FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[FRAFPDD]

The Queens presence in G8 summits, meeting prime minister, signing off a new goernment is merely a formality, not even that, just a tradition.

If she were to technically refuse to sign, shed probably by law have to abdicate. She really doesnt have any power full stop, just a figurehead.

[myownalias]

The Queens presence in G8 summits, meeting prime minister, signing off a new goernment is merely a formality, not even that, just a tradition.

If she were to technically refuse to sign, shed probably by law have to abdicate. She really doesnt have any power full stop, just a figurehead.

Actually no she wouldn't; the queen still retains plenty of power should she wish to use it: see below:

"Domestic Affairs
The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament;
Royal assent to bills;
The appointment and regulation of the civil service;
The commissioning of officers in the armed forces;
Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK;
Appointment of Queen's Counsel;
Issue and withdrawal of passports;
Prerogative of mercy. (Used to apply in capital punishment cases. Still used, eg to remedy errors in sentence calculation)
Granting honours;
Creation of corporations by Charter;

Foreign Affairs
The making of treaties;
Declaration of war;
Deployment of armed forces overseas;
Recognition of foreign states;
Accreditation and reception of diplomats."

SRC: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_quee ... _any_power

[FRAFPDD]

The Queens presence in G8 summits, meeting prime minister, signing off a new goernment is merely a formality, not even that, just a tradition.

If she were to technically refuse to sign, shed probably by law have to abdicate. She really doesnt have any power full stop, just a figurehead.

Actually no she wouldn't; the queen still retains plenty of power should she wish to use it: see below:

"Domestic Affairs
The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament;
Royal assent to bills;
The appointment and regulation of the civil service;
The commissioning of officers in the armed forces;
Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK;
Appointment of Queen's Counsel;
Issue and withdrawal of passports;
Prerogative of mercy. (Used to apply in capital punishment cases. Still used, eg to remedy errors in sentence calculation)
Granting honours;
Creation of corporations by Charter;

Foreign Affairs
The making of treaties;
Declaration of war;
Deployment of armed forces overseas;
Recognition of foreign states;
Accreditation and reception of diplomats."

SRC: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_quee ... _any_power

I said this, i said it in my last post, its all formalities, government need to declare war, she signs the bill, she doesnt declare it.

I have the power to wet my pants, or walk my dog. You realise that have the things youve mentioned are things the government do and go to her to get her to sign in, which by law they have to.

If you ask me id say the above listed is well short of saying Yes, the Queen does have any power. Formalities, formalities, formalities.

[myownalias]

The Queen has the power; she just chooses to not use it, effectively she could dissolve government and take direct control herself should the fancy take her. I'm no royalist; I'd prefer to not have a monarchy as a drain on the countries resources. But the queen is certainly not just a figurehead; she has all the power of kings and queens of the past.

[FRAFPDD]

The Queen has the power; she just chooses to not use it, effectively she could dissolve government and take direct control herself should the fancy take her. I'm no royalist; I'd prefer to not have a monarchy as a drain on the countries resources. But the queen is certainly not just a figurehead; she has all the power of kings and queens of the past.

She cant use it, over the years theres been more and more laws, which the royals accepted that handed power solely to government.

We're arguing a technicality. Technically she has power, but in any other term she does not. Not an ounce. She cant actually do what you say she can, or else she'd do it.

She brings in more money then she takes for one. Theres not a tourist to GB that doesnt stop to see Buckingham Palace, if we didnt have them, we wouldnt have much.

[vaptin]

The Queens presence in G8 summits, meeting prime minister, signing off a new goernment is merely a formality, not even that, just a tradition.

If she were to technically refuse to sign, shed probably by law have to abdicate. She really doesnt have any power full stop, just a figurehead.

Influence. Some of her discussions would be top level. It's inpossible that she'd be unbiased, and considering her background (and that of all the royals) I would suggest unlikely.

[myownalias]

The Queen has the power; she just chooses to not use it, effectively she could dissolve government and take direct control herself should the fancy take her. I'm no royalist; I'd prefer to not have a monarchy as a drain on the countries resources. But the queen is certainly not just a figurehead; she has all the power of kings and queens of the past.

She cant use it, over the years theres been more and more laws, which the royals accepted that handed power solely to government.

We're arguing a technicality. Technically she has power, but in any other term she does not. Not an ounce. She cant actually do what you say she can, or else she'd do it.

We'll have to agree to disagree; I have the power to shoot my next door neighbour but I choose not to do it, it's basically the same with the Queen!

She brings in more money then she takes for one. Theres not a tourist to GB that doesnt stop to see Buckingham Palace, if we didnt have them, we wouldnt have much.

Do you have any hard figures to back that up? I don't believe many people (% wise) come exclusively to see the Queen; it's a nice distraction for many tourists but London has more to offer than the Queen and Buckingham Palace, for example my American wife wants to see London for the museums, art galleries and general culture, not interested in Buckingham Palace at all!

[vaptin]

The Queen has the power; she just chooses to not use it, effectively she could dissolve government and take direct control herself should the fancy take her. I'm no royalist; I'd prefer to not have a monarchy as a drain on the countries resources. But the queen is certainly not just a figurehead; she has all the power of kings and queens of the past.

She cant use it, over the years theres been more and more laws, which the royals accepted that handed power solely to government.

We're arguing a technicality. Technically she has power, but in any other term she does not. Not an ounce. She cant actually do what you say she can, or else she'd do it.

We'll have to agree to disagree; I have the power to shoot my next door neighbour but I choose not to do it, it's basically the same with the Queen!

Yo can't legally shoot your next door neighbour. Although I've just remembered you live in the USA

[What's Burning?]

for example my American wife wants to see London for the museums, art galleries and general culture, not interested in Buckingham Palace at all!

It's alright to admit it, she's just hoping to see Susan Boyle.

[FRAFPDD]

The Queen has the power; she just chooses to not use it, effectively she could dissolve government and take direct control herself should the fancy take her. I'm no royalist; I'd prefer to not have a monarchy as a drain on the countries resources. But the queen is certainly not just a figurehead; she has all the power of kings and queens of the past.

She cant use it, over the years theres been more and more laws, which the royals accepted that handed power solely to government.

We're arguing a technicality. Technically she has power, but in any other term she does not. Not an ounce. She cant actually do what you say she can, or else she'd do it.

We'll have to agree to disagree; I have the power to shoot my next door neighbour but I choose not to do it, it's basically the same with the Queen!

She brings in more money then she takes for one. Theres not a tourist to GB that doesnt stop to see Buckingham Palace, if we didnt have them, we wouldnt have much.

Do you have any hard figures to back that up? I don't believe many people (% wise) come exclusively to see the Queen; it's a nice distraction for many tourists but London has more to offer than the Queen and Buckingham Palace, for example my American wife wants to see London for the museums, art galleries and general culture, not interested in Buckingham Palace at all!

Aha! But why would you not shoot your next door neigbour should you wish to, because.........Its illegal. Likewise the Queen going reckless.

[F1er]

She brings in more money then she takes for one. Theres not a tourist to GB that doesnt stop to see Buckingham Palace, if we didnt have them, we wouldnt have much.

Oh man, this is comedy gold!

[SennaVille]

Wow! A Royal Wedding thread on an F1 forum going to five pages bodes well for the British Monarchy. I've not really read any of this thread, as I'm sure it involves lots of silly bickering. But this is why I like things like this.

It builds memories, all the little kiddies will remember where they were when they look back on this time. The children in my town wore pretty little dresses today, the boys suits. All waving union jacks. I know it's daft, but it was also lovely and as I said, those kids will always remember this time.

We're having street parties in my town, all the neighbours getting together, sharing food and doing daft things like having adult running races. We have the day off, thanks Wills and Kate!

And that's all I have to say about that!

[Juliet P]

She brings in more money then she takes for one. Theres not a tourist to GB that doesnt stop to see Buckingham Palace, if we didnt have them, we wouldnt have much.

Do you have any hard figures to back that up? I don't believe many people (% wise) come exclusively to see the Queen; it's a nice distraction for many tourists but London has more to offer than the Queen and Buckingham Palace, for example my American wife wants to see London for the museums, art galleries and general culture, not interested in Buckingham Palace at all!

I work on Parliament Square - 5 minutes walk from Buckingham palace. The place is always crawling with tourists and the first place friends visiting from abroad want to see is Buckingham Palace. In fact, I've developed an itinerary that takes in Buckingham Palace, St James Park, Westminster Abbey, Big Ben, the London Eye, Trafalagar Square and Downing Street. My goodness, I've done that tour soooo many times...

[What's Burning?]

I work on Parliament Square - 5 minutes walk from Buckingham palace. The place is always crawling with tourists and the first place friends visiting from abroad want to see is Buckingham Palace. In fact, I've developed an itinerary that takes in Buckingham Palace, St James Park, Westminster Abbey, Big Ben, the London Eye, Trafalagar Square and Downing Street. My goodness, I've done that tour soooo many times...

I grew up in the NYC area and can certainly sympathize with that. When friends or family came to visit, especially from abroad, I'd do the same Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty, Times Square, Central Park, and all connected via subway... I would never want to do that for myself!

[bud]

The Queen has the power; she just chooses to not use it, effectively she could dissolve government and take direct control herself should the fancy take her. I'm no royalist; I'd prefer to not have a monarchy as a drain on the countries resources. But the queen is certainly not just a figurehead; she has all the power of kings and queens of the past.

She cant use it, over the years theres been more and more laws, which the royals accepted that handed power solely to government.

We're arguing a technicality. Technically she has power, but in any other term she does not. Not an ounce. She cant actually do what you say she can, or else she'd do it.

We'll have to agree to disagree; I have the power to shoot my next door neighbour but I choose not to do it, it's basically the same with the Queen!

The King/Queen could in theory do what their representative in Australia The Governer General of Australia did when he threw out the Labor party back in the 70s and put in the opposition.

She brings in more money then she takes for one. Theres not a tourist to GB that doesnt stop to see Buckingham Palace, if we didnt have them, we wouldnt have much.

Do you have any hard figures to back that up? I don't believe many people (% wise) come exclusively to see the Queen; it's a nice distraction for many tourists but London has more to offer than the Queen and Buckingham Palace, for example my American wife wants to see London for the museums, art galleries and general culture, not interested in Buckingham Palace at all!

I must say, I went to see Bucking huge Palace when I was in London.