Hacker News Reader

Comment by balabaster | Hacker News Reader

Who are governed ultimately by the Prime Minister. So they do what she tells them to, ultimately making her the most important person.

View on HN

Actually, I believe the armed forces of the UK actually take an oath of allegiance to the ruling monarch rather than to the state/government - I did think this didn't mean very much but I have raised the point with a serving army officer and he was rather insistent that they take it seriously:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kin...

Interesting, thanks

The wikipedia article [1] suggests that this is formal only and that the army is under the control of the parliament, which was also my understanding.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army

Lets just say that it's a formality that I hope never gets put to the test :-|

My local MP was kind enough to organise a visit of parliament. He mentioned an amusing annecdote. The tradition still is that when the Queen visits parliament, a senior MP is held hostage in Buckingham. He was chosen on one occurence and was waiting in a drawing room of the palace, in the company of a General. To make the conversation, he asked the general "what if something were to happen to her Majesty?". The general smiled and replied "don't worry, it will be very quick".

This might require further explanation for those not familiar with dry British humour ;)

Interesting.

Dan Carlin has a series on his podcast discussing the background of the war in Asia in 1937-1945 (https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-supern...). One of his major points about the Japanese government at the time was that the military held allegiance to the emperor, who couldn't or didn't actually do anything, rather than the civilian government. As a result, the military could do essentially anything it wanted.

That didn't end well.

The Queen has immense theoretical powers, but it would trigger a major constitutional crisis if she were to exercise any of them without being asked by the PM.

She is allowed to veto proposed legislation, and potentially actually exerts some influence thereby - exactly how much remains a secret https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy...

At this point I'm not sure if UK can do much to avoid a major constitutional crisis one way or another. The deal would be seen as betrayal of Brexit by most its supporters, and remaining even more so. Hard exit would make a mess in Northern Ireland, for starters, and then you have Scotland, and not to forget that Remainers actually make the majority of the population in UK as a whole at this point.

Historically, things haven’t ended well for monarchs who tried to act independently of parliament.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

The fun one is the right to shut down the entire house of commons, including the prime minister. That leaves her running the whole show pretty much, though oddly without the right to raise funds via taxes.

Was this legislation to avoid situations like the tyrannical Prince John of Robin Hood fame who just taxed and taxed to line his own pockets?

I'm not sure, but I think it had to do with paying for fighting the French.

"A Man Called Intrepid" points out that this was a big deal in World War II. If England had fallen to the Nazis, the loyalty would have remained with the king, not with whatever puppet the Nazis had put in place.

Surely with "the crown" and not with the King?

This is easily the most interesting conversation that's spawned out of this whole Brexit Clusterfuck. Thank you!

The OP is referring to the queen, whom all millitary members actually report to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com