'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

by Guest Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:16 pm

[*]University of Liverpool Labour students hailed anniversary of Charles execution
[*]Tweeted 'Happy Regicide Day' and joked that 'we did it once, we can do it again'
[*]The society later deleted the post and apologised for 'any offence caused'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5330765/Student-group-jibes-Queen-EXECUTED.html#ixzz55gnApVoi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

by magica Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:33 pm

What utter stupidity. Our Queen is the head of armed forces, so this cannot ever happen again.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:43 pm

I thought it was about Queen Mary Stuart and Elizabeth I.

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:55 pm

magica wrote:What utter stupidity. Our Queen is the head of armed forces, so this cannot ever happen again.

???? so were the royals in the guillotines confused

????

pointless executing her, just confiscate all their assets Twisted Evil

by Guest Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:57 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
magica wrote:What utter stupidity. Our Queen is the head of armed forces, so this cannot ever happen again.

???? so were the royals in the guillotines ????

pointless executing her, just confiscate all their assets

Wrong country

by magica Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:29 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
magica wrote:What utter stupidity. Our Queen is the head of armed forces, so this cannot ever happen again.

???? so were the royals in the guillotines ????

pointless executing her, just confiscate all their assets

That was France. King Charles 1st had his head cut off because he still wanted absolute rule of the country, like royalty before him, but the people didn't want that, so Cromwell and others executed him.

The queen still can't just walk in parliament, she has I think his name is black bar, who knocks on the door before its opened for her to enter.

I think I've got that right.

by veya_victaous Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:31 am

magica wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
magica wrote:What utter stupidity. Our Queen is the head of armed forces, so this cannot ever happen again.

???? so were the royals in the guillotines ????

pointless executing her, just confiscate all their assets

That was France. King Charles 1st had his head cut off because he still wanted absolute rule of the country, like royalty before him, but the people didn't want that, so Cromwell and others executed him.

The queen still can't just walk in parliament, she has I think his name is black bar, who knocks on the door before its opened for her to enter.

I think I've got that right.

most ruling royals in most nations with royals are the head of their nations armed forces.
it's not stopped them being executed in revolution/revolts Wink

But like you said She isn't actually in direct control anymore anyway

by magica Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:47 am

No Veya, she's just a figure head now. Royals don't do politics anymore. Although some do speak out about issues.

by Cass Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:47 am

For those who are interested

https://www.royal.uk/role-monarchy

https://www.royal.uk/queen-and-government

Click on the other links too.

Mags - it’s Black Rod Smile

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rod

by magica Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:43 am

Oh yes, thanx Cass, I knew it was black something that was like a stick lol.

by Guest Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:48 am

Cass wrote:For those who are interested

https://www.royal.uk/role-monarchy

https://www.royal.uk/queen-and-government

Click on the other links too.

Mags - it’s Black Rod

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rod

If only that were the case Cass. You might have missed it, but the real extent of their influence was revealed five years ago:

Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills
Court order reveals how approval of Queen and Prince Charles is sought on range of bills

The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.

The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.

The new laws that were required to receive the seal of approval from the Queen or Prince Charles cover issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance.

In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

She was even asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a declaration about the validity of a civil partnership that would bind her.

In the pamphlet, the Parliamentary Counsel warns civil servants that if consent is not forthcoming there is a risk "a major plank of the bill must be removed".

"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role," said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales' hereditary estate.

"It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was."

Charles has been asked to consent to 20 pieces of legislation and this power of veto has been described by constitutional lawyers as a royal "nuclear deterrent" that may help explain why ministers appear to pay close attention to the views of senior royals.

The guidance also warns civil servants that obtaining consent can cause delays to legislation and reveals that even amendments may need to be run past the royals for further consent.

"There has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but actually there is real influence and real power, albeit unaccountable," said John Kirkhope, the legal scholar who fought the freedom of information case to access the papers.

The release of the papers comes amid growing concern in parliament at a lack of transparency over the royals' role in lawmaking. George has set down a series of questions to ministers asking for a full list of bills that have been consented to by the Queen and Prince Charles and have been vetoed or amended.

The guidance states that the Queen's consent is likely to be needed for laws affecting hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall.

Consent is also needed if it affects the Duchy of Cornwall. These guidelines effectively mean the Queen and Charles both have power over laws affecting their sources of private income.

The Queen uses revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster's 19,000 hectares of land and 10 castles to pay for the upkeep of her private homes at Sandringham and Balmoral, while the prince earns £18m-a-year from the Duchy of Cornwall.

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers."

A spokesman for Prince Charles said: "In modern times, the prince of Wales has never refused to consent to any bill affecting Duchy of Cornwall interests, unless advised to do so by ministers. Every instance of the prince's consent having been sought and given to legislation is a matter of public record."

Graham Smith, director of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state, has also called for full disclosure of the details of the occasions when royal consent has been refused.

"The suggestion in these documents that the Queen withheld consent for a private member's bill on such an important issue as going to war beggars belief," he said. "We need to know whether laws have been changed as the result of a private threat to withhold that consent."

The Cabinet Office fought against the publication of the 30-page internal guidance in a 15-month freedom of information dispute. It refused a request to release the papers from Kirkhope, a notary public who wanted to use them in his graduate studies at Plymouth University.

It was ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner. The Cabinet Office then appealed that decision in the Information Tribunal but lost.
Royal influence

Here is a list of government bills that have required the consent of the Queen or the Prince of Wales. It is not exhaustive and in only one case does it show whether any changes were made. It is drawn from data gleaned from two Freedom of Information requests.

The Queen

Agriculture (miscellaneous provisions) bill 1962

Housing Act 1996

Rating (Valuation Act) 1999

Military actions against Iraq (parliamentary approval bill) 1999 – consent not signified

Pollution prevention and control bill (1999)

High hedges bills 2000/01 and 2002/03

European Union bill 2004

Civil Partnership Act 2004

Higher Education Act 2004

National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Act 2004

Identity cards bill 2004-06

Work and families bill 2005-06

Commons bill 2006

Animal Welfare Act 2006

Charities Act 2006

Child maintenance and other payments bill (2006/07)

Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007

Courts, Tribunals and Enforcement Act 2007

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

Fixed term parliaments bill (2010-12 session)

Prince Charles

Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970

Land Registration (Scotland Act) 1979

Pilotage bill 1987

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997

House of Lords Act 1999

Gambling bill 2004-05

Road Safety bill 2004-05

Natural environment and rural communities bill 2005-06

London Olympics bill 2005-06

Commons bill 2006

Charities Act 2006

Housing and regeneration bill 2007-08

Energy bill 2007-08

Planning bill 2007-08

Co-operative and community benefit societies and credit unions bill 2008-09

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction (Lords) 2008-09

Marine and Coastal Access (Lords) 2008-09

Coroners and justice bill 2008-09

Marine navigation aids bill 2009-2010

Wreck Removal Convention Act 2010-12

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

The above was published in 2013, so I expect there are a lot more Bills since then that they have been asked to approve. How very democratic.

by nicko Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:57 am

Absolute load of Bollocks, but what would expect from a raving Socialist/Republican. Whatever you think, the Queen is just a figurehead ! She has no say whatsoever. She said, "in private", she agrees with Brexit, haven't seen that spread over the media have we?

by Guest Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:26 pm

Well Nicko, I have seen you stand on your head many times to deny the truth, but when you resort to calling something that was obtained, BY A COURT ORDER, and the list of bills were prepared BY THE CABINET OFFICE, I know you will deny any truth to keep yourself safe in your little bubble.

'The Cabinet Office fought against the publication of the 30-page internal guidance in a 15-month freedom of information dispute. It refused a request to release the papers from Kirkhope, a notary public who wanted to use them in his graduate studies at Plymouth University.

It was ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner. The Cabinet Office then appealed that decision in the Information Tribunal but lost.'

by Guest Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:06 pm

Nicko, just ask sassy how many bills once passed through Parliment, have been blocked by the Royals?

The answer is zero

If Ministers take advice from Royals that is up to them, but no bill has been stopped due to the ability of the Royals to Veto when it has passed Parliment.

by Cass Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:25 pm

sassy wrote:
Cass wrote:For those who are interested

https://www.royal.uk/role-monarchy

https://www.royal.uk/queen-and-government

Click on the other links too.

Mags - it’s Black Rod

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rod

If only that were the case Cass. You might have missed it, but the real extent of their influence was revealed five years ago:

Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills
Court order reveals how approval of Queen and Prince Charles is sought on range of bills

The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.

The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.

The new laws that were required to receive the seal of approval from the Queen or Prince Charles cover issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance.

In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

She was even asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a declaration about the validity of a civil partnership that would bind her.

In the pamphlet, the Parliamentary Counsel warns civil servants that if consent is not forthcoming there is a risk "a major plank of the bill must be removed".

"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role," said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales' hereditary estate.

"It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was."

Charles has been asked to consent to 20 pieces of legislation and this power of veto has been described by constitutional lawyers as a royal "nuclear deterrent" that may help explain why ministers appear to pay close attention to the views of senior royals.

The guidance also warns civil servants that obtaining consent can cause delays to legislation and reveals that even amendments may need to be run past the royals for further consent.

"There has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but actually there is real influence and real power, albeit unaccountable," said John Kirkhope, the legal scholar who fought the freedom of information case to access the papers.

The release of the papers comes amid growing concern in parliament at a lack of transparency over the royals' role in lawmaking. George has set down a series of questions to ministers asking for a full list of bills that have been consented to by the Queen and Prince Charles and have been vetoed or amended.

The guidance states that the Queen's consent is likely to be needed for laws affecting hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall.

Consent is also needed if it affects the Duchy of Cornwall. These guidelines effectively mean the Queen and Charles both have power over laws affecting their sources of private income.

The Queen uses revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster's 19,000 hectares of land and 10 castles to pay for the upkeep of her private homes at Sandringham and Balmoral, while the prince earns £18m-a-year from the Duchy of Cornwall.

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers."

A spokesman for Prince Charles said: "In modern times, the prince of Wales has never refused to consent to any bill affecting Duchy of Cornwall interests, unless advised to do so by ministers. Every instance of the prince's consent having been sought and given to legislation is a matter of public record."

Graham Smith, director of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state, has also called for full disclosure of the details of the occasions when royal consent has been refused.

"The suggestion in these documents that the Queen withheld consent for a private member's bill on such an important issue as going to war beggars belief," he said. "We need to know whether laws have been changed as the result of a private threat to withhold that consent."

The Cabinet Office fought against the publication of the 30-page internal guidance in a 15-month freedom of information dispute. It refused a request to release the papers from Kirkhope, a notary public who wanted to use them in his graduate studies at Plymouth University.

It was ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner. The Cabinet Office then appealed that decision in the Information Tribunal but lost.
Royal influence

Here is a list of government bills that have required the consent of the Queen or the Prince of Wales. It is not exhaustive and in only one case does it show whether any changes were made. It is drawn from data gleaned from two Freedom of Information requests.

The Queen

Agriculture (miscellaneous provisions) bill 1962

Housing Act 1996

Rating (Valuation Act) 1999

Military actions against Iraq (parliamentary approval bill) 1999 – consent not signified

Pollution prevention and control bill (1999)

High hedges bills 2000/01 and 2002/03

European Union bill 2004

Civil Partnership Act 2004

Higher Education Act 2004

National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Act 2004

Identity cards bill 2004-06

Work and families bill 2005-06

Commons bill 2006

Animal Welfare Act 2006

Charities Act 2006

Child maintenance and other payments bill (2006/07)

Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007

Courts, Tribunals and Enforcement Act 2007

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

Fixed term parliaments bill (2010-12 session)

Prince Charles

Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970

Land Registration (Scotland Act) 1979

Pilotage bill 1987

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997

House of Lords Act 1999

Gambling bill 2004-05

Road Safety bill 2004-05

Natural environment and rural communities bill 2005-06

London Olympics bill 2005-06

Commons bill 2006

Charities Act 2006

Housing and regeneration bill 2007-08

Energy bill 2007-08

Planning bill 2007-08

Co-operative and community benefit societies and credit unions bill 2008-09

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction (Lords) 2008-09

Marine and Coastal Access (Lords) 2008-09

Coroners and justice bill 2008-09

Marine navigation aids bill 2009-2010

Wreck Removal Convention Act 2010-12

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

The above was published in 2013, so I expect there are a lot more Bills since then that they have been asked to approve. How very democratic.

Yes I am aware. That’s what being a constitutional monarch entails.

by nicko Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:13 pm

Sassy, read Didge's post above !

by 'Wolfie Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:27 pm

Didge wrote:
[*]University of Liverpool Labour students hailed anniversary of Charles execution
[*]Tweeted 'Happy Regicide Day' and joked that 'we did it once, we can do it again'
[*]The society later deleted the post and apologised for 'any offence caused'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5330765/Student-group-jibes-Queen-EXECUTED.html#ixzz55gnApVoi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Those students are revolting..

Treasonous behaviour..

Off with their heads !

Bring in the 'Beefeaters'..

Lock those peasants up in the Tower'...

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:56 pm

sassy wrote:
Cass wrote:For those who are interested

https://www.royal.uk/role-monarchy

https://www.royal.uk/queen-and-government

Click on the other links too.

Mags - it’s Black Rod

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rod

If only that were the case Cass. You might have missed it, but the real extent of their influence was revealed five years ago:

Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills
Court order reveals how approval of Queen and Prince Charles is sought on range of bills

The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.

The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.

The new laws that were required to receive the seal of approval from the Queen or Prince Charles cover issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance.

In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

She was even asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a declaration about the validity of a civil partnership that would bind her.

In the pamphlet, the Parliamentary Counsel warns civil servants that if consent is not forthcoming there is a risk "a major plank of the bill must be removed".

"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role," said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales' hereditary estate.

"It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was."

Charles has been asked to consent to 20 pieces of legislation and this power of veto has been described by constitutional lawyers as a royal "nuclear deterrent" that may help explain why ministers appear to pay close attention to the views of senior royals.

The guidance also warns civil servants that obtaining consent can cause delays to legislation and reveals that even amendments may need to be run past the royals for further consent.

"There has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but actually there is real influence and real power, albeit unaccountable," said John Kirkhope, the legal scholar who fought the freedom of information case to access the papers.

The release of the papers comes amid growing concern in parliament at a lack of transparency over the royals' role in lawmaking. George has set down a series of questions to ministers asking for a full list of bills that have been consented to by the Queen and Prince Charles and have been vetoed or amended.

The guidance states that the Queen's consent is likely to be needed for laws affecting hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall.

Consent is also needed if it affects the Duchy of Cornwall. These guidelines effectively mean the Queen and Charles both have power over laws affecting their sources of private income.

The Queen uses revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster's 19,000 hectares of land and 10 castles to pay for the upkeep of her private homes at Sandringham and Balmoral, while the prince earns £18m-a-year from the Duchy of Cornwall.

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers."

A spokesman for Prince Charles said: "In modern times, the prince of Wales has never refused to consent to any bill affecting Duchy of Cornwall interests, unless advised to do so by ministers. Every instance of the prince's consent having been sought and given to legislation is a matter of public record."

Graham Smith, director of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state, has also called for full disclosure of the details of the occasions when royal consent has been refused.

"The suggestion in these documents that the Queen withheld consent for a private member's bill on such an important issue as going to war beggars belief," he said. "We need to know whether laws have been changed as the result of a private threat to withhold that consent."

The Cabinet Office fought against the publication of the 30-page internal guidance in a 15-month freedom of information dispute. It refused a request to release the papers from Kirkhope, a notary public who wanted to use them in his graduate studies at Plymouth University.

It was ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner. The Cabinet Office then appealed that decision in the Information Tribunal but lost.
Royal influence

Here is a list of government bills that have required the consent of the Queen or the Prince of Wales. It is not exhaustive and in only one case does it show whether any changes were made. It is drawn from data gleaned from two Freedom of Information requests.

The Queen

Agriculture (miscellaneous provisions) bill 1962

Housing Act 1996

Rating (Valuation Act) 1999

Military actions against Iraq (parliamentary approval bill) 1999 – consent not signified

Pollution prevention and control bill (1999)

High hedges bills 2000/01 and 2002/03

European Union bill 2004

Civil Partnership Act 2004

Higher Education Act 2004

National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Act 2004

Identity cards bill 2004-06

Work and families bill 2005-06

Commons bill 2006

Animal Welfare Act 2006

Charities Act 2006

Child maintenance and other payments bill (2006/07)

Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007

Courts, Tribunals and Enforcement Act 2007

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

Fixed term parliaments bill (2010-12 session)

Prince Charles

Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970

Land Registration (Scotland Act) 1979

Pilotage bill 1987

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997

House of Lords Act 1999

Gambling bill 2004-05

Road Safety bill 2004-05

Natural environment and rural communities bill 2005-06

London Olympics bill 2005-06

Commons bill 2006

Charities Act 2006

Housing and regeneration bill 2007-08

Energy bill 2007-08

Planning bill 2007-08

Co-operative and community benefit societies and credit unions bill 2008-09

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction (Lords) 2008-09

Marine and Coastal Access (Lords) 2008-09

Coroners and justice bill 2008-09

Marine navigation aids bill 2009-2010

Wreck Removal Convention Act 2010-12

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

The above was published in 2013, so I expect there are a lot more Bills since then that they have been asked to approve. How very democratic.

Under the UK's (unwritten) constitution Her Majesty the Queen is legally the Head of State and, therefore, has the constitutional duty, as well as the right, actually to sign any new Act of Parliament before it can become the law of the land. In practice, however, she accepts and acts on the advice of her first minister and leader of the ruling political party...whether that be Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn or the boss of the Monster Raving Loony Party.

Would you prefer that arrangement, or would you be happier with the system that existed in pre-war Germany in which Adolph Hitler - who, remember, was democratically elected - decreed that he would be not only the Chancellor of Germany and its democratically elected first minister, but also the republic's Head of State whose official declarations were unchallengable in law.

Or that in Russia under the equally odious and murderous dictator Josef Stalin? A rifle bullet or starvation in a gulag were his main methods of exercising his authority.

Personally, I take comfort in the fact that, theoretically at least, HM could refuse to grant legal status to, say, a Parliamentary Bill introduced by a democratically ultra Right Wing government that would forcibly deport Muslim immigrants - or one introduced by a democratically elected Marxist government that would persecute Jews.

by Sponsored content

'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles

Re: 'Happy Regicide Day!' Corbynista student group faces backlash after jibing that the Queen should be EXECUTED like King Charles