#Royalty…
John,
Hmmm.. News to me vis a vis the House of Lords not passing a bill
proposing that nazi law. Then again, the House of Lords play an integral
part within the British gov't (they also provide a great deal of comic
relief<BG>).
–>But there are still limits as witnessed recently in … the
Netherlands? when the king temporarily abdicated the throne to allow an
abortion act to pass without his signature. _He_ obviously believed his
own legal power was irrelevant compared to the "will of the people" as
pronounced by parliament.
Bravo! He showed both courage and honour in doing what he did. But, I
do not see it as him believing that the legal power he was wielding as
being irrelevant. Quite to the contrary. I see it as him believing that
it would not be worth the constitutional crisis that it would throw the
country into if he followed his moral feelings upon that issue. The will
of the people through the parliament had spoken, and it was parmount that
he respected it, notwithstanding the moral issues. Taken in this light,
he appears to believe that he holds considerable legal power. The
question I have tho; would this then be a law if the king did not sign the
bill? I'm not entirely conversant with the Netherlands constitution,
while I am confident about the system as practiced by the British (I
should be as it is the same as that gov't system we have here in Canada).
This being the case, then by British practice it would _not_ be a law.
Hmmm… maybe ipso facto.
As to the Windsors. Well, the Queen Mother is great, and the Queen also,
but what I have trouble with are the actions of the Queen's children. All
of them (the children) show moments of promise and disappointment.
Let's just leave it at this point unresolved as, hopefully, we will never
see it. If it does happen tho, I'm on the sovereigns side (ingrained
training I guess<g>).
Trent
"Tracers work both ways"