If you were King

[Josh]

For those who don't know, for something to become law in the UK, it needs to be passed through parliament and then signed by the Queen. The signing by the Queen is purely ceremonial nowadays - a monarch hasn't refused to sign a law since 1707.

 

Bearing that in mind, if you were the monarch of the UK and were presented with an act which had passed through parliament that you personally disagreed with, are there any circumstances under which you would refuse to sign it?

 

If you do sign the act into law, you're going against your own judgement, you're actively supporting the introduction of a law which you believe is detrimental to the country.

 

If you don't sign the act into law, you're forcing your will upon others without any legitimate justification to do so (as you're not an elected official - the reason your power is largely ceremonial is because you aren't accountable to the public).

 

What would you do?

Edited February 22, 2014 by Josh

[Sobend]

It would depend on public opinion. If I were the only person in the nation who felt a certain way about the law, I would just go and sign it. If the nation were up in arms about the law however I wouldn't sign it.

[The Skiller]

^ Agreed. The majority would win my favor, as I would see my duty as king being to serve my people.

[reepicheep]

^ Agreed. The majority would win my favor, as I would see my duty as king being to serve my people.

Saying that serving your people is your duty could be used just as much to veto any law you like. If you think that you're serving your people by not doing what they want, then you're doing your duty, basically.

[Hunter]

Depends on the circumstance. I'd have to know details, not make a decision based off of "that sort of sounds a bit crap".

 

If I knew details and there were people backing the decision not to sign - significant amounts, even if no where near a majority - I would refuse.

If, however, I was alone, I'd sign it.

[Jethraw]

^ Agreed. The majority would win my favor, as I would see my duty as king being to serve my people.

Saying that serving your people is your duty could be used just as much to veto any law you like. If you think that you're serving your people by not doing what they want, then you're doing your duty, basically.

Yes, but as soon as you go against the majority, whether you're arguing it's serving your people or not, you're going to get pretty unpopular pretty fast. As soon as that happens it wouldn't take much to abolish the powers of the monarchy or the monarchy altogether, were the majority of the public in uproar about the institution.

 

Parliament spent several hundred years getting the art of whittling away the powers of the monarchy down to a tee, they could shaft the powers of the monarchy in a heartbeat if public opinion were in their favour.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Jethraw

[reepicheep]

^ Agreed. The majority would win my favor, as I would see my duty as king being to serve my people.

Saying that serving your people is your duty could be used just as much to veto any law you like. If you think that you're serving your people by not doing what they want, then you're doing your duty, basically.

Yes, but as soon as you go against the majority, whether you're arguing it's serving your people or not, you're going to get pretty unpopular pretty fast. As soon as that happens it wouldn't take much to abolish the powers of the monarchy or the monarchy altogether, were the majority of the public in uproar about the institution.

 

Parliament spent several hundred years getting the art of whittling away the powers of the monarchy down to a tee, they could shaft the powers of the monarchy in a heartbeat if public opinion were in their favour.

Oh, absolutely. I'm not arguing that it's a good idea, just that doing it to 'serve your people' is a rather vague idea that can be interpreted in any number of ways.

[Phoenix Rider]

It would depend on public opinion. If I were the only person in the nation who felt a certain way about the law, I would just go and sign it. If the nation were up in arms about the law however I wouldn't sign it.

 

Same here. It'll have to be an overwhelming public opposition too and not something like a 55/45 split. That way, I'll have public cover in case parliament tries to strip me of what little power I have.

 

I'll prolly present a compelling and emotional speech to the nation too just to pull on more heartstrings. If there's anything the Monarchy has perfected in the last century, it's the art of PR. The speech will be broadcasted on prime time over Eastenders because I doubt people will care pretty much if Eastenders got replaced for the night my a royal speech.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Phoenix Rider

[Shooter585]

Would anybody actually respect the veto if it was used? It hasn't been used since 1707, which was when Scotland officially joined the team, so the power hardly even exists.

[Dreak]

One of our previous king, King Boudewijn, refused to sign an abortian law.. They temporarily put him out of office if I'm not mistaken, so it doesn't really matter I guess..

 

Either way, I'd only sign laws which are completely neutral.

[Sobend]

Would anybody actually respect the veto if it was used? It hasn't been used since 1707, which was when Scotland officially joined the team, so the power hardly even exists.

The power still technically exists, but nobody has had the guts to exercise it.

[thepope1322]

Either way, I'd only sign laws which are completely neutral.

Good luck explaining why you think certain laws are neutral and others aren't.

[Shooter585]

Either way, I'd only sign laws which are completely neutral.

Good luck explaining why you think certain laws are neutral and others aren't.

What is a neutral law anyway? One with unanimous approval/disappproval?

[Lonelywolf]

if i was king i wouldn't be a virgin thats fo sho