The Queen of Duty. In an era of irresponsibility, Elizabeth II always does what is expected of her

National Review ^ | 06/05/2012 | Rich Lowry

[Triple]

“Parliament holds the power to make and enforce laws.” CA

Yes, and that power was granted to Parliament by ...wait for it...

The Crown.

Parliament can also be dissolved by the Queen. Although that would be an extreme measure, the Queen has the military to back her. As a practical matter, it is unlikely to happen, but that is not the debate.

BTW - My ancestors served in both the revolutionary war, in Washington’s army, and in the war of 1812 with distinction.

[GreenLanternCorps]

All of which MUST be done on the advice of her Minsters. Who MUST command the support of a majority of the House of Commons.

As I stated in my previous post, the reserve powers exist, but would only be used in a Constitutional Crisis in which the existance of Britsh democracy and constitutional government was at stake.

Also, remember Parliament determines the Crown, it has deposed one King (James II & VII), and a Government forced a second to abdicate (Edward VIII). It goes both ways.

Hence the concept of Crown-in-Parliament. Soveregnty is vested in the Parliament, consiting of the Crown, Commons, and Lords, all of whom are directly or indirectly answerable to the people.

[CatherineofAragon]

"Yes, and that power was granted to Parliament by ...wait for it... The Crown."

Yes, but how many hundreds of years ago? About 700? This is a different world. Again, Elizabeth has no real power at all.

"Parliament can also be dissolved by the Queen. Although that would be an extreme measure, the Queen has the military to back her. As a practical matter, it is unlikely to happen, but that is not the debate."

I commented on this in an earlier post.

"BTW - My ancestors served in both the revolutionary war, in Washington’s army, and in the war of 1812 with distinction"

That's wonderful, truly. But I'm not quite seeing the bearing of it on this discussion....?

[Triple]

“As I stated in my previous post, the reserve powers exist, but would only be used in a Constitutional Crisis in which the existance of Britsh democracy and constitutional government was at stake.” -GLC

Ok - I will settle for that...

(BTW - I notice you didn’t comment on the British military oath. Not needed. I am declaring victory on this and not looking back.)

[Winniesboy]

One of the more pervasive misunderstandings of the British system among Americans is a gross overestimate of the powers of the monarch. Academic constitutional lawyers may indeed have endless fun debating the status of entirely theoretical and anachronistic reserve powers: but entirely theoretical powers they remain, and have no meaning in practical reality. The military oath, on which you seem to set great store, is another example. Because the Crown is dependent on the will of Parliament, the chain of authority for the military, as for everything else, ultimately leads back to the sovereign Parliament, as GreenLanternCorps has explained. What is important for the constitutional balance of power is that military loyalty is not directly to an ephemeral government and the will of politicians, but to national values which transcend them and which the crown symbolises. Do you really suppose that the monarch, let alone her heirs and successors, can or would give military orders? The system works, for goodness' sake, and there is no military in the world with as long a history of willing loyalty.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Swearing an Oath to the Queen is effectively swearing an Oath to the British Constitution. The Queen functions as a living symbol of the Constitution. The oath is sworn to a non-political monarch and LAWFUL heirs and successors as opposed to the government of the day. Which also means that if a King were removed by parliament and replaced, Like King James II & VII was, then the oath transfers to the new King, and the deposed King has no claim on their loyalty.

(Unlike, for example, the Oath sworn by Heer officers to Adolf Hitler, a personal oath to a politician, which had disastorous real world consequences.)

Also, the test of the Oath sworn by the Army, Royal Marines, and Royal Air Force, is set by Act of Parliament and can be changed by them at any time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)

[the scotsman]

Except our military, esp the army, pound for pound, the finest in the world. And our history, our culture....

[RexBeach]

Good on you, mate! Good points!

Thanks for the post!

[imardmd1]

The crowned head embodies the entire apolitical substance and spirit of a nation, particularly in our forbears of Egnland. Rejecting that allegiance, on April 18, 1775, our forefathers, in driving the British troops back to Boston, proclaimed another loyalty: "No King but King Jesus!"

From that initial Spiritual loyalty to which they subjugated their fortunes, honor, and lives, their progeny have fallen through malfeasance, irretrievably beyond redemption, IMHO.

[kalee]

He has a bladder infection.

[Vanders9]

Who understands fashion?

[Vanders9]

Hey..not so fast! Theres me, and scotsman, and agere-contra...and... :)

[Vanders9]

He got a bladder infection on monday. Apparently he is much better now.

[Tax-chick]

Not me ... and British hats are a uniquely complex sub-topic.

[Vanders9]

Are you denying that anything that happens on this Earth does so without God’s ultimate control?

[Vanders9]

A robot wouldnt look as good in that hat :)

[Vanders9]

I dont believe the current queen has ever refused to sign an act into law.

[Vanders9]

“Parliament holds the power to make and enforce laws.” CA

Yes, and that power was granted to Parliament by ...wait for it...

The Crown.

Granted in perpetuity.

BTW - My ancestors served in both the revolutionary war, in Washington’s army, and in the war of 1812 with distinction.

Sounds like you're still fighting those wars.

[Vanders9]

Kind of makes you wonder if the initial rejection was such a good idea, doesn’t it?

[altura]

Are you daft, people? There is a whole lot of claptrap on this thread which started out being about the dignity and duty with which Elizabeth has fulfilled her role.

I admire her.

(Not directed at you, scotsman)