egafd.com

In pointing out that there seems to be some confusion about 'class', yes.

Please clarify.
If you're confused, I can accept it.

[quote]Unbelievably, you still dont get it, do you?[/quote]

Calm down. Your missus spoil the Christmas dinner or something? You seem overly irritable.....more than usual, anyway.

[quote]So to paraphrase, some say that the monarch has no real power, when the Queen EXERCISES more power than a cabinet minister.

My point is that the queen's power is purely ceremonial. She does not exercise that power.[/quote]

Yes, I understand your point, I just think it more irrelevant than my reply. How can power be ceremonial if it's never, as you say, used? Surely the ritual here is the refraining? You either have power or you don't. Whether you exercise that power or not doesn't alter the fact that you have it at your disposal. That was my point. I thought that relevant enough to drop into the conversation since Mike seems a little worried about our Queen's influence or power. I don't agree with Mike, btw, as you'll no doubt attest to in reading my reply to the thread in general.

[quote]Give me one example where the Queen has gone against the wishes of the government of the day in recent times with regard to the army where she has taken advantage of this oath of allegiance.[/quote]

What would that achieve? I've neither stated, nor implied that she has. I replied to a single challenge, backed it up with what I found on wikipedea and you seem to want to make an argument about it. Chill out!

[quote]That is the difference between power in theory and in practice.[/quote]

You didn't explain any difference....though I think I'll manage in working out the difference between theory and practice for myself. I suppose one could argue that since power is mainly attained to influence others, you don't always have to use it; you don't have to wield an axe to make others wary of it (or act differently). Having it at hand is sometimes enough. I'm not saying the Queen's power heavily influences parliament or the people, just pondering the difference between theory and practice, since you brought it up. Thinking out loud, if you'll admit me the metaphor.

[quote]No more to be said.[/quote]

Well, there was, hence my reply. I hope you had a good Christmas, btw, despite the spoiled dinner.

So being a better human being is all about how productive you are? Hmmm...

So by that logic ants are better animals than lions because ants work harder?

Let me tell you a little story from about 5 years ago, that was in the local paper. I can't remember every detail, but knew the kid they were talking about and, I'll admit, thought he was a bit of a cunt:

Anyway, this 'rascal' was always in and out of jail. Nicking cars, driving without insurance, petty theft and non payment of fines etc etc....... Well, naturally his neighbours weren't too enamoured by him. One night one of these goodly neighbours had a fire in their house and while the parents managed to get down stairs and out the front door two young girls were stuck in the back bedroom and the father couldn't get back through the flames. No one else on the street (all hard-working, law-abiding citizens like your good self) built up the courage to get the kids out either. Anyway, you'll have probably guessed who did: Mr. Rascal himself. Run straight through the flames, opened the window and hung the two little 'uns out for the parents and neighbours to catch them. He then got back out and was the hero.

Now, does this bravery make him a better or worse person than the neighbours, who wouldn't give him the time of day 24 hours earlier?

Could it be that being a 'good' person involves more than just getting out to work, or even saving people from fires? I know a fireman that's no doubt saved more lives than this rascal, but some weekends becomes a football hooligan, kicking in skulls to pass his time. Is he good or bad according to you? Is there some sort of swingometer you have access to which tots up their goodness score against all the bad deeds they've done? Or could it be being human is a little more complicated than that?

See! You can make sensible posts when you try, instead of falling over yourself in a mad rush to score points!

This was one of your Arsenal posts, considered, well put, worth reading.

Your contribution on Mike's thread was more one of your Blackburn under Allardyce posts, rushed, snide, unable to read the game and ill-considered with a touch of "I don't know what you are talking about ref" about it. All a bit el Hadj Diouf.

Keep it up young man! No back-sliding!

Cheers
D

You have got yourself into a right mess here, Sam. I will try to help you out.

You state
"How can power be ceremonial if it's never, as you say, used? Surely the ritual here is the refraining? You either have power or you don't. Whether you exercise that power or not doesn't alter the fact that you have it at your disposal. That was my point."

First you need to understand that we have an uncodified constitution which has developed over many centuries. If you had bothered to read the thread properly before wading in or indeed if you had bothered to read Wikipedia a little more before jumping on a quote that you came across there, you would have understood that

"The Monarch takes little direct part in Government. The decisions to exercise sovereign powers are delegated from the Monarch, either by statute or by convention, to Ministers or officers of the Crown, or other public bodies, exclusive of the Monarch personally. Thus the acts of state done in the name of the Crown, such as Crown Appointments, even if personally performed by the Monarch, such as the Queen's Speech and the State Opening of Parliament, depend upon decisions made elsewhere"

The powers that the monarchy has which would have had much more importance centuries ago have now got a purely ceremonial tinge to them. The reason we still have a monarchy at all is because Queen Elizabeth has resolutely seen herself as above politics and does not get involved. So it has absolutely nothing to do with "Surely the ritual here is the refraining? You either have power or you don't" but everything to do with there are ceremonial conventions to be followed. She isn't sitting in Buckingham Palace keeping her powder dry Sam. Really, she isnt.

If the monarchy tries to make political decisions then that would very swiftly be the end of the monarchy's role in politics.

Then you state "you don't have to wield an axe to make others wary of it ". This is silly in relation to this topic. As soon as the likes of Prince Charles, for example, starts writing letters about buildings in the vicinity of St. Pauls etc (a mere bagatelle against the "powers" the monarchy possesses in theory) he gets dropped on from a very large height from pretty well all and sundry.

Mike talks about replacing the monarchy with a President. The main thing to understand is that the monarchy has theoretical power which has accrued over centuries by convention, procedure etc but has not been used in our lifetimes because the monarchy understands the game. I suspect a little better than yourself, Sam. However, if you look at the model of say, the French Presidency, you have a role with real power that does get exercised on a regular basis and is not pure ceremony.

Hope this helps

David

Thanks for replying to all my points with a completely pointless question (unless you're a salesman who thinks he's a potential customer). How would I know how much money he has? I'm not his bank manager.

No the British working class don't have the right to bear arms because the ruling class who do have arms do not trust them!

Don't forget to doff your hat to the next Lord you meet. You cannot become a member of the Upper Class you must be born into it!