There is no law prohibiting political comments by anyone in the royal family.
Chuck is a pedo simp & just ended the House of Windsor the like Charles I ended the House of Stuart. However, unlike Chuck I who fought Parliament, Chuck III is against the people.
Why do you think QE II wouldn't abdicate?
Sure knew both her sons are degenerates.
Walter Bagehot the writer of "The English Constitution" in 1867 gave the formulation that the Royal Family must be above party politics as their role is important for social cohesion. This was enshrined into parliamentary law at the reign of King George V, but not common law.
As the Houses of Parliament are a royal palace this is law, the decisions that are made there are made by MP's parliamentary law which can't be ignored. Its called the "cardinal convention" and prohibits the royals from speaking out about politics.
The "cardinal convention" is NOT enforceable (i.e. it is NOT a law) and mostly applies to MP's behaviour in Parliament.
As far as Chuckles is concerned, "The sovereign should not be involved in party politics in any way." He can say whatever he wants without favouring any political party. Since he gets to pick whoever he wants as PM in times of turmoil, that would count as favouring a political party.
NOTE: "should", NOT "shall not".
THEIR words, not mine: suggestions, NOT law.
If Chuckles cared about social cohesion, he'd fire the PM.
The Monarch cannot say whatever they want, except in private. This means the article this thread is based on is fake. He can't fire the PM, his only power is not to sign a bill into law, which means a general election has to be called, and the new government would probably dissolve the monarchy.
No he didn't. He is not allowed to comment on political affairs at all and what the brit papers say about this is only what they made up.. Fake news.
There is no law prohibiting political comments by anyone in the royal family. Chuck is a pedo simp & just ended the House of Windsor the like Charles I ended the House of Stuart. However, unlike Chuck I who fought Parliament, Chuck III is against the people.
Why do you think QE II wouldn't abdicate? Sure knew both her sons are degenerates.
Walter Bagehot the writer of "The English Constitution" in 1867 gave the formulation that the Royal Family must be above party politics as their role is important for social cohesion. This was enshrined into parliamentary law at the reign of King George V, but not common law.
As the Houses of Parliament are a royal palace this is law, the decisions that are made there are made by MP's parliamentary law which can't be ignored. Its called the "cardinal convention" and prohibits the royals from speaking out about politics.
Nope.
The "cardinal convention" is NOT enforceable (i.e. it is NOT a law) and mostly applies to MP's behaviour in Parliament.
As far as Chuckles is concerned, "The sovereign should not be involved in party politics in any way." He can say whatever he wants without favouring any political party. Since he gets to pick whoever he wants as PM in times of turmoil, that would count as favouring a political party.
NOTE: "should", NOT "shall not".
THEIR words, not mine: suggestions, NOT law.
If Chuckles cared about social cohesion, he'd fire the PM.
The Monarch cannot say whatever they want, except in private. This means the article this thread is based on is fake. He can't fire the PM, his only power is not to sign a bill into law, which means a general election has to be called, and the new government would probably dissolve the monarchy.