Prince William & The Air Ambulance

None so blind as those who won't see. Duchy of Cornwall estate is a national asset, and yet untaxed profits accrue to the Duke.

republic.org.uk/what-we-do/current-campaigns/take-back-duchy

:-0

Well it's always hard to find non-hysterical sources of information about the negative aspects of things which are so heavily promoted and lionised by the mainstream media outlets in all their forms, so it's going to be difficult to find information to challenge entrenched views about the monarchy such as yours without using sites like Republic's.

Here's a piece from a Cornish radio station though which at least hints at some of the discomfort in Cornwall about the Duchy. Always good to keep an open mind, right?

www.piratefm.co.uk/news/latest-news/2083606/duchy-of-cornwall-splits-opinion-during-royal-visit/

I used to wave the flag with the best of 'em, growing up in Windsor it's hard to avoid. I have an extensive collection of 25th Jubilee memorabilia and photographs. But as a grown up I've questioned the whole thing.

Crumbs, I don't see it like that at all. The UK is one of the most scientifically and creatively innovative and colourful countries on Earth. Maybe we need to look for the real creativity and colour instead of fixating on institutions long past their sell by date? What's creative about ploughing on with hereditary privilege at the head of our country? Proposing to remove it is the opposite of greyness - we should be inspiring people to the top, not telling them the top is reserved for one family alone.

It's interesting to hear you like the personalities - how does this develop? Surely only from the spun image we're allowed to see of them. Unless you have some personal experience of the individuals concerned? I don't personally, but I am very close to someone who is close-ish to a senior royal. This person thinks the royal concerned is jolly nice by the way. The royal concerned also got my kite out of a tree for me once. Which is all jolly smashing but hardly the basis of a sound form of governance. You mention the EU referendum - well be prepared for the 'Royal Prerogative' to trump Parliamentary Sovereignty on that one if the Executive gets its way in implementing the result of a non binding advisory referendum, won by a slim majority. I'm not entirely comfortable/happy with that. We're in need of constitutional reform of enormous breadth and depth, and notions of 'greyness' are too important in my thinking when it comes to that.

p.s.

>> Surely only from the spun image we're allowed to see of them

Were that true, then surely everybody would love them?

I'm of the same generation as Vić and probably have a similar collection of 1977 memorabilia. I was certainly an enthusiastic participant in my village's Silver Jubilee fete.

Then I got student politics - still have, to some extent - and for a decade or more I was committed to tearing down the anachronistic tyranny of hereditary government.

And now I'm passionately indifferent. If we had to design a new system tomorrow, with no knowledge of what had gone before, it wouldn't have a monarch at its centre. But what we have seems to work well enough, and at least as well as other systems that do elect a head of state. And plenty of perfectly respectable democracies - Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan - continue with similar systems.

So it'll do, for now. Until someone positively proposes something that might actually be better, when we can vote on that. If nothing else, the EU referendum ought to give us the wisdom not to consider scrapping one system until we have a thought-through, workable replacement.

Oh no, don't be silent. I enjoy the debate. It's surely not necessary to agree on something to discuss it?


>>I'd be interested in your take on the Royal Prerogative potentially being used to trigger Article 50 though.

The difficulty with that is not so much triggering Article 50. The complete cock up starts with the ridiculously badly thought out referendum even to the point where it is not clear to anybody what they were voting for;

Were they expressing an opinion, deciding on an exit, etc. etc. It really is a cock up of the most mind-blowing significance and the disaster is not over yet. Yet I cannot think of any constitutional system, structure or approach that would avoid the catastrophe of this position.

The appropriate "correct" action can only be another vote. The referendum gave nobody approval, power or right to do anything, unless they had it already.

Since, technically, we have already sought opinion, the next vote should be to determine an action. And this time it should be bloody framed properly rather than scribbled on the back of a napkin in the HoC Bar.

However, I cannot imagine the media/nutter driven chaos that would result if they declared a second vote. I find it unlikely that they can successfully do that. If real and positive negotiation was possible with the EU prior to exit, then perhaps a new agreement could be used as a basis for another vote.

Whilst you may feel that there is insufficient margin in the referendum to justify leaving, and I would agree, there is equally no justification for remaining. Using that Prerogative will, in my opinion, result in a constitutional crisis.

So, for me, the issue at the moment is not the Royal Prerogative, its the referendum. And since Cameron was in charge at that time, then its his fault. Which is a shame. He may yet be responsible for the fall of this Government as they have to call for another vote on the matter.

I should think that a General Election is the only chance of sanity.

Removal of the Prerogative wouldn't help, use of it will cause a crisis, we'd be better off banning referendums.

Trouble is, we can't do anything about the referendum now. And there won't be another - I do agree there should be though when the deal is apparent.

So, no point discussing the rights and wrongs of holding the referendum, we can only look at what happens next. Which is Article 50. Which may well require a Parliamentary vote, according to the outcome of three court cases in the next few weeks - in London, Edinburgh and Belfast.

Constitutionally significant stuff, like you say. The fact that it 'could' be triggered by Royal Prerogative bothers me enormously. I though that the point of leaving the EU was to defend our Parliamentary democracy and return power there - and we're going to start to do that by circumventing that same Parliament? Oh dear. No doubt a Leaver will be along shortly to say, well, parliament voted to have the referendum - well yes - and they voted to have one which wouldn't bind them.

So 'Royal' stuff in the constitution bothers me. I would like rid.