re: Harry and Megan lost their HRHs and will repay expenses; they're gone

quote:

---

which made Parliament the de facto sovereign entity in the state, with the monarchy serving only a perfunctory role.

---

Dude, the American declaration of independence which was signed in 1776, is a list of 27 grievances that are addressed to literally King George III himself.

Our American revolution was a rebellion against the King himself.

You can't claim monarchies are an affront to your americanness and then claim that that's not the sovereign entity America rebelled against.

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect.

---

It's not.

Not when the Prime Minister has to "ask permission" from the queen to form a government in her name.

quote:

---

The problem with regards to the UK is that they do not have a written constitution which lays out who the sovereign is explicitly,

---

So in other words, the Queen is the Sovereign and parliament is the political entity that manages the day to day affairs of the state and the country.

There. That's settled.

quote:

---

I'm skeptical that such a reaction would occur today.

---

If Harry was in William's place, the resignations may not come but there would be very sharp, forceful and pointed protests against such a pairing because Harry and Meghan are obviously political.

But the fact that william keeps putting more loads in kate's vagina lessens that kind of reaction more and more.

quote:

---

Not when the Prime Minister has to "ask permission" from the queen to form a government in her name.

---

Entirely a perfunctory ceremony.

quote:

---

So in other words, the Queen is the Sovereign and parliament is the political entity that manages the day to day affairs of the state and the country.

---

It isn't settled at all. Look up the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. The monarchy has traditional duties that exist for tradition's sake, but none of those duties are essential to running the state. Parliament is central to authority in the British system, not the monarchy. Not only that, you've ignored the context of Edward's abdication, when it was thought that he was going to make the role political again. In a de facto sense, who is sovereign?

quote:

---

If Harry was in William's place, the resignations may not come but there would be very sharp, forceful and pointed protests against such a pairing because Harry and Meghan are obviously political.

---

If Harry retained the apolitical role of the monarchy, I'm skeptical there would be pushback. The monarchy of today is nothing more than a glorified tourist attraction. There is nothing to be respected about the institution, or any of its members. Why you seem fascinated by it is weird as hell.

Riiiight. He couldn't possibly quitting all that shite b/c he despises the UK royal press who he 100% blames for killing his mother yet b/c of "duties to the crown" is forced to kowtow to and let them cover his life like he's a TV character for entertainment.

Nah. Gotta be mean old Megan controlling him.

quote:

---

Why exactly is Meghan a trashy whore?

---

Cause she’s part black
Although I don’t know why people here claim to not care about they royals, and then suddenly they know everything.

quote:

---

Entirely a perfunctory ceremony.

---

That the Prime Minister is legally obligated to do and they happily do it every single time.

quote:

---

It isn't settled at all.

---

Yes it is.

You're the one that's suggesting that the Prime Minster/Parliament is above the Monarchy in symbolism and legal status regardless of their current powers. And frankly, that's quite disagreeable.

quote:

---

If Harry retained the apolitical role of the monarchy,

---

He's the one that married trash who says things like she's not moving back to the US until Trump is out of office.

Harry made himself political by marrying a divorced American.

quote:

---

Why you seem fascinated by it is weird as hell.

---

I never want a monarchy here in America because after all, we fought a war to not answer to them anymore.

But I can respect our neighbors/allies upholding a tradition that they adore, cherish and maintain and want to be knowledgeable about it. So if you call that fascination, then sure I guess.

quote:

---

This girl is a real outsider, even more so than Diana.

---

WAY more so than Diana. Diana was a Spencer, a Lady. She grew up on one of the Queen’s estates even.

Meghan was an extra on “Deal or No Deal”.

quote:

---

That the Prime Minister is legally obligated to do and they happily do it every single time.

---

It is an unwritten rule, but if a Prime Minister chose not to do it, say through an act of Parliament, would do you think would happen?

quote:

---

You're the one that's suggesting that the Prime Minster/Parliament is above the Monarchy in symbolism and legal status regardless of their current powers. And frankly, that's quite disagreeable.

---

Not in symbolism, but in legal power, yes. Who is the de facto sovereign in the UK? An entity stripped of all rights save for perfunctory ones, or the central institution in the union that has repeatedly sought to reaffirm its sovereignty over the monarchy since the English Civil War? There is no law that the monarchy could overturn by its lonesome, whereas parliament retains that right. In every legal and normative sense, Parliament is sovereign. The royals have had no real power since the 17th century, and you pretending they do doesn't make it so.

quote:

---

He's the one that married trash who says things like she's not moving back to the US until Trump is out of office.

Harry made himself political by marrying a divorced American.

---

That is an extremely broad definition of political. Again, if Harry were to interfere with the institutions of British government as a monarch, the pushback would be severe. Then who he marries can become a political situation, as it did in Edward's case. But if Harry were to marry Markle and retain the limited sense of responsibilities that royals have since 1689, the pushback would be minimal.

quote:

---

But I can respect our neighbors/allies upholding a tradition that they adore, cherish and maintain and want to be knowledgeable about it. So if you call that fascination, then sure I guess.

---

They admire it so much that they keep it only for its function as an income-generator, and no other reason.

quote:

---

Ok why is Meghan pressing Harry to leave?

---

Jealousy, her nephew will be the king of England and will be treated as an heir to the throne, while her son will not

(no message)

quote:

---

if a Prime Minister chose not to do it, say through an act of Parliament, would do you think would happen?

---

Why would I entertain a scenario that will never ever happen?

quote:

---

Not in symbolism, but in legal power, yes.

---

In my previous post, I said regardless of their legal powers for a reason.

And I said the Queen is the legal sovereign of the UK, parliament acts like that, they treat and acknowledge her as such, and even swears an Oath to the Queen while acting as the political entity managing the day to day affairs of the state and the country.

Your feelings about the British monarchy are irrelevant and do not change that reality.

quote:

---

That is an extremely broad definition of political.

---

Not for the royal family who is amongst the most famous people on Earth and has a huge responsibility to be apolitical.

quote:

---

They admire it so much that they keep it only for its function as an income-generator, and no other reason.

---

This is a very cynical stance from an American that I know for a fact that a majority of Brits do not share.