From: tls@brspva.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: Balmoral and b
Reply-To: tls@brspva.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:06:03 GMT

eyond

In article <1992Aug28.061702.24604@osf.org>, sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
writes:
|> Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
|> Path:
|>
dscomsa.desy.de!dxcern!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!pa
aperboy.osf.org!osf.org!sp
|> From: sp@osf.org (Simon Patience)
|> Subject: Re: Balmoral and beyond
|> Message-ID: <1992Aug28.061702.24604@osf.org>
|> Sender: news@osf.org (USENET News System)
|> Organization: Open Software Foundation
|> References: <NICKH.92Aug26123607@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>
|> <1992Aug24.091359.8456@mic.ucla.edu>
|> <1992Aug26.174618.14554@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
|> <1992Aug27.164550.19924@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
|> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:17:02 GMT
|> Lines: 34
|> 
|> In article <1992Aug27.164550.19924@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mlo@dcs.qmw.ac.uk
|> (Mike Osborne) writes:
|> > Give us an example of something the Queen might do which  would
|> need permission 
|> > from parliament. I thought if anything it was the other way
|> around.
|> > I seem to remember potential Prime Ministers asking the Queen for
|> permission
|> > to form a government and the inscriptions on my passport imply that
|> the Queen 
|> > OWNS the government.
|> 
|> This is purely ceremonial nowadays. The queen has much theoretical
|> power but
|> no actual power. If she ever tried to exert it, she would probably
|> find
|> herself living in a republic pretty quickly.
|> 
|> > As I understand it, technically the Queen can do whatever she
|> likes, because
|> > she IS the law. If you are charged with a criminal offence, the
|> case would be
|> > tried as Regina vs. Whoever. 
|> 
|> That's the Crown vs Whoever. The Crown is a synonym for the ruling
|> powers
|> rather than the Monarch personified.
|> 
|> > So if the Queen wants to drive around the West End in her Roller
|> with an Uzi in 
|> > one hand and a spliff in the other, picking off innocent American
|> tourists 
|> > whilst having her toes sucked by a Texan financial adviser, she
|> can. She does 
|> > not have to apply to the government for permission, she just does
|> it. 
|> > It's one of the perks of the job (like not paying any taxes). And
|> we wouldn't 
|> > have it any other way. God bless you Ma'am!
|> 
|> If you believe this then you have a very vivid imagination.
|> 
|> Simon.
|> -- 
|>   Simon Patience
|>   Open Software Foundation			Phone: +33-76-63-48-72
|>   Research Institute				FAX:   +33-76-51-05-32
|>   2 Avenue De Vignate				Email: sp@gr.osf.org
|>   38610 Gieres, France				       uunet!gr.osf.org!sp
|> 

Well - I think this is actually true, technically. You couldn't have R.
v. R - you would have to remove her from the throne and try to
retrospectively try her as a private citizen. Bit of a nightmare,
legally, but there is a precedent in Charles I...

But also there is a precedent - remember the Libyan diplomat that came
out of his embassy, shot dead policewoman Yvonne Fletcher, wandered back
inside again...claimed diplomatic immunity nd went home unpunished (and
not even identified)...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.tv.uk,rec.arts.drwho,alt.tv.prisoner