The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 03-27-2008, 06:47 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,214
No. She will do as her government advises. It is a matter to be resolved by politicians and the public through elections, not by the Queen.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-19-2009, 06:17 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,118
Some interesting excerpts from Skydragon's Daily Express link which shed some light on the Queen's influence with the government:

"Charles had been to visit patients a couple of weeks earlier and asked his sons if they could make time in their busy schedule to boost the troops’ morale.
Charles has made numerous trips to see the wounded at Selly Oak. Princess Anne, and other royals have also been on several occasions.

Four years ago the Daily Express revealed that the Queen had launched a scathing attack on the then Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Cabinet for failing to visit the wounded flown back from Afghanistan and Iraq. At that point they had not had a ministerial visit for two years and Princess Anne, a frequent visitor, had alerted the monarch to their plight.

Since then defence ministers have made regular pilgrimages to the hospital."
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-19-2009, 11:53 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,108
The right to 'advise, encourage, and warn.' Perhaps HM did all three.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-20-2009, 03:40 AM
Opal's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Coastal, Ireland
Posts: 2,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post

Some interesting excerpts from Skydragon's Daily Express link which shed some light on the Queen's influence with the government:
The Queen may not have power per se but this is proof that she clearly still has influence for the good of the people. And that's the important thing! And good for Anne for bringing to the Queen's attention.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-15-2009, 07:37 AM
Australian's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 2,152
I recently read an article the other day that said the monarch owns all the sea creatures in the British waters. So the Queen owns all the dolphins and seals etc that roam the British waters.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-15-2009, 09:58 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian View Post
I recently read an article the other day that said the monarch owns all the sea creatures in the British waters. So the Queen owns all the dolphins and seals etc that roam the British waters.
What would she do with them??
__________________
"Not MGM, not the press, not anyone can tell me what to do."--Ava Gardner
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-25-2009, 10:33 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,214
Election 2010: So what happens if nobody wins? - Telegraph

This is where the Queen is drawn into what could become a constitutional quagmire. There is no need for a hung parliament to become a crisis – provided the politicians can reach some sort of agreement among themselves.

But what if they can't? No one really knows. Prof King, the author of a new book on the British constitution, says: "The Queen must ardently hope that such a situation does not arise. She and her advisers would be prudent to work out what to do well in advance and how to keep well out of it."
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-26-2009, 12:33 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 16,967

I didn't know that she could intervene in a hung parliament. isn't that against being apolitical?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-26-2009, 04:56 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,214
So long as she would take the same action if the parties were reversed, it would still be apolitical. (Although I think some people, probably whoever came out without their guy in Number 10, would strive not to see it that way.)
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-27-2009, 12:42 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumutqueen View Post

I didn't know that she could intervene in a hung parliament. isn't that against being apolitical?

The monarch has to send for the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons but if two people have equal seats and can't settle it amicably she does have that right, even necessity to decide. The country would otherwise have to go into limbo until the new elections are held (and they would very likely be needed anyway but a government needs to be in place).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 11-27-2009, 02:51 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,558
I think the great thing about QE2 is the fact that she has seen through so many different governments over the decades that she has a special insight into politics generally and any decision as to who to choose in a hung parliament would be based more on experience and it wouldn't matter which party was chosen.
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-25-2010, 11:36 PM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The monarch has to send for the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons but if two people have equal seats and can't settle it amicably she does have that right, even necessity to decide. The country would otherwise have to go into limbo until the new elections are held (and they would very likely be needed anyway but a government needs to be in place).
Does the person who must command a majority in the Commons actually have to be an MP or could they be a peer from one of the political parties represented in the House of Lords with enough supporters in the House of Commons?
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-26-2010, 12:06 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalistRiley View Post
Does the person who must command a majority in the Commons actually have to be an MP or could they be a peer from one of the political parties represented in the House of Lords with enough supporters in the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister must be an MP with a seat in the House of Commons - just as in Australia where the PM has to be in the House of Representatives.

In the past it was possible for the PM to come from the House of Lords but not anymore (since early last century in fact).

It is one of the reasons given as to why Winston Churchill refused a peerage - he wouldn't have been able to be the PM again as a peer.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-26-2010, 01:39 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The monarch has to send for the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons but if two people have equal seats and can't settle it amicably she does have that right, even necessity to decide. The country would otherwise have to go into limbo until the new elections are held (and they would very likely be needed anyway but a government needs to be in place).
In that situation, she probably wouldn't need to decide. One of the party leaders would almost certainly be the Prime Minister already, and he or she remains Prime Minister until resignation or dismissal, and there's no reason to resign if no other party has a clear majority and no majority coalitions have been announced. That person would be free to go into the new House of Commons and attempt to govern. If that failed right away, the path would be clear and she would appoint the leader of the other party as Prime Minister.

The fun happens when the government falls a little while out, but still within a period of time that it might be fair to see if the other leader can do it. (Adrienne Clarkson, the former Governor General of Canada, wrote in her autobiography that she announced to the party leaders in 2004 that she would feel free to shop around so long as less than six months had elapsed since the election. I'd use a UK example but the Queen is extremely unlikely to put such a thing down in writing and Canada's system is close enough.)
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-26-2010, 06:22 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,474
As there is a very real prospect of a hung Parliament after the next elections, there is a real chance that HM will have to exercise her constitutional duty with deftness and judgement, as she always has.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-26-2010, 07:16 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 90
How powerful and influential is the Queen and her family?

I actually was just thinking about this a minute ago and about an argument I was in with my Political Science prof a few years ago. Each Pol sci professor has their own opinion and I have mine. I noticed Beatrixfan made some very interesting points in her thread and I hope everyone could weigh in on the Queen's power and what she still can do.

My belief is even though they may not have the power of the middle ages the Queen is probably one of the most influential and powerful woman in the U.K. She can dissolve parliament and has regular meetings with the British Prime Minister. IMO meetings are huge because she has his ear (which most people don't). I also think her "illegitimate" power or the power of the private sector she possesses is enormous. The queen has a huge fortune and with money comes power. She has the ability to become a "Special Interest Group" and probably lobby for certain causes. I would be interested to hear what laws there are about that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-27-2010, 02:01 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Prime Minister must be an MP with a seat in the House of Commons - just as in Australia where the PM has to be in the House of Representatives.

In the past it was possible for the PM to come from the House of Lords but not anymore (since early last century in fact).

It is one of the reasons given as to why Winston Churchill refused a peerage - he wouldn't have been able to be the PM again as a peer.
What piece of legislation or convention states this? It can't be in the constitution because Britain doesn't have a written one (like Australia).
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-27-2010, 05:13 AM
RJ TAYLER's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: QUEENSLAND, Australia
Posts: 269
Even Australia was headed for a couple of months in 1968 by Senator (Later Sir) John Grey Gorton. Until the by-election in the late Prime Minister Harold Holt's seat.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-27-2010, 07:14 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalistRiley View Post
What piece of legislation or convention states this? It can't be in the constitution because Britain doesn't have a written one (like Australia).

It became the accepted convention around the turn of the last century with the Parliament Act of 1911.

Since the House of Lords was, and still is an unelected house, the major parties agreed that the PM should be elected.

I don't think it is ever specified but as Winston Churchill used that as a reason for not accepting a peerage it is clear that it was certainly the accepted practice by the middle of the twentieth century.

As Britain has an unwritten constitution, precedent such as this has the effect of legislation to a certain extent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-27-2010, 07:20 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ TAYLER View Post
Even Australia was headed for a couple of months in 1968 by Senator (Later Sir) John Grey Gorton. Until the by-election in the late Prime Minister Harold Holt's seat.
This was actually rather more complicated than that.

At first John McEwen was Prime Minister from the disappearance of Harold Holt until early January and then Gorton become PM with the understanding that he would be resigning from the Senate to contest the by-election and thus be able to enter the House of Reps because a Senator can't be PM. Holt disappeared on 19th December and McEwen was sworn in the same day with Gorton replacing him on 10th January. From 1st February to 24th February he was not a member of either house.

McEwen was the leader of the Country Party and refused to continue the Coalition if the obvious Liberal Leader William McMahon became PM, which would have necessitated a general election with a fractured coalition, which was to be avoided at all costs. The compromise was for McEwen (the Deputy PM under Holt), to be PM until the Liberals chose a new leader - Gorton, who then had to win a seat in the Reps but once the Libs had a leader that leader became the PM, conditional on winning the by-election.

This was an exceptional circumstance but the end result was that the PM had to have a seat in the House of Reps. Had Gorton not won the by-election his period as PM would have ended as he didn't have a seat in the Reps (and had had to resign from the senate to contest the by-election).
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ancient laws, british government, british monarchy, constitutional monarchy, elizabeth ii, eugenie, parliament, power, queen elizabeth ii, royal prerogative, royalty


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena jordans king king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander palace picture thread pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia state visit wedding willem-alexander william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:33 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]