Philip, could you just bring Fergie over here please?November 28, 2016 Tim WorstallHistory18 Comments previousTimmy elsewherenextThe do actually believe this 18 thoughts on “Philip, could you just bring Fergie over here please?” bloke in france November 28, 2016 at 8:51 pm Who is the bloke pissing on the upside down chandelier? Theophrastus November 28, 2016 at 9:14 pm PBUH. I dread the republican outcry following HMQ’s inevitable decease at some point. Constitutional monarchy is the best system of governance ever invented, a conclusion Aristotle (possibly the brightest chap who ever lived) came to nearly 2500 years ago in his survey of constitutions. Agammamon November 28, 2016 at 9:45 pm Theophrastus November 28, 2016 at 9:14 pm Constitutional monarchy is the best system of governance ever invented . . . Doesn’t seem to be much point in a monarch if said monarch is content to watch people toddling off to Hell – even if they did make the handbasket themselves. I mean, she has steadfastly refused to reign in government power and abuse for so long – even in the face of stunning abuses like the recent Investigatory Powers Act which she’ll likely sign off on like everything else – that its very likely the monarch only has power over government up until the moment she tries to exercise that power. Then she’ll see it stripped from her officially. The government will pledge to obey her commands as long as she refrains from ever issuing a command. john77 November 28, 2016 at 10:06 pm @ Theophrastus The republican outcry will be deafening – but a plebiscite will leave Charles asa monarch. Monarchy has not finally had its day (it has been admitted that the Greek referendum promoted by the Colonels actually produced a substantial majority for retaining the monarchy but the junta published a falsified result); the Labor (sic) Party in Australia dropped the idea of a plebiscite on the monarchy* because it knew it would lose; Bulgaria voted for Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha – but he found that in his old age he couldn’t on his own clean up half-a-century of communist-created corruption. *It really hated the idea that Labor politicians could be ordered by the Governor-General to obey the law. bloke in france November 28, 2016 at 10:22 pm she has steadfastly refused to reign in government power and abuse Agammon, was that a deliberate mis-spell? If so, well done. jgh November 28, 2016 at 10:57 pm Thing is, we had to kill two kings and exile three before the buggers would behave themselves. Theophrastus November 28, 2016 at 11:07 pm Agammonon You have no understanding of constitutional monarchy, I’m afraid. You could at least start with a summary of Aristotle’s Politics. john77 November 28, 2016 at 11:30 pm @ jgh Can you count? If you are Jacobite it’s four exiled excluding the Duke of Windsor, if not I think two including. jgh November 29, 2016 at 12:32 am Oh, I’d forgotten about DoW. Four, then. john77 November 29, 2016 at 1:12 am @ jgh James II, the Old Pretender, Bonnie Prince Charlie, Charlie’s younger brother makes 4 without Edward VIII or 5 including him. Chester Draws November 29, 2016 at 1:26 am You have no understanding of constitutional monarchy, I’m afraid. You could at least start with a summary of Aristotle’s Politics. But it isn’t a constitutional monarchy in practice if the monarch has no way to effect any change at all. You can’t call North Korea a democracy just because its constitution says it is, and you can’t call the UK a monarchy just because it has a (titular) Queen. NZ is theoretically a monarchy. The moment the Queen does anything we don’t like, we won’t be one (see Fiji, South Africa etc). So really we aren’t one at all, because our alleged monarch has no power. I was really angry when the Queen refused to sort out the last set of coups in Fiji. She could have wielded quite an influence there, given how conservative they are, but she reneged on her role again. If she can’t even intervene in crises, what the point of having her? Agammamon November 29, 2016 at 1:30 am Theophrastus November 28, 2016 at 11:07 pm “A constitutional monarchy (also known as a parliamentary monarchy) is a form of monarchy in which the sovereign exercises their authorities in accordance with a written or unwritten constitution. Constitutional monarchy differs from absolute monarchy (in which a monarch holds absolute power), in that constitutional monarchs are bound to exercise their powers and authorities within the limits prescribed within an established legal framework.” How about that? So a monarch whose powers are so constrained that they must (or is so disinterested that they will) rubber-stamp everything coming from the rest of the government is better than no monarch in what way according to Aristotle? Agammamon November 29, 2016 at 1:32 am bloke in france November 28, 2016 at 10:22 pm she has steadfastly refused to reign in government power and abuse Agammon, was that a deliberate mis-spell? If so, well done. I can not tell a lie – sadly, no. But you’re right, it is awesome. Roué le Jour November 29, 2016 at 2:38 am Her Majesty doesn’t need powers, she merely needs to let it be known that she’s not convinced the sacks of communist shit are acting in the best intersts of the country. Her loyal subjects will do the rest. That’s how it worked here in Thailand. Alan Douglas November 29, 2016 at 7:41 am HM the Queen is the best guarantee that some jumped-up temporary political “personality” cannot be foisted on us against our long-term will. I still shudder when this issue was raised in the Bliar years, abolish the queen and install an”ideal” replacement by “popular demand”. President Blair, anyone? That is – President Cherie Blair? Ducky McDuckface November 29, 2016 at 9:59 am Or President Trump, indeed. That aside tho’, had occasion to read up on the Italian referendum the other day, and discovered that one of their Houses, the senate?, is made up of representatives from the regional governments. Think I’d rather go down that route for constitutional reform instead of dicking around with elected presidents. Jack C November 29, 2016 at 1:06 pm HM has “seen off” even more US Presidents than Castro. And she introduced free healthcare and education. Were she to use her offing powers more enthusiastically, even the Guardian could get behind her. Gamecock November 29, 2016 at 3:51 pm Who is the ginger right of Her Majesty? I’m in love! ‘Who is the bloke pissing on the upside down chandelier?’ Uhhh . . . my eyes were drawn elsewhere. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.