Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Can you live in a democracy when the constitutional monarch is ther "by the grace of God". Does "magic blood" lead to inequality!

Originally posted by Prezzy Obama
Can you live in a democracy when the constitutional monarch is ther "by the grace of God". Does "magic blood" lead to inequality!

Magic blood are rich skinny white old men who are respected by their social community through distribution of wealth to other rich men and their wives and through manipulation of the church, "Put in a good word for me pastor." and politically influence from bribing the local police who watch over their community.

U.S. suburbia is not one community, together, but many, seperated.

We men are wretched things.

I was talking more about the monarchy in England and the magic sorting hat of the blood often called "the Queens vagina".

Are you under the impression that the Queen wields real executive power in the UK?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Are you under the impression that the Queen wields real executive power in the UK?

Are you saying she doesn't?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Are you under the impression that the Queen wields real executive power in the UK?

Yeah, yeah I am.

"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."

etc!

Personally I find the idea of a hereditary leader as ridiculous as a hereditary mathematician.

^That's not executive power. That's veto power. Real executive power would be the Queen actually declaring war without having to go through parliament.

In either case, the monarchy is popular among Britons, to the point that if there was a referendum tomorrow the monarchy would be preserved by a comfortable percentage of the vote.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
^That's not executive power. That's veto power. Real executive power would be the Queen actually declaring war without having to go through parliament.

In either case, the monarchy is popular among Britons, to the point that if there was a referendum tomorrow the monarchy would be preserved by a comfortable percentage of the vote.

Veto power, is executive power if it prevents parliament from implementing policy. It is therefore charting the course of policies. You might be suprised about the popularity of the monarchy in some areas of Britain. For instance if Scotland become Independant.

That the royal family has power to subvert the parliamentary democratic process in such areas as military authority and civil partnership is, to say the least, surprising. That they also have direct influence over "laws affecting hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall" is surely relevant to the debate over tax evasion, tax avoidance, and now, bankers' bonuses deferred to reduce tax.

The royal family is the manifestation of the enduring privilege that lurks within the institutions of Britain, so perhaps we should not be surprised. But we should be surprised and disappointed that this has not made more waves in the media. It should matter to everyone, especially when the Cabinet Office has gone to such lengths to avoid revealing matters that are of such far-reaching public interest.