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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
We don't know that Elizabeth keeps that sort of detailed daily personal diary, do we. She may do, like her forebear Victoria, or she might keep just a record of events and a few notes. It will be fascinating to future historians if she does keep a full daily journal, complete with her impressions of Prime Ministers from Churchill to Cameron.
 
We don't know that Elizabeth keeps that sort of detailed daily personal diary, do we. She may do, like her forebear Victoria, or she might keep just a record of events and a few notes. It will be fascinating to future historians if she does keep a full daily journal, complete with her impressions of Prime Ministers from Churchill to Cameron.


I remember hearing her comparing the elaborate diary of QV to her own which is much shorter and not as detailed. Not sure but I think it was in the documentary series about Windsor castle.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
Video: Jeremy Corbyn's failure to sing national anthem at memorial service defended as 'respectful silence' - Telegraph
Video: Jeremy Corbyn's failure to sing national anthem at memorial service defended as 'respectful silence' - Telegraph

Jeremy Corbyn has defended not singing the national anthem the national anthem at the Battle of Britain memorial service by saying he had chosen “respectful silence”.
The hard-left Labour leader remained solemn, but silent, as he stood in the front row at St Paul's Cathedral on Tuesday.

Labour confirms Corbyn DIDN'T sing national anthem at service to honour Battle of Britain heroes - but insists new leader stood in 'respectful silence' (although he did get a free lunch out of it) | Daily Mail Online
Labour confirms Corbyn DIDN'T sing national anthem at service to honour Battle of Britain heroes - but insists new leader stood in 'respectful silence' (although he did get a free lunch out of it)

Jeremy Corbyn tonight claimed his refusal to sing the national anthem at a memorial service to remember the heroes of the Battle of Britain was 'respectful'.
The new Labour leader, a committed pacifist and republican, stood silently as the congregation at St Paul's Cathedral sang God Save the Queen on the aerial conflict's 75th anniversary.

I am a Labour supporter, but this man is dangerous, and he's going to create many problems.
 
The atmosphere over breakfast was strained as the Queen noted the headline splashed across a newspaper: ‘Yes vote leads in Scots poll.’

For the first time in his political career, David Cameron’s equilibrium deserted him. It was Sunday morning, just 11 days before the Scottish referendum on independence, and he was staying at Balmoral for his annual late summer weekend with the Queen.

What if the YouGov poll was right? How would he be able to tell Her Majesty that he’d managed to go one further than Lord North, who lost the North American colonies, and lost the United Kingdom itself? The enormity of it all simply overwhelmed Cameron.

‘One of his normal characteristics is the ability to stay completely calm when everyone is panicking. This is one of the few times he didn’t do that,’ says a friend.

As he left Balmoral that night, Cameron telephoned his pollster, Andrew Cooper, from his car. ‘He was very worried,’ Cooper admits. ‘It was the first time he was seriously contemplating: “S***, we might lose.” ’

The Queen, too, was deeply troubled, and Cameron knew it.

Inside Whitehall, there were discussions on whether she could somehow speak out against Scottish independence while remaining within the constitutional boundaries of neutrality.

Under a cloak of secrecy, the Cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, and the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt, held talks to work out how she might express her concerns in a suitably coded way.
Read more: Dave Cameron and the Queen had frosty breakfast before Scottish Independence vote | Daily Mail Online
 
I don't believe the Queen should have spoken in even a coded way about how she hoped the referendum would finish up. Independence was a very emotive issue and should have been left entirely to Scots, as it was. The vast majority of Scots would have guessed which way the Queen wanted the vote to go anyway.

I think David Cameron's later disclosure was appalling. All that business about 'she purred down the line' (when the Queen heard the result of the referendum) was disgraceful, and probably caused great offence in Scotland. It certainly wouldn't have done the Queen's position with pro-independence Scots much good. Prime Ministers should at all times keep their mouths shut about delicate and controversial subjects, IMO.
 

This is another extract from the unauthorised biography 'Call me Dave' . The author has already admitted publically that her most controversial stories to date have not been authenticated, ie someone has told her a hearsay story from an anonymous source and she never checked it out. All I can say is that this leaves the entire book in fairy tale land as far as I am concerned.

she has written it having been paid by Lord Ashcroft who was a party donor who expected a high level job in return and never got it. UK media are tranlating this book as a hatchet job done in retribution.

I think this is possibly another attack but they are involving HMQ and that is a really big mistake.
 
I don't believe the Queen should have spoken in even a coded way about how she hoped the referendum would finish up. Independence was a very emotive issue and should have been left entirely to Scots, as it was. The vast majority of Scots would have guessed which way the Queen wanted the vote to go anyway.



I think David Cameron's later disclosure was appalling. All that business about 'she purred down the line' (when the Queen heard the result of the referendum) was disgraceful, and probably caused great offence in Scotland. It certainly wouldn't have done the Queen's position with pro-independence Scots much good. Prime Ministers should at all times keep their mouths shut about delicate and controversial subjects, IMO.


The Queen was damned if she did, damned if she didn't in that regards. It didn't matter what she said, she was going to be criticized. But if she said nothing, she would have been accused of not caring.

I kind of think in how she worded things she took the least bad option. She didn't openly support the no side, but she also didn't show disinterest in the issue.
 
Article from today.
Exclusive: Jeremy Corbyn snubs the Queen, saying he is too busy to be sworn in to the Privy Council - Telegraph
Jeremy Corbyn has snubbed the Queen by refusing to be sworn into the Privy Council on Thursday, as it emerged he could use a loophole to join the advisory body without ever meeting Her Majesty.

The Labour leader, a lifelong republican, is known to have reservations about kneeling in front of the Queen and kissing her hand as he swears an oath of allegiance to her, which is the normal process when a new Privy Councillor is sworn in.

And having refused to sing the National Anthem at a Battle of Britain 75th anniversary service last month, Mr Corbyn tried to dodge the issue by saying he could not attend tomorrow’s meeting due to unspecified “prior engagements”.

Articles from September, the other newspapers have also had several articles about this.

Jeremy Corbyn's 'shame' over Queen slur - Telegraph

This is not the entire article, even though it looks like it.
Jeremy Corbyn was under intense pressure last night after his peace movement published a “disgraceful” diatribe against the Queen.

A poem on the front page of the Stop the War Coalition website alleges that the Queen has a “criminal record” and is “lubricating Britain’s wars”, while the Royal family are arms dealers and “friends to despots and dictators”.

A poem on the front page of the Stop the War Coalition website alleges that the Queen has a “criminal record” and is “lubricating Britain’s wars”, while the Royal family are arms dealers and “friends to despots and dictators”.

At midday on Saturday, the Telegraph asked Mr Corbyn’s office to comment on the article.

Almost five hours later, Labour announced that he was standing down as chairman of the Stop the War Coalition after four years in charge.

However, in a gesture of defiance to his critics, he sent the group a message of support, saying it represented “the very best in British political campaigning” and promised that its cause “will remain my cause”.

Mr Corbyn’s office repeatedly refused to criticise the poem, claiming that the Labour leader had not seen it and so could not comment.

His refusal to condemn the tirade provoked outrage from his own shadow ministers, who said they were “appalled” by the sentiments it expressed.

Kevan Jones, the shadow defence minister, said: “This slur on the Queen will be highly offensive to members of our Armed Forces and many ordinary Labour voters. I am sure these are not the views of Jeremy Corbyn but it is time he distanced himself from some of the more extreme elements of the anti-war coalition.”

Sir Gerald Howarth, the former Tory defence minister, said: “He should be ashamed to be associated with an organisation which is so disrespectful to the monarch.”

The poem by Heathcote Williams was published in his work Royal Babylon: the Criminal Record of the British Monarchy. Titled God save the Queen: long may she reign as she and her family lubricate Britain’s wars, it goes on to criticise support for the monarchy saying: “The country survives despite its own past not because of it/ And its infantile wish for a benign parent above politics/ Persuades it to ignore unpleasant facts, such as the sovereign’s endorsing/ The very nastiest political act of all, namely killing.”

It goes on to describe the sovereign’s dominant role being to inspect “row after row” of soldiers who have been “broken down”, “reconfigured” and “programmed to kill on command”.

It continues: “The sovereign is crucial to the lubrication of Britain’s wars/ By its gulling soldiers into dutifully dying;/ Then, after paying homage to such victims of state carnage,/ By its encouraging arms-trade profiteering.”

The poem says the Queen was “groomed” to join “the UK’s military-monarchy-complex”, while the Duke of Cambridge is also being prepared to succeed her in this role.

Forcing Jeremy Corbyn to kneel before the Queen would be cruel and distasteful - Telegraph

Just let the man go in, shake the Queen’s hand, make some small talk about manhole covers and cricket, and get the hell out again. I can’t believe Her Majesty actually gives a monkeys about whether Jeremy Corbyn kneels or not. And I’m pretty sure that just days after becoming Britain’s longest-serving monarch the last thing she wants to do is get dragged into a row between the Royal family and the Labour Party. We can all do without the battle of Corbyn’s knee.

This is not the first time the Left’s republicanism has run into the protocols and procedures of institutions underpinned by the benign anachronism of the Crown, and it won’t be the last. At the start of every parliamentary session Dennis Skinner is asked to swear the oath of allegiance. Sometimes he mumbles. On other occasions he pledges allegiance to Queen Elizabeth but not her heirs and successors. The clerk of the House smiles. The Speaker shakes his hand. Dennis moves on. The world still turns.

In a couple of years, this will all be over. Jeremy Corbyn will be gone. Labour will have a new leader. They will go and see the Queen, and they will kneel, and they will deliver that ludicrous-sounding vow. Again, the world will continue to turn.

Let’s not force Jeremy Corbyn to his knees. If he wants to be able to tell his grandchildren about the day he refused to kneel before the Queen, fine. Soon someone will have to take the leadership of the Labour Party away from him. But they can let him keep his self-respect.

Five shadow cabinet ministers attack Jeremy Corbyn in national anthem row - Telegraph
A group of senior Labour MPs have attacked Jeremy Corbyn for failing to sing the national anthem at a Battle of Britain memorial service.

Three of the most senior members of Labour's shadow cabinet told The Telegraph they would have sung God Save The Queen while a further two said the new leader was wrong to have stood silent.
 
Last edited:
:previous:

I can only say this: while the politicians and media are causing trouble and arguments amongst themselves and each other, Her Majesty the Queen carries on regardless in her usual, disciplined, regal way far beyond all the nonsense - and that is why I am glad we have a monarch!
 
:previous:

I can only say this: while the politicians and media are causing trouble and arguments amongst themselves and each other, Her Majesty the Queen carries on regardless in her usual, disciplined, regal way far beyond all the nonsense - and that is why I am glad we have a monarch!

Yes, she does. And the Queen is not a person who cares if he kneels in front of her or not, but Jeremy Corbyn is dangerous and this comes from me who is a Labour supporter.

The Queen said in Berlin ''We know that division in Europe is dangerous and that we must guard against it.'' I would say the same about him, Jeremy Corbyn is dangerous and we must guard against him.
 
What do QEII's subjects here think?
Should it be optional to kneel before the British Monarch?
 
Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn joins the Privy Council despite refusing to meet the Queen today - Telegraph
A spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn, commenting on his unavailability to attend the Privy Council, said: “Although Jeremy was unavailable for today’s meeting, he has confirmed he will be joining the Privy Council.

“As the Prime Minister and others did, it is far from unusual to miss the first meeting due to other commitments.”

Jeremy Corbyn misses meeting the Queen because he wanted some 'relaxation time' | Daily Mail Online
Fury as Corbyn snubs the Queen... to go on HOLIDAY: Labour leader skips first Privy Council meeting to enjoy 'relaxation time'

Jeremy Corbyn snubbed meeting the Queen today as he avoided a ceremony to join the Privy Council because he wanted a mini-holiday.

The Labour leader had been expected to attend the swearing-in ceremony which involves kneeling in front of the monarch and kissing her hand while swearing an oath of allegiance.

Aides say he had other commitments including 'some relaxation time' which meant he could not attend.

But in a twist, a loophole has been used which means the staunch republican has become a Privy Councillor anyway.
 
I'm afraid that when you become the leader of the opposition, there are certain obligations you are expected to carry out. Taking some relaxation time out before having done what is required of you to do is not on. If Mr Corbyn has indeed done this, then I find it unacceptable.

Personally, whether he kneels before the Queen/swears allegiance/sings the National Anthem or not, it is up to him - but he must do what he is expected to do and take his job seriously.
 
I think that the gentleman has the right to be a republican. His feelings towards the monarchy can not come as a surprise for any member of the Labour Party whom elected Mr Corbyn as their leader. The Privy Council is a remarkable vehicle about which question marks may be placed in terms of democratic control and legitimation. The criticism on Mr Corbyn are so overreacted that I even started to feel sympathy for the man...
 
but he must do what he is expected to do and take his job seriously.

He has sat in the House of Commons for over 30 years, in almost total obscurity, not previously having been trusted with even the most menial position [by his own party], either in opposition or in govt. But following their disastrous defeat in May this year, Labour have 'thrust power upon him', and he seems rather 'out of his depth'.
All agree, he IS a decent man, of principle, but whether that will be sufficient to lead him to No 10 [when so many of his core beliefs are fundamentally at odds with those of the public] must be in grave doubt, for those that have put their faith in him.
 
He has sat in the House of Commons for over 30 years, in almost total obscurity, not previously having been trusted with even the most menial position [by his own party], either in opposition or in govt. But following their disastrous defeat in May this year, Labour have 'thrust power upon him', and he seems rather 'out of his depth'.
All agree, he IS a decent man, of principle, but whether that will be sufficient to lead him to No 10 [when so many of his core beliefs are fundamentally at odds with those of the public] must be in grave doubt, for those that have put their faith in him.

That may be true or not true, fact is that his party elected him as their leader. And he is as much leader of Labour as Ed Miliband was or Tony Blair. Being in total obscurity is not per sé a disadvantage. A relatively unknown grey mouse who was a MP for Huntingdonshire became a Chancellor of the Exchequer for just a year when he suddenly got the keys of 10 Downing Street, probably to his own surprise. That man was John Major.
 
The fundamental change in the Labour party's prospects of electability these days, lies in Scotland, which they used to run [almost as a private fiefdom].. Now that role has been taken over by the SNP, and unless Labour can recoup it position in Scotland [a VERY big 'if' indeed] it has no chance of winning power in Britain. Without a major SNP disaster in Scotland Corbyn will NEVER be PM in this country.
 
I'm afraid that when you become the leader of the opposition, there are certain obligations you are expected to carry ou
Personally, whether he kneels before the Queen/swears allegiance/sings the National Anthem or not, it is up to him - but he must do what he is expected to do and take his job seriously.

I think that the gentleman has the right to be a republican. His feelings towards the monarchy can not come as a surprise for any member of the Labour Party whom elected Mr Corbyn as their leader. The Privy Council is a remarkable vehicle about which question marks may be placed in terms of democratic control and legitimation. The criticism on Mr Corbyn are so overreacted that I even started to feel sympathy for the man...

I actually think it is despicable that the Leader of the Opposition does not sing the national anthem. Replublican or not, IMO, if you cannot respect the national anthem of the nation, you are unfit for public office.

As regards the Privy Council, if he wants to publicly snub HM the way it has been suggested he has, it is yet another sign, IMO, of one who does not respect the institutions of state.

You can be a republican, but there is no need to disrespect the Queen or the machinery of state as it stands.
 
The Queen is not a person who cares if he kneels in front of her or not, and this is not a problem for me either, but Jeremy Corbyn is very very radical and and has many dangerous views.

The 70%+ of the population who support the Monarchy in the UK,will not forget Comrade Corbyn's republican sentiments when the next General election comes round in 2020..

He is already getting disastrous numbers in opinion polls...

Jeremy Corbyn receives the worst ratings for a Labour leader in 60 years - Telegraph

Do you really believe he will last to 2020? I don't think / hope so, and I am a Labour supporter.

A poll showed 67% support to the monarchy in the 1960s, and now most polls have the support at 70%+.

Ipsos Mori had it so high as 80%, 77%, 79% in their thre polls in 2012, and 77% in their last poll in 2013. Populus had it at 77% in both 2010 and 2011, and at 82% in their last poll in 2012. YouGov had their support at 69% in 2011, 73% in 2012 and 71 in 2015. ComRes had their suport at 66% in 2013, and 70% in 2015. This is not going to change, but the 20%- of the population who support a republic is probably very happy with Jeremy Corbyn.
 
I don't think / hope so

The 'Acid test' will be the local elections next May.. If Labour do badly then, the knives will be sharpened and his days will be numbered, altho' it will be hard to justify getting rid of him [since his mandate amongst Party members was so noteworthy]. With him, or without him the Scotland problem remains for his party.. without Scottish seats a Labour govt remains impossible.
 
Well, why is Jeremy Corbyn being appointed to the Privy Council if people think he's being disrespectful to The Queen?
 
Because ONLY members of the Privy Council have access to 'Classified' information, and as 'leader of HM official Opposition', he HAS to be given that.
 
The 'Acid test' will be the local elections next May.. If Labour do badly then, the knives will be sharpened and his days will be numbered, altho' it will be hard to justify getting rid of him [since his mandate amongst Party members was so noteworthy]. With him, or without him the Scotland problem remains for his party.. without Scottish seats a Labour govt remains impossible.

Yes, I know.

And to those of you who want to know more about the The Privy Council, I found this sky news article from today.

What Is The Role Of The Privy Council?
 
Because ONLY members of the Privy Council have access to 'Classified' information, and as 'leader of HM official Opposition', he HAS to be given that.

Well, I wonder what The Queen think of all of this? She get's on with the job no matter what, and don't focus on those who don't kneel before her, but she takes protocol very serious when it comes to real official business.
 
I wonder what The Queen think of all of this?

We will NEVER know, although on the bbc 4 radio news this evening, a Constitutional 'expert' stated that it is not 'constitutionally possible for her to have an opinion on the matter' !
 
I saw an unknown (to me) Royal expert who had worked at the palace on BBC News Channel or Sky News a few weeks ago and he said something like this ''The Queen is not a person who cares if he kneels in front of her or not, and will not se this as a problem. I think she will try to get him feel comfortable, and help him. And when it comes to this media fuss, I think she's just laughing at it.''
 
The problem is the North-Korean type of anthem a republican has to sing. It is not about England's pleasant pastures green or about a land of hope and glory. It is about wishing the "noble King" to be happy and glorious, to wish him "long to reign over us". I can very well imagine that any conscious and self-respecting republican refuses to sing that. On itself I prefer someone tk be honest about it than to keep up a facade. That is just playing for the bühne, performing a vaudeville. How can Corbyn ever sing the anthem when his political ideal clashes with every word in that?
 
ever sing the anthem when his political ideal clashes with every word

Presumably the way you yourself Duc et Pair, [a professed monarchist] sing the vehemently and VIOLENTLY anti-monarchist marseillaise, when required ?
 
Back
Top Bottom