazel the cat wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:As to the poster who was aghast at the monarch or her representative having a veto power over a bill, it's no different then the President having a veto.

Well, y'know, except that the President is elected by the people...

Technically... that's not right... Our President is elected by the state's delegates.

But it's generally the same thing, so your point stands.

Oh, Az... did you know Canada ration healthcare? Just checking!

 BryllCream wrote:
Worth noting that much of the land that was seized during the Norman invasion remains in the hands of aristocrats.

Lord Grovenor, Duke of Westminister is the wealthiest British person, worth £7.3bn ($11.2bn), virtually all of it accumilated from land seized during the Norman invasion. I am ambivilent about the monarch, but would be quite happy to see this spanker's land confiscated and sold to private bidders pro bono publico.

Funny you should mention that there are plenty of descendants of the Norrmans who have nothing. Like me.

For those who are curious I am descended from.......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo,_Earl_of_Kent

So theoretically speaking I could be your King and wouldn't that be terrible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

Also, it's not like the royals haven't used their powers in good ways either, I'm pretty sure Winston Churchill was appointed Prime Minister of Britain by King George the VI. I don't remember an election for the position ever being held after the downfall of Chamberlain.

That's more of a function of how our parliamentary system works - the PM is directly elected, the party with the overall majority forms the government, with the party leader assuming the role of Prime Minister. Upon Chamberlain's resignation, Churchill assumes the role of PM. All PMs have to formally ask permission from the monarch to form a new government, which in Churchill's case was a coalition. Chamberlain was still part of it before his illness forced him to step down, incidentally.

Thanks for the enlightment!!!

British change of power procedure has always confused me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also to the Earlier comments about France. Their Palaces are gorgeous. Most of Englands best are residences.

 Albatross wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

At least our Queen is better then the brits, she at least waves.

Our Queen has nukes, yours has Edam.


But thanks for playing.

You forgot about the drugs.

Gitzbitah wrote:
As an American, I definitely favor a monarchy. I feel like life long rulers tend to be more stable, and less drawn to crowd pleasing laws and movements in the pursuit of reelection.

I think Monarchies has to be one of the worst systems around, basically when the king or queen die there oldest child rules and that child could have no qualities that make for a good leader when there could plenty of brilliant non royals out there that would a be more qualified ruler.

I've got nothing against the monarchy. They're little more than a tourist attraction nowadays and I'm sure they bring in more money than we give them.

I'm sortof interested in all the pomp and ceremony from a historical point of view.

I'm both for a canadian Republic and an independant Québec Republic. Needless to say, I don't see the point in the British Monarchy in itself, even less in our affairs.

The Monarchy has no power in Canada. It just lets us use the word "royal" in stuff we feel like.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The Monarchy has no power in Canada. It just lets us use the word "royal" in stuff we feel like.

That's incorrect. The Governor General is the direct representative of the Queen. In the Queen's absence (which is admittedly about all the time), the Governor General is the one who exercice the Queen's constitutionnal powers.

Remember how the Tories almost lost the government when the Libs, NPD and Bloc where talking about allying? The decision was finally taken by the Governor General, ergo, by the Queen's representative.

Yes, that's an incredibly rare situation which we probably won't see again during our lifetime. But power to decide who is the rightfull government is nonetheless power. The Queen still holds her royal prerogative.

It would have been nice for the GG to use that power to block that ridiculous omnibus bill.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The Monarchy has no power in Canada. It just lets us use the word "royal" in stuff we feel like.

That's incorrect. The Governor General is the direct representative of the Queen. In the Queen's absence (which is admittedly about all the time), the Governor General is the one who exercice the Queen's constitutionnal powers.

Remember how the Tories almost lost the government when the Libs, NPD and Bloc where talking about allying? The decision was finally taken by the Governor General, ergo, by the Queen's representative.

Yes, that's an incredibly rare situation which we probably won't see again during our lifetime. But power to decide who is the rightfull government is nonetheless power. The Queen still holds her royal prerogative.

And what is that constitutional power?

Also, the GG is a Canadian appointed by the Canadian government that has nothing to do with the Queen. It used to be the Queen and GG couldn't appear in the same place because the GG was supposed to represent The Queen in her absence but they've even stopped that custom.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The Monarchy has no power in Canada. It just lets us use the word "royal" in stuff we feel like.

That's incorrect. The Governor General is the direct representative of the Queen. In the Queen's absence (which is admittedly about all the time), the Governor General is the one who exercice the Queen's constitutionnal powers.

Remember how the Tories almost lost the government when the Libs, NPD and Bloc where talking about allying? The decision was finally taken by the Governor General, ergo, by the Queen's representative.

Yes, that's an incredibly rare situation which we probably won't see again during our lifetime. But power to decide who is the rightfull government is nonetheless power. The Queen still holds her royal prerogative.

But she also did that on the advice of the government, and the last time that the GG did something that was contrary to the advice of the Government Byng got martyred and the GG's power gutted. So really her decision was simply a continuation of a tradition set by the GG not doing what the government in power wished.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:


And what is that constitutional power?

Wikipedia wrote:Per the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities of the sovereign and/or governor general include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments. Further, Royal Assent and the royal sign-manual are required to enact laws, letters patent, and orders in council. But the authority for these acts stems from the Canadian populace and,[5][6][7] within the conventional stipulations of constitutional monarchy, the sovereign's direct participation in any of these areas of governance is limited, with most related powers entrusted for exercise by the elected and appointed parliamentarians, the ministers of the Crown generally drawn from amongst them, and the judges and justices of the peace.[5] The Crown today primarily functions as a guarantor of continuous and stable governance and a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power,[5][8][9] the sovereign acting as a custodian of the Crown's democratic powers and a representation of the "power of the people above government and political parties."

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Also, the GG is a Canadian appointed by the Canadian government that has nothing to do with the Queen.

Being the representative of the Queen is somewhat ''something to do with the Queen'', regardless of the fact that this relationship hasn't been particularly relevent in the last few decades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:

But she also did that on the advice of the government, and the last time that the GG did something that was contrary to the advice of the Government Byng got martyred and the GG's power gutted. So really her decision was simply a continuation of a tradition set by the GG not doing what the government in power wished.

So she took advice from the current government that said current government shouldn't be overthrown, and just said, feth it, that sounds like a great advice!

Needless to say, she took more in account.

GG's are not supposed to be political players. And proroguing parliament is not the same as saying it the government should not be overthrown, they simply ended the session, the Coalition could have pressed their case after Parliament came back and there wouldn't be much that Harper could have done, short of ask Jean to dissolve parliament.

 Ratbarf wrote:
GG's are not supposed to be political players

Correct, she's a neutral member of the government, but deciding where layed the Chamber's sovereignty wasn't a partisan question. It was simply a question of filling a gray area of the constitution, which is exactly in her power.

And proroguing parliament is not the same as saying it the government should not be overthrown, they simply ended the session, the Coalition could have pressed their case after Parliament came back and there wouldn't be much that Harper could have done, short of ask Jean to dissolve parliament.

No, it was pretty much the same thing. She could've, in the wake of the Torie's election tactics scandal, dissolved the government (which could've lost the majority if those circonscriptions had been lost), or she could've simply sworn in the coalition governement. The fact that she didn't opt for these were good signs she wouldn't accept a coalition government without elections.

You do realize that that's almost the exact same situation in which GG Byng found himself don't you? Except he said eff it, let the coalition have a go, and then he got politically crucified. The GG is supposed to take the advice of government currently in power, regardless of whether or not it's a minority government or not. The Byng affair set the precedent, and while the choice is indeed theirs, there is a strong historical reason why they should just take the advice of the PM. The Coalition really should have triggered an election instead of simply attempting to grasp power several years after the fact, but that is another thread and I would encourage limited discussion on that subject in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the Coalition wasn't in response to the election tactics scandal, it was in response to a bill that would have stripped federal campaign funding from all parties, something which would have benefitted the Tories immensely as they have by far the strongest grass roots fund raising capabilities and would have effectively neutered both the NDP and the Bloc, as well as put significant hurt on the Grits. They chose the coalition route because they didn't want an election as it would have looked bad to trigger an election over seemingly wanting more taxpayer money.

The GG takes no advice from The Queen and is obviously not part of the Royal Family. You can go on being silly demanding our independance from the English Throne Kovnik, the rest of Canada moved on quite a while ago.

I'd rather have the current Royal family then any of the alternatives - especially any politicians as a President - merely look at France or Europe to show what we avoid....

My preference would be for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to take the Throne after Queen is lost to us.

I am a republican, the sad thing is that it is most due to PAST events rather than PRESENT events.

Don't get me wrong i have nothing against the queen, it is when you go a bit farther back and notice that a certain king divorced his wife asked for a new one, pope said no so the kingadopted a new religous stand point to get a nwe wife, which he then beheaded. The treatment of Mary Queen of Scot's also disappoints me. But hay, that was then and this is now.

My main objection i suppose is that you shouldn't be born into a family and immediatly be more important than others.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The Monarchy has no power in Canada. It just lets us use the word "royal" in stuff we feel like.

That's funny! Here, the only time I hear the word "Royal" is in regards to:

1. Kansas City Royals baseball team. They suck.
2. Royal Crown. Sucky bourbon.
3. Somethings a 'royal pain in the butt', meaning it sucks.


I'm not knocking royalty or anything. It's just an amusingly different usage.

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
I am a republican, the sad thing is that it is most due to PAST events rather than PRESENT events.

Don't get me wrong i have nothing against the queen, it is when you go a bit farther back and notice that a certain king divorced his wife asked for a new one, pope said no so the kingadopted a new religous stand point to get a nwe wife, which he then beheaded. The treatment of Mary Queen of Scot's also disappoints me. But hay, that was then and this is now.

My main objection i suppose is that you shouldn't be born into a family and immediatly be more important than others.

Are you against inheritance?

Keep yer queen lads. Getting a republic didn't do the southern portion of Ireland much good. At least she's dignified when meeting foreign heads of state and brings in tourist revenue.

 Albatross wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
I am a republican, the sad thing is that it is most due to PAST events rather than PRESENT events.

Don't get me wrong i have nothing against the queen, it is when you go a bit farther back and notice that a certain king divorced his wife asked for a new one, pope said no so the kingadopted a new religous stand point to get a nwe wife, which he then beheaded. The treatment of Mary Queen of Scot's also disappoints me. But hay, that was then and this is now.

My main objection i suppose is that you shouldn't be born into a family and immediatly be more important than others.

Are you against inheritance?

Ok i don't want to turn this into a thing again but here is my answer.


Inheritence is good, to a certain extent, it is ok getting some money or a house, but the moment that you get a country as your inheritence, with millions of people under you i start to have a problem.

BTW what's your oppinion on inheritence since "technically" Kim-Jong-Un inherited North Korea because it runs in the Kim-Jong family line.

Bit of a difference since the "people" chose our Hanoverian overlords, and they have quite a few limitations on what they can and cannot do, as well as not much of a private or personal life once they actually inherit the throne. Elizabeth the Second has something around 2 or 3 events per day for the entire year. That doesn't exactly leave a lot of alone or family time outside of holidays.

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:



Inheritence is good, to a certain extent, it is ok getting some money or a house, but the moment that you get a country as your inheritence, with millions of people under you i start to have a problem.

That's probably because you have a very simplistic and childish perception of the situation, in all fairness. Our Monarch doesn't inherit a country, they inherit a constitutional position as head of state for which they are groomed from birth, benefiting from the very finest education and centuries of familial experience in the discharge of a monarch's duties. They don't just stick a crown on a random posh person's head and let them get on with it.

BTW what's your oppinion on inheritence since "technically" Kim-Jong-Un inherited North Korea because it runs in the Kim-Jong family line.

I find it offensive that you would seek to draw a crude equivalency between that fat, pathetic, fantasist megalomaniac and a fine lady who has dedicated her whole life to serving her people, as opposed to starving them. Do better.

Yeah, comparing Elizabeth to Kim Jong Un is ridiculous.

For a start, she has balls.

I agree with Albatross and Whitey...
The Queen could totally beat the gak out of Kim Jong-Un...