danohu: (Default)
danohu ([personal profile] danohu) wrote2008-03-11 01:07 pm
Entry tags:

(no subject)

[Edit: as predicted, this was a case of a misleading article in the Guardian. See [livejournal.com profile] i_am_toast's comment.]
Plans to make schoolchildren take part in citizenship ceremonies pledging allegiance to the Queen

Yes, it's the Guardian selling papers by angering liberals, and somebody's always willing to say idiotic things to get himself back in the news. But it still leaves me feeling sour - and yes, these things can matter.

Worse - I hadn't realised (or had forgotten) that we make immigrants swear to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law"

sorry; I will stop posting so much about politics eventually. I just seem to have remembered in the past few weeks how beautiful the world is, and therefore also how fucked up chunks of it are

[identity profile] oedipamaas49.livejournal.com 2008-03-12 02:41 pm (UTC)(link)
What stops it being true is 800-odd years of British history (the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Act of Succession, Petition of Rights, etc, etc, etc). And no, she can't just ignore them - Elizabeth wouldn't be queen if her ancestors hadn't agreed to them.

As for the powers you mention: she certainly doesn't have the right to meddle with the judiciary (see: bill of rights, act of succession). Yes, she could theoretically dissolve parliament and appoint ministers - but they'd have to make do without tax or an army.

And in reality, there is no way she would - or could - do that. If she tried to claim more privileges than she has, she'd either get properly deposed or start a civil war. The monarchy (fortunately) has neither a monopoly on violence, nor the consent of the country to do more than perform her limited functions.

You're right about Godwin's law, though.