Diana: Death by the bleeding obvious.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by crusher

The royal family is at the head of the armed forces and
though the armed forces are paid by government they will act entirely as they are ordered even if that means ordered to kill, by their senior officers


If these people in government and the civil service and the military arent stopped from their present course of insanity, one day, we will all give

The monarchy are a symbol with no actual power. If you seriously believe the above (and I have a feeling that you don't, given that you've admitted to trolling in other threads) then your nuttier then a Dairy Milk nutbar shat out by a squirrel.

The Armed Forces are controlled by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they answer to the Cabinet. The Cabinet is not accountable or controlled by the Monarchy. In fact, given that the Cabinet writes the Queen's Speech, I would say they have more influence over the Royal Family then the Monarch has over anyone.

[metallideth]

Originally Posted by Hammer

The monarchy are a symbol with no actual power.

You 100% on that? Not saying yer wrong likes, just that the vested interests of the privileged usually manage to find themselves a spot in the corridors of power. And you can't get more privileged than the Von Windsorbergs.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by metallideth

You 100% on that? Not saying yer wrong likes, just that the vested interests of the privileged usually manage to find themselves a spot in the corridors of power. And you can't get more privileged than the Von Windsorbergs.

They aren't even massively wealthy if I remember correctly. I'm sure most of their wealth is in paintings and artifacts (with some property), with a good chunk of money coming from the tax payer.
There is Charles' business as well though, which I imagine makes him a bit of money.

No doubt they still have some influence in certain parts - but I doubt there is any scope for them to command armies or order deaths. If there was, there'd be a hell of a lot more people in Government demanding an end to the crown.
They can probably cover up the odd indiscretion, gambling debt etc but not much more then that

[McLeary]

She was murdered, and anyone saying otherwise is a fat liar who works for MI6.

[crusher]

The monarchy are a symbol with no actual power. If you seriously believe the above (and I have a feeling that you don't, given that you've admitted to trolling in other threads) then your nuttier then a Dairy Milk nutbar shat out by a squirrel.

The Armed Forces are controlled by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they answer to the Cabinet. The Cabinet is not accountable or controlled by the Monarchy. In fact, given that the Cabinet writes the Queen's Speech, I would say they have more influence over the Royal Family then the Monarch has over anyone.

You are entirely wrong. The monarch is the head of the armed forces and every soldier that joins the armed forces pledges alleigence to the monarch. Not to the government, not to the people or Great Britain, but to the monarch. The fact that the monarch does not direct battles and take an active role is because they are not stupid enough to believe they know best. And infact if you knew anything about British constitutional history you would know that the monarch chooses to be a figurehead rather than an active combatant in their role in the armed forces.

There are still powers the monarch may use in relation to the armed forces as set out by the charter on the Royal Perogative, however they must show that in order to use that perogative no subsequent legislation has been enacted which prevents them using it. The government may advise the monarch that war should exist and seek to put the armed forces on alert and send them to battle under the royal perogative without regard to parliament

[MarkMono]

This has always been true in principle, in practice the royals would be completely ignored if they ever tried to issue any commands to the armed forces.

[crusher]

but still MI6 is a wing of the armed forces and members may act independently (that is why they call them 'agents' )
to protect the monarch and the reputation of the monarch. But I see nobody has answered the question yet: If MI6 could plot to kill milosovich, why not Diana? MI6 assassinates people when it feels the need to - (though they deny it strenuously)

[Dario]

"Do you know why MI6 killed Diana? Because they can!"

A compelling argument.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

This has always been true in principle, in practice the royals would be completely ignored if they ever tried to issue any commands to the armed forces.

Probably worse then ignored they could find themselves suddenly living in the republic of Britain... Catch 22 technically powerful but power would likely be taken away if you ever deigned to use it.

Originally Posted by crusher

but still MI6 is a wing of the armed forces and members may act independently (that is why they call them 'agents' )
to protect the monarch and the reputation of the monarch. But I see nobody has answered the question yet: If MI6 could plot to kill milosovich, why not Diana? MI6 assassinates people when it feels the need to - (though they deny it strenuously)

They didn't kill Milosevic though Heart attack in Den Hauge. Bit less cluedo esque. So while MI6 may well have plotted to kill Milosevic, and various other similar figures throughout history, they haven't. Indeed f MI6 was in the habit of killing unwanted dignitaries (perhaps the bag with bricks in the canal method) then Mugabe would likley be dead - amoung others.

[MarkMono]

I imagine they could plot to kill anyone (I'm cynical enough to think that thats their job, though I think you'll find that agents of MI6 are as much subject to the chain of command as any other of our armed forces.) but I don't see why it automatically makes them guilty of an imaginary crime.

[crusher]

You might be interested to know the role of the royals in the army and in particular the monarch

The monarch may still send the armed forces to war
see paragraph 13 here
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../236/23603.htm

13. In addition to these definitions, we identify an important exclusion. Constitutionally, the armed forces of the United Kingdom are the forces of the Crown and the Monarch is the Commander in Chief. Thus, the prerogative over their disposition not only includes the ultimate power to send forces to war but operational questions regarding, for instance, their formation and armaments. The majority of witnesses who advocated change to the exercise of war-making powers by transferring them to Parliament sought to create limitations to the exercise of the deployment power itself, but not to the way in which operational matters are decided. Asked to comment on the proposition, witnesses in general, including all those with a military background, were of one mind in declaring that operational control had to remain with the professionals[5]. We acknowledge and endorse this position and do not, in this report, question the principle that the conduct of military operations—as opposed to the decision to mount them—should remain the exclusive responsibility of military commanders. At the same time we should add that, clearly, the greater the clarity on the part of Government of their objectives in determining the mission objective, the more this assists military commanders in executing that responsibility.

[Baron Samedi]

[Draven]

Originally Posted by crusher

but still MI6 is a wing of the armed forces and members may act independently (that is why they call them 'agents' )
to protect the monarch and the reputation of the monarch. But I see nobody has answered the question yet: If MI6 could plot to kill milosovich, why not Diana? MI6 assassinates people when it feels the need to - (though they deny it strenuously)

Why exactly would they be ordered to kill her anyways? Ok she was a bit of an embarassment to the royal family, but dead or alive she would always remain that anyway. Her rumoured child bore to Dodi wouldn't change anything anyway, he would not be recognised in the royal heirarchy. Sure they could have MI6 off her, but I don't see why they would.

[MarkMono]

Originally Posted by crusher

The monarch may still send the armed forces to war

But no-one would listen to her. I know it technically remains her right, but she would be completely ignored and would lose what little ceremonial power she still wields in the running of the country.

[crusher]

he would not be recognised in the royal heirarchy.

The child would have a claim against the throne under certain circumstances - it would be a half brother of the princes and a half brother to a future king - that would not be acceptable