Prime Ministers, Political Advisers and the Powers & Prerogatives of the Monarch


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
And I have to say that when dealing with Fergie's mistakes all the Queen's qualities she mentioned would have been stretched to the bone! She was angry with Sarah when the toe-sucking incidents were in all the newspapers and the family were staying at Balmoral.
 
BritishRoyalist said:
Wow I have never seen that before. Kind of hard to believe BP or The Queen fell for that. Did he ever get caught?
Pretty cool hearing her speak French.
Click to expand...

The video below shows the Queen addressing the National Assembly of Québec in French in 1964. For a native English speaker, her French pronunciation is actually quite good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4o5ICxpvys
 
ROYAL NORWAY said:
‘Not out of it, but above it’: how the Queen will engineer a royal retreat to keep out of a hung parliament | UK news | The Guardian
Click to expand...

Anyone besides me get the bright idea that she could retreat to Sandringham and spend some time going over to Anmer Hall and simply playing great granny? This retreat is a good idea as far as her constitutional role is concerned. Remove any kind of chance that something may be misinterpreted politically plus gives her a chance to just enjoy the spring a bit.
 
True. That would be lovely. Probably she has to remain discreetly in or near London though, just because of the very remote chance of some constitutional crisis blowing up as a result of the election.
 
New Privy Councillors of the United Kingdom

Her Majesty the Queen approved the following people members of Her Majesty’s most Honourable Privy Council.

Sir Edward Garnier QC MP
Mr Charles Hendry MP
Ms Anne Milton MP
Mr David Evennett MP
Mr Mark Field MP
Dr Julian Lewis MP
Mr Keith Simpson MP
Ms Fiona Mactaggart MP
Mr David Heath MP
The Rt Hon. The Baroness Garden of Frognal
The Rt Hon. The Baroness Northover

Royal News: New Privy Councillors of the United Kingdom
 
So much for the Prince of Wales being Earl of Chester I guess. Lol.

As for the whole "the Queen staying above the fray," they did invent something called a telephone. She can stay at Windsor (where she retreats more and more) and not be drawn into partisan politics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
democratnmonocole said:
So much for the Prince of Wales being Earl of Chester I guess. Lol.
Click to expand...


When Charles and Camilla visited Chester earlier this year for official engagements they were referred to as the Earl and Countess of Chester.

Earl of Chester is one of Charles' official titles, which he was given when he was created Prince of Wales.

democratnmonocole said:
As for the whole "the Queen staying above the fray," they did invent something called a telephone. She can stay at Windsor (where she retreats more and more) and not be drawn into partisan politics.
Click to expand...

That is the entire reason for her not attending the events around VE Day commemorations this year - so that she isn't 'seen' to be with one side or the other. She can be in contact wherever she is in the world but the visual is also very important. By talking to the leaders on the telephone, or even via Skype etc she can be in contact but the general population won't be seeing her with one side or the other and counting how long she was with them e.g. she was seen talking to the PM for 5 minutes and the leader of the opposition for only 4 therefore she favours the PM in this situation.

Of course if the Brits were able to avoid a hung parliament the entire point would be moot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Prime Minister David Cameron has driven from 10 Downing Street to Buckingham Palace to inform the Queen of the dissolution of Parliament and fire the starting gun in what he has termed "the most important General Election in a generation".

The campaign for the May 7 poll kicked off in earnest with all three major parties making their pitch for voters in an election which is widely expected to end with another hung parliament.
Click to expand...
More: Video: David Cameron travels to Buckingham Palace to inform Queen of dissolution of Parliament - Telegraph
 
Queen to take control of election aftermath | The Times

The Queen will be thrust centre stage if David Cameron tries to hang on to power after the election without the backing of enough MPs.

The Times can reveal that Buckingham Palace has had a change of heart in recent days and decided that Her Majesty will deliver the Queen’s Speech — which sets the agenda for her government — whatever the outcome of the election.

The palace had voiced fears that her reputation would be tarnished should Mr Cameron try to put forward a Queen’s Speech before he could guarantee the backing of enough MPs to govern. It had suggested that the Queen might stay away from the event, planned for May 27 in the House of Lords, in case the speech was voted down in the Commons.

Royal sources confirmed that she would lead proceedings, even if there was a risk that the speech would be overthrown the following week because the Tories had failed to muster enough backing from smaller parties.
Click to expand...

General Election 2015: Queen 'will take control of aftermath of poll if there is no clear winner' - Mirror Online

The Queen will reportedly take control of the election aftermath should there be no clear winner.

If David Cameron tries to hang onto power without the backing of enough MPs, Her Majesty could still deliver the Queen's Speech - which sets her government’s agenda for the next five years - even if it may get later voted down in the Commons.

Palace aides had originally suggested this would not be the case.

But instead the Queen has decided to lead proceedings as normal - even if there is a danger the speech could be overthrown by Ed Miliband securing the backing of enough MPs to form a Labour government.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BeatrixFan said:
I've just finished reading a brilliant book about the Ancient Laws of England. Here are ten which directly affect the Royal Family.

1. All of us making claims about the marital relations of Fergie, Diana and Camilla should hold our tongues. Under the 1891 Slander of Women act, it is still illegal to "impute unchastity or adultery to any woman in England".

2. Anyone asserting the claims of the Stuart line should watch out. Under English law, anyone stating that the Stuarts are the rightful heirs to the throne are asserting papal authority over England and thus breaking literally hundreds of old laws. You'll not only be imprisoned for life but you'll also have to give all your property and possessions to the Queen. You also lose the protection of the Crown and therefore you're not entitled a lawyer. Lesson : Lizzie rules ok?

3. The Duke of Edinburgh is a criminal Under the House of Lords Precedence Act of 1539, only the monarch's heir may be seated next to him at the State Opening of Parliament. The monarch's consort must sit to the left of the monarch. When the Queen came to the throne, she got rid of this and allowed the Duke of Edinburgh to sit next to her, but the law wasn't changed. Therefore, the Duke of Edinburgh breaks the law every time he enters the House of Lords. Prince Albert was also an offender.

4. I hope the Duchess of Cornwall doesn't plan to go back to Burlington Arcade. When she turned on the Christmas lights there in 2005, she was actually breaking the law. Under an old regency law, anyone "causing a crowd to form at Burlington Arcade or whistling, hurrying, singing or otherwise making show" must be arrested and imprisoned.

5. Prince Charles, his wife and his children cannot legally visit Chester according to a law of 1403 that has never been repealed. Any Welshman is barred from the city and may be shot at any time of the day with a longbow without the assassin being jailed for murder. Likewise, one can also murder a Scotsman in York.

6. Paul Burrell should watch out. Under a law passed in 1679, it is perfectly legal for a master to beat an unruly servant as long as he uses a cudgel and doesn't actually cause death. Who wants to go first?

7. All those people who think they're clever by declining Knighthoods are actually breaking the law. Under a law of 1233, anyone refusing a Knighthood must have their property seized by the local Sheriff and branded.

8. Good news for Michael Fagin. When he broke into Buckingham Palace, he was actually allowed to break in as many times as he liked once the initial break in had taken place and only be charged with one account of breaking and entering.

9. The Queen's Corgis will be happy to know that under a law passed by George I, any commoner who's dog "gains carnal knowledge" of Royal pets will be punished with the severest penalty of death.

10. Diana was very lucky not to have been hanged for treason. Under the Treason Act of 1351 which hasn't been repealed, anyone who "violates the King's companion, the King's eldest daughter unmarried or the King's eldest son" is committing treason. When she gave her "Queen of Hearts" interview, she actually admitted treason and until 1998 could have been hanged for the crime.
Click to expand...





See, had all of that been posted, I would of never known any of it. In Texas, USA you cannot sell an eye, shoot a buffalo from a second story hotel window, milk another person's cow and you can still be hung for horse thieving and stealing chickens. You can catch and eat some kinds of rattlesnakes for fun and good food, buzzards and other types of rattlers are federally protected. But in England, #9 about the dogs really is funny. It's almost like two entirely different worlds, isn't it? lol I hope ya'll have a great election period. Law really does illustrate so much history and heritage, even if we might find some laws a bit silly. Those laws in their day really did help restore order. Even today. There are some old laws of years ago that today no one of sound mind dares test the validity of, like stealing a horse, because, really, they could hang for it. They'd get tried for other serious crimes if people took the law in their own hands and tried to hang someone over it and the law would simply imprision or give probation, over the horse. When the laws are on the books, really, it's up to the judge and or jury what sentence gets handed out on things like that. I doubt you see Scot's in York or Prince Charles in Chester, but I don't know. lol What exactly is a cudgel? Used to beat servants? I doubt much work got accomplished with broken bones. Oh knighthood or else you loose all your possessions? Wow, I didn't know knights had much anyway until the beatles guy got a slot, lol. America is way different. It really is amazing at how much different. Since America started out as a penal colony from England it's easy to understand how rough around the edges they were coming from, cudgels, for example, servants behaving badly, among other things. Hmmm, I wonder where they ever got the mere notion.. tsk, tsk. lol ;)
 
Last edited:
ROYAL NORWAY said:
Queen to take control of election aftermath | The Times



General Election 2015: Queen 'will take control of aftermath of poll if there is no clear winner' - Mirror Online
Click to expand...



Mirror is a tabloid isn't it? Her speech? I don't think that could be overthrown, for any reason. They better be good to her and not tarnish anything about her. Seriously, she's the Queen. She has devoted her life to the kingdom and everyone in it's realm. I am ignorant about the politics over there, but she is important to world relations as well, is there some kind of law that makes her word the law of the land and how the commons vote require her final decision or not?
 
Last edited:
Her word is NOT law.


She has to sign all the laws that parliament passes but parliament is supreme. If parliament passed a law to remove her from power she would have to sign it or cause a constitutional crisis. That has been the case since parliament won the civil war in 1649 and showed who is the boss - they executed the last monarch who tried to stand in their way.
 
Thumbahlina said:
Her speech? I don't think that could be overthrown, for any reason. They better be good to her and not tarnish anything about her.
Click to expand...

Her speech and the reaction to it has absolutely nothing to do with her personally. It's the government's outline of its plans for the upcoming session.
 
Last edited:
She doesn't even have any say in what goes into it - it is 100% written by the government and she simply has to read it.
 
? Given the content of the article, http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/575500/Queen-speech-will-happen-after-election what action could she take that would not be seen as political? I could not think of any? What is the least political thing she can do? Blindly follow tradition, I guess. And wouldn't that be the least political thing she can do? What am I missing? Sign me -
More clueless than usual in the US ;)
 
Last edited:
Is the Queen fretting about the rise of Jeremy Corbyn? By EPHRAIM HARDCASTLE | Daily Mail Online
With a committed republican likely to lead Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, is the Queen fretting about the rise of Jeremy Corbyn? Beardie is careful not to stress his anti-monarchy views lest they spook Labour-voting royalists. He says: ‘It’s not the fight I am going to fight.’ My source says: ‘Corbyn’s shrewd enough to realise the Queen has been able to charm her way to victory against whatever Labour throws at her, from fighting off hard-Left Tony Benn when he wanted to take her head off postage stamps to blocking Tony Blair’s attempts to rebrand the State Opening of Parliament as a Cool Britannia event.’ Incidentally, court lackeys have nicknamed Corbyn ‘Vincent’ – after his lookalike, (bearded) 19th century Dutch artist Van Gogh.
Click to expand...

Jeremy Corbyn on course for Labour leadership victory | Daily Mail Online
An anti-monarchist, he once petitioned Tony Blair to move the entire Royal Family out of Buckingham Palace and into a 'more modest' dwelling.
He also wore a bright red blazer in the Commons during the eulogies to the Queen Mother in 2002.
Click to expand...

I am a Labour supporter, but this man is going to be a disaster if he becomes leader of the party and even worse if he is elected prime minister, something I doubt will ever happen. But I don't think he's going to create trouble for the monarchy, he's not stupid. And I don't believe in anything of what Ephraim Hardcastle or Sebastian Shakespeare says.
 
Last edited:
Rudolph said:
^^^ No worries. He knows better than to challenge an 80 percent approval rating for the BRF
Click to expand...

I agree, and as I Wrote in my post, I don't think he's going to create trouble for the monarchy, he's not stupid.

Jeremy Corbyn Q&A: Scotland, Israel and WikiLeaks
NS Would you abolish the monarchy?

JC Listen, I am at heart, as you very well know, a republican. But it’s not the fight I’m going to fight: it’s not the fight I’m interested in. I’m much more interested in rebalancing our society, dealing with the problems, protecting the environment.
Click to expand...

This is a stupid question from NS. To abolish the British monarchy will be very difficult.
1: Most polls must show a majority for a republic.
2: Majority in the house of commons for a referendum, this is not going to happen.
3: Majority in the referendum for a republic, this is not going to happen.
4: Changing the country's name, changing the pound, remove the royal name from all state institutions. These are just some of the things that must be changed.
5: All of this is going to cost so much money that even many Republicans will start doubting it.

I actually think the British monarchy is the safest in the world, along with the Japanese.

Republicanism in the UK remains among the lowest in the world, with figures rarely exceeding 20% in support of a British republic, some polls have it as low 13%, and consistent ~70% support for the continuation of the Monarchy. And Some polls have the support for the monarchy as high as 82%, others at around 70 to 76%, another poll has the support for the monarchy from 66 to 70%.
 
Last edited:
New Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to pledge loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II | Daily Mail Online
Life-long anti-monarchist Jeremy Corbyn has accepted an invitation to join the Queen's exclusive body of advisers on the Privy Council, it emerged tonight.

Membership of the ancient Royal body is granted to senior politicians who receive secret briefings from the security services and receive the life-long title of the 'Right Honourable'.

Mr Corbyn will have to take a solemn oath to honour the Queen and promise not to reveal any state secrets.
Click to expand...
 
It's interesting that this thread got bumped because after reading a comment earlier today in another thread about Churchill "advising" the current queen to move to Buckingham Palace, I wondered if there is a discussion thread on monarchs/royals having to follow the "advice" / "requests" of political leaders. I don't think that this thread is what I'm looking for rather it's the opposite. I have been particularly intrigued by these types of interactions between the current Queen and Tony Blair, as well as with her first PM, Winston Churchill. I am also fascinated by the goings on between Stanley Baldwin and Edward VIII during his brief reign.
 
Last edited:
The British monarch as three rights: the right to warn, to advise and to be consulted.


In the end though the British monarch has to follow the advice of the PM. To go against that advice would lead to a constitutional crisis.


The British monarch actually has fewer rights than any other citizen in the country.


Conversations between the monarch and the PM occur weekly when parliament is sitting but NO minutes of those meetings are kept and they are the only two people in the room - hence why there is no information about what was discussed between them. Both the PMs and the monarch take very seriously that concept of no revealing what was said although occasionally a general idea of a conversation is leaked by the PM in their memoirs or something but not directly.


There are also a number of people who suggest they know or hint that they know. In 2012 the cameras were allowed into one of Mr Cameron's meetings with The Queen as part of the Jubilee documentary but they were only there for part of the meeting and nothing controversial was said in that time. What may have been said later we will never know.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if QE2 makes comments about the meetings in her journal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
964
Tatiana Maria
T
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
418
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
  • Sticky
Queen Elizabeth (1926-2022) and the Duke of Edinburgh (1921-2021)
2 3
Replies
60
Views
7K
SLV
SLV
muriel
Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee Celebrations: 2022
26 27 28
Replies
822
Views
105K
yukari
Y
AC21091968
The Queen: A Life in Pictures (by Victoria Murphy)
Replies
1
Views
889
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom