Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Powers of the Crown | |
Author: Steph (U.S.) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 18:18:31 11/28/04 Sun In reply to: Trixta (UK) 's message, "Emperor or President" on 14:26:37 11/28/04 Sun You are quite right to think that I studied history at university or as we yanks would say ¡§I majored in history at college.¡¨ ƒº My knowledge of government is due to that and personal study. I agree that monarchism would be a hard sell. Personally I have monarchist tendencies. For me, the hard sell would be the over integration of the legislative and executive and a lesser extent the judicial functions in the Prime Ministerial system. I would be very happy with a monarch and a directly elected head of government. You wrote, ¡§As it happens I disagree with you on the idea that the monarch held such sway at the time of the war. Since Cromwell did his one good thing, taking the power from an absolute monarch into representative government, the monarch has been increasingly disempowered while, on the contrary, the US presidency has become more powerful over time. At the same time that the monarch was effectively being made little more than a glorified meet-n-greet diplomat the US president was forming the basis of its role as policeman of the world. Our empire fades, yours ascends - c'est la vie.¡¨ Well I may have over stated the authority of the crown at the time of the revolution, but I think you are understating it. George the Third was the most dynamic monarch since the Hanoverians came to the throne. Lord North was very much his minister. It is not until the civil list is established and the monies of the crown and the monarch were clearly sperate, that the Prime Ministerial system is clearly established. The madness of George the Third was such a serious problem because he was still an important part of the government. In a very real sence, the dissolute nature of George IV is the foundation of the current system. William, Mary, and Anne had not been mere figure heads though they were constitutional monarchs. George I was unable to speak the English language and George II was not that much better. George III the first really English Hanoverian was a much more active monarch than his grandfather or great grandfather. In that context it is also worth noting that during the 18th Century, the opposition tended to congregate around the court of the Prince of Wales, because his influence would be important for patronage purposes. Re Cromwell, he was in no sence a Prime Minister. As Lord Protector he was King in all but name and he excersised the royal prerogatives including proroguing parliament, dismissing it, and ruling with out it. Remember the words with which he dismissed the long Parliament, ¡§You have sat to long here for any good you might be doing, be gone I say and let us have done with you. In the name of god go!¡¨ To quote myself ¡§If Cromwell had made the Protectorship directly ellected and their had been no restoration, the American system would be standard through out the English Speaking world.¡¨ So while it is true that the Americans had an exaulted view of the powers of the Monarch which reflected the past more than future, and assigned sed powers to our president, the issue was not so clear in 1787. As late of the budget crises of the early 20th Century, the government had to ask for the power to appoint enough lords to break the power of the lords to the will of the commons and that was granted only after parliament was desolved and the government sustained by the electorate. Even today laws are not made by parliament, but ¡§enacted by the Queen¡¦s Most Excellent Majesty.¡¨ Personally I think things have gone to far. The commons now have almost the power that the French revolutionaries were advocating for a single unicameral legislature. Some checks are needed. More later, Steph [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: "Some checks are needed": not wrong there! | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:32:57 11/28/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |