It seems that the queen and charlie boy regularly use their power of veto to change bills introduced in parliament. Those that think the monarch's role is ceremonial need to think again. Unbelievable that she vetoed a bill which gave parliament rather than her the power to go to war. www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/1 ... veto-bills

It seems that the queen and charlie boy regularly use their power of veto to change bills introduced in parliament. Those that think the monarch's role is ceremonial need to think again. Unbelievable that she vetoed a bill which gave parliament rather than her the power to go to war. www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/1 ... veto-bills

Is there a story in there somewhere?

I don't understand why politicians accept such meddling from the royal family. If its true that Prince Charles has vetoed over a dozen laws that is absolutely ludicrous - why isn't this more widely publicised?



If I were the Prime Minister and Charles was interfering with laws I was trying to pass, I'd tell him to off, and that if he tried to veto anything else I'd have the constitution changed, removing all power from him and his family of inbred half-wits.

All very funny for knee-jerk anti-monarchists, but as in reality we are told in the article itself that on no occasion has a veto been used "unless advised to do so by ministers" there seems to be no story here.

Strange the story should come out now, HM has been a brake on excesses by a few governments, many of them blue.

Quote Durham Giant="Durham Giant"It seems that the queen and charlie boy regularly use their power of veto to change bills introduced in parliament. Those that think the monarch's role is ceremonial need to think again. Unbelievable that she vetoed a bill which gave parliament rather than her the power to go to war. www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/1 ... veto-bills'" Off with their heads. Hasn't the BBC also refused to divulge e mails from Charlie, in which he allegedly attempted to exert influence? The sooner we become a republic, the better.

Quote Durham Giant="Durham Giant"It seems that the queen and charlie boy regularly use their power of veto to change bills introduced in parliament. Those that think the monarch's role is ceremonial need to think again. Unbelievable that she vetoed a bill which gave parliament rather than her the power to go to war. www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/1 ... veto-bills'" Off with their heads. Hasn't the BBC also refused to divulge e mails from Charlie, in which he allegedly attempted to exert influence? The sooner we become a republic, the better.

Ah, right, so the fact that a power is seldom used is a reason for its perpetuation?

Besides, the fact that Charles is regularly sticking his oar in ... and affecting statute in the process ... is utterly undemocratic.



We are constantly fed the lies that the monarchy is largely ceremonial when, in actuality, it serves to maintain the establishment via the Order of the garter, the House of Lords, the honours system and the distribution of awards of grace and favour.



Nothing knee- jerk about it, the self-interested forelock-tuggers stand between the populace and decent democracy.

you are familiar with the House of Lords???



whatever gave you the idea we lived in a democracy?

Your ability to miss the point is really quite astonishing.

Did you not see that, in the very post to which you replied, I listed the House of Lords as one of the things that impedes democracy?

Even the bit you quoted speaks of what stands between the populace and decent democracy.

There are quite a lot of things which impede our democracy, the house of lords, the voting system we use, even the type of democracy we have, our parliamentary system is in someways undemocratic.



Liz having a power she doesn’t use, and if she did merry hell would be made of it, is fairly low down the list.

Do you think so? really? I would disagree.





No, he is sticking his oar in as he owns the independent country that is the Duchy of Cornwall.





Who constantly feeds you these lies then? I don't remember a single person ever feeding me this lie during my life to date. Maybe I meet the wrong people. Don't you find it an irritant when people are constantly telling you "the monarchy is largely ceremonial"? It would pisz me off, I can tell you. It's an odd thing, though. Why are they picking on you like that?



The monarchy is far from ceremonial. We have a monarch. At the moment, a Queen. This is factual.



The establishment is the establishment but I doubt whether in any major sense it needs the monarch. Those people who form the establishment are not, in the overwhelming majority, royals.



The honours system is of course pretty much entirely the province of politicians. It is hardly realistic to lay any criticism of it at the feet of the monarch, who simply hands out the gongs.



The House of Lords is, like the monarchy, a fundamental part of the constitutional setup of this country. The monarchy does nothing, at all, to serve to maintain it. Unless Parliament votes to abolish the HoL then it will remain.





You have got to be joking. What stands between the populace and decent democracy is a lot of things, but (for just one example) international conglomerates including the banks are a million times more relevant to that point than the monarchy. Unless you think the queen runs all of them. I think the implication that if you abolished the monarchy this would restore decent democracy to the populace is breathtakingly naive. It would have no such effect at all.

Why on earth would a minister need to advise the queen to use her powerless veto???



Couldn't possibly be that the queens advisor, after advise from the queen, advises the minister to to advise the queen to veto something she doesn't like, could it??