The Kings Speech

I think the royals have ways of making their feelings felt.

Think of the Queens EU flag hat and Charles clearly uncomfortable by the carbon fuelled speech.

I thought it a well made speech and that others might like to read it. However, it is, if course, part of the whole Kings Speech Debate which you can see here.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDG1LfzOGmE

The King's Speech is ceremonial: the debate is the democracy that follows from our history. Some might feel that, though the first is historically important, and that we ignore history at our peril, the second is equally if not more important as it is the outcome of the speech.

I do wonder how many who have an opinion on the historical, bother to follow the democratic.

MaizieD

^I thought that the whole ceremony underlines the fact that we have a Constitutional Monarchy and the Crown is a integral part of the whole institution, but the Monarch is not allowed to enter the House of Commons, the true seat of democracy.^

That is true, but I don't think it invalidates my point.

Perhaps, rather than saying "my government" he will one day say " My countries chosen government".

The 'debate' that follows the King's speech is as much a fiction of 'democracy'' as the fiction that the king is ruler of the country.

What those who are painstakingly explaining the historical reasons for the symbolism involved in the State Opening seem to fail to understand is that , as I keep trying to explain, the monarch is in parliament in the 'person' of the Executive (i.e the government). The only thing excluded is the monarch's physical body, not their authority.

The Executive rules by virtue of powers delegated to it by the monarch. But, as Parliament (the whole body, Lords and Commons) is sovereign it can resist the tyranny of the monarch by voting down proposed legislation. Though, of course, under our party majority system legislation, 'tyrannical' included, is very rarely voted down.

TBH, if it weren't for the acceptance of the fiction that the monarch rules the country and that all legislation emanates from them, the institution would be completely meaningless.

Perhaps, rather than saying "my government" he will one day say " My countries chosen government".

That would cause a constitutional upheaval and is about as likely as me winning the lottery.😆

Thank you, DaisyAnneReturns, for the transcript of Keir Starter’s speech. It was measured measured and full of important ideas, so let’s hope for success at the GE.

Starmer , of course. Auto correct is still trying to change it.

MaizieD

^Perhaps, rather than saying "my government" he will one day say " My countries chosen government".^

That would cause a constitutional upheaval and is about as likely as me winning the lottery.😆

I think there is a lot of hair splitting here Maisie. Over the centuries we have gradually updated and I can see no reason why it isn't possible to continue to do that. There are people with greater knowledge than both of us who could and will work out the next step in modernisation.

Nandalot

Thank you, DaisyAnneReturns, for the transcript of Keir Starter’s speech. It was measured measured and full of important ideas, so let’s hope for success at the GE.

Thanks Nandalot

DaisyAnneReturns

MaizieD

Perhaps, rather than saying "my government" he will one day say " My countries chosen government".

That would cause a constitutional upheaval and is about as likely as me winning the lottery.😆

I think there is a lot of hair splitting here Maisie. Over the centuries we have gradually updated and I can see no reason why it isn't possible to continue to do that. There are people with greater knowledge than both of us who could and will work out the next step in modernisation.

I'm sure it would be as easy and unsettling as leaving the EU. 🙄

Changing constitutions is not a simple exercise...

MaizieD " . . the monarch is in parliament in the 'person' of the Executive (i.e the government). The only thing excluded is the monarch's physical body, not their authority."

That is theoretical thinking. Most people see the concrete, physical evidence of their own eyes. If the King's physical body never ever appeared in Parliament at all, they wouldn't say to themselves, "He is in Parliament in the 'person' of the Executive"

MaizieD

DaisyAnneReturns

MaizieD

Perhaps, rather than saying "my government" he will one day say " My countries chosen government".

That would cause a constitutional upheaval and is about as likely as me winning the lottery.😆

I think there is a lot of hair splitting here Maisie. Over the centuries we have gradually updated and I can see no reason why it isn't possible to continue to do that. There are people with greater knowledge than both of us who could and will work out the next step in modernisation.

I'm sure it would be as easy and unsettling as leaving the EU. 🙄

Changing constitutions is not a simple exercise...

Where did I suggest we change the constitution? These ceremonies have been updated over time without doing so. I made an off-the-cuff suggestion for an update.

I, and I would guess you, have no real ideal if it would or would not change the constitution - unless you are about to tell me they already consult you on constitutional law!

It may, it is quite possible, my suggestion would not work - so they do something else to move forward.

Elegran

MaizieD " . . the monarch is in parliament in the 'person' of the Executive (i.e the government). The only thing excluded is the monarch's physical body, not their authority."

That is theoretical thinking. Most people see the concrete, physical evidence of their own eyes. If the King's physical body never ever appeared in Parliament at all, they wouldn't say to themselves, "He is in Parliament in the 'person' of the Executive"

No, they wouldn't, but as it's the foundation of our parliamentary system I think they ought to be aware.

Too often people think that 'the government' shouldn't be thwarted in any way; most noticeably over Brexit. That it is somehow treasonous for Parliament to do anything but agree with what the government proposes and enacts.

But it is Parliament that expresses the 'will of the people', not the government and it is legitimate for Parliament to be able to meaningfully oppose any government measure because Parliament is 'sovereign' and able to curtail the power of the monarch as embodied in the Executive.

Allowing the Executive untrammelled power is merely substituting one 'tyranny' for another and undoing all the progress made towards the separation and transfer of powers since the English Civil War and the Restoration of the Monarchy.

The past few years have been very worrying as the Executive has worked to try to draw more and more powers to itself, with the ultimate aim of bypassing Parliament, and even the principle of collective responsibility and Cabinet government.

There is a lot in the way the country runs, and why it is like that, which is completely unknown to the man/woman in the street. I don't know whether it is included in the
school curriculum, (I daresay a poster will be able to tell me) but pupils should leave school aware of the broad outlines of our constitution and the importance of using their precious vote sensibly. There are other things they should know, too, such as the difference between a provable fact and an opinion or gut feeling, and how to examine a report, photograph or "fact" that is circulating online to see whether it is genuine or photoshopped or someone's fantasy or a scam.

Elegran

Vegansrock "But no one has really addressed the point as why the PM doesn’t read his own speech out it wouldn’t make a jot of difference."
It demonstrates that the King does NOT rule, that is what the democratically elected government is for, and the ceremony of the Commons only admitting him to the House for his speech about what the government is planning underlines that. As said above, this is because his namesake entered the House of Commons with armed police to arrest an MP. In this country, political opposition does not make you subject to arrest and imprisonment.

They only admit members from the Lords on sufferance too, to hear the speech, after they have politely knocked on the door and been ignored. The House of Commons is exactly what its name implies - it is where the elected representatives of the general population meet to discuss proposed legislation without pressure.

That needs to be repeated, in full-dress pantomime to emphasise it to those who watch live theatre rather than read dry rules. Those who think it is just empty pomp either don't know the history or don't understand the symbolism behind the tradition - and a country that forgets its history is condemned to repeat it.

A head of state who wanted to take over the reins personally and completely SHOULD be excluded from the seat of power, and would be with those ceremonial traditions retained and rigorously enforced and understood. To keep the tradition (and the rule and the habit) alive, it has to be repeated regularly. It is part of our constitution, (which is enshrined in tradition and well recorded, even if not currently formally codified).

👏👏👏

This post is worth repeating.

I wouldn’t blame them if they retired

That will never happen. When his mother died, Charles said he would carry out his duties for as long as he was spared.

Callistemon21

Elegran

Vegansrock "But no one has really addressed the point as why the PM doesn’t read his own speech out it wouldn’t make a jot of difference."
It demonstrates that the King does NOT rule, that is what the democratically elected government is for, and the ceremony of the Commons only admitting him to the House for his speech about what the government is planning underlines that. As said above, this is because his namesake entered the House of Commons with armed police to arrest an MP. In this country, political opposition does not make you subject to arrest and imprisonment.

They only admit members from the Lords on sufferance too, to hear the speech, after they have politely knocked on the door and been ignored. The House of Commons is exactly what its name implies - it is where the elected representatives of the general population meet to discuss proposed legislation without pressure.

That needs to be repeated, in full-dress pantomime to emphasise it to those who watch live theatre rather than read dry rules. Those who think it is just empty pomp either don't know the history or don't understand the symbolism behind the tradition - and a country that forgets its history is condemned to repeat it.

A head of state who wanted to take over the reins personally and completely SHOULD be excluded from the seat of power, and would be with those ceremonial traditions retained and rigorously enforced and understood. To keep the tradition (and the rule and the habit) alive, it has to be repeated regularly. It is part of our constitution, (which is enshrined in tradition and well recorded, even if not currently formally codified).

👏👏👏

This post is worth repeating.

Why is it worth repeating?

We have had governments for the last few years who have been transferring the powers of the Legislature (Parliament) to the Executive (the monarch in parliament), going so far as to sideline Cabinet government and collective responsibility, to concentrate power in the hands of the PM. This is just as bad as allowing the monarch into parliament. It's just replacing a dictator monarch with a dictator PM.

(I'm not a constitutional expert at all, but studying it did form part of my degree)

MaizieD Perhaps if all secondary pupils learnt about the structure of government and the origins of the many old traditions and pomp surrounding it, and had their memories nudged by seeing the King's Speech and the other regular "out-of-date" ceremonies those who go on to become MPs would be more aware of attempts to bypass the established checks and balances by an ambitious PM's ego and vote to restrain that takeover bid.

In the Borders between England and Scotland every town holds an annual ceremony to "Ride the Marches". Hundreds of local horsemen and horsewomen, followed on foot by many non-riders and children, ride round the boundaries of the town, most of it well out in the surrounding countryside, pausing at every old stone marker that defined where the boundary was.

Centuries ago, this was an annual check that no-one had moved the markers during the year to gain a bit more land for the neighbouring community, and also to drum into the young people and children of the town how far the limits of their home town stretched, so that when the auld yins has passed on they could guard the boundaries. (At that time it was often accompanied by beating the children at each marker, on the principle that they would remember the spots where they were beaten very clearly - that is no longer recommended as an aid to learning!)

Young people need to know how their land is governed (and what boundaries should be observed by that government) well before they are old enough to vote, and as adults need reminding at intervals for the rest of their lives.

Young people need to know how their land is governed (and what boundaries should be observed by that government) well before they are old enough to vote, and as adults need reminding at intervals for the rest of their lives.

I absolutely agree with you here, Elegran. The problem might be n finding enough knowledgeable teachers to teach it..

I came across this book review today which deals with the sort of moves to concentrate Executive power which I fear. Perhaps you would find it interesting.

consoc.org.uk/review-sceptical-perspectives-on-the-changing-constitution/

In the Borders between England and Scotland every town holds an annual ceremony to "Ride the Marches". Hundreds of local horsemen and horsewomen, followed on foot by many non-riders and children, ride round the boundaries of the town, most of it well out in the surrounding countryside, pausing at every old stone marker that defined where the boundary was.

I remember as a child in England we used to go out Beating the Bounds, following the boundaries of the parish, however, don't remember being beaten!

Callistemon21

^In the Borders between England and Scotland every town holds an annual ceremony to "Ride the Marches". Hundreds of local horsemen and horsewomen, followed on foot by many non-riders and children, ride round the boundaries of the town, most of it well out in the surrounding countryside, pausing at every old stone marker that defined where the boundary was.^

I remember as a child in England we used to go out Beating the Bounds, following the boundaries of the parish, however, don't remember being beaten!

They do in Devon as well. Or at least used to.

I wonder whether in "beating the bounds" the beat was from the same root as the policeman patrolling his beat, and a fishing beat on a river? Boisterous children enjoying the outing more than the lesson in citizenship might be threatened with a different kind of beating, to keep them focussed on learning the bounds. That could go into folklore as grownups recounted their childhood to their grandchildren.

MaizieD

^Young people need to know how their land is governed (and what boundaries should be observed by that government) well before they are old enough to vote, and as adults need reminding at intervals for the rest of their lives.^

I absolutely agree with you here, Elegran. The problem might be n finding enough knowledgeable teachers to teach it..

I came across this book review today which deals with the sort of moves to concentrate Executive power which I fear. Perhaps you would find it interesting.

consoc.org.uk/review-sceptical-perspectives-on-the-changing-constitution/

More and more, like the system in Germany of Lander.

While we have 48 counties in England using a simple comparison I guess (it is little more than that) that this would be about 12 if the were Lander sized. Again, with a bit of maths and guesswork you would see 1 in Nothern Ireland, 2 in Wales and 3/4in Scotland.

These could grow from and along side our current Combined Authotity areas. It seems to me that an Andy Burnam or an Andy Street can do much more for an area than any one of the 650 MPs.

DaisyAnneReturns

MaizieD

Young people need to know how their land is governed (and what boundaries should be observed by that government) well before they are old enough to vote, and as adults need reminding at intervals for the rest of their lives.

I absolutely agree with you here, Elegran. The problem might be n finding enough knowledgeable teachers to teach it..

I came across this book review today which deals with the sort of moves to concentrate Executive power which I fear. Perhaps you would find it interesting.

consoc.org.uk/review-sceptical-perspectives-on-the-changing-constitution/

More and more, like the system in Germany of Lander.

While we have 48 counties in England using a simple comparison I guess (it is little more than that) that this would be about 12 if the were Lander sized. Again, with a bit of maths and guesswork you would see 1 in Nothern Ireland, 2 in Wales and 3/4in Scotland.

These could grow from and along side our current Combined Authotity areas. It seems to me that an Andy Burnam or an Andy Street can do much more for an area than any one of the 650 MPs.

I'm sorry, DAR but I have no idea what you are talking about or how it connects to the post you have quoted.

More and more, like the system in Germany of Lander.

More and more, I like the system in Germany of Lander.