The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 09-03-2010, 08:53 AM
RJ TAYLER's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: QUEENSLAND, Australia
Posts: 267
I think he just crossed a line that must never be crossed there. I also think he 'might' have crossed himself out of a few honours usually bestowed upon H.M.'s former Prime Ministers as well.
__________________

__________________
Yours
RJ TAYLER ESQ. Rightly Honoured to be a Member of The Royal Forums
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 09-03-2010, 10:23 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,969
It is regrettable that Mr Blair's head continues to be positioned at the wrong end of his torso.
__________________

__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 09-03-2010, 11:16 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
It is regrettable that Mr Blair's head continues to be positioned at the wrong end of his torso.
So succinct. Now I'll clean the coffee off of my monitor!
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 09-07-2010, 03:57 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,464
More on Tony Blair's memoirs. The emphasis is on Diana but his dealings with HM following the death of Diana are mentioned.

TONY BLAIR'S MEMOIRS: Did he really warn Diana about Dodi? | Mail Online

excerpts

[Diana's] death, he says, was ' menacing' for the Royal Family. The Queen was reluctant to speak to the nation because she 'didn't want to pretend to a view of Diana that was more conflicted than the public would accept'. But he criticised the old-fashioned way the Palace operated and the fact that the tragedy not even mentioned in the church service the Royals attended the same day. He blamed this failing on the fact there 'would have been no Alastairs (Campbell, the Downing Street spin doctor) in the entourage' warning the Queen that forcing William and Harry to go to church looked 'incredibly, almost blatantly, insensitive'.

Revealingly, he says he had a 'problem' with the Queen during the Diana crisis because 'there was no easy point of connection in age, or outlook, or experience'. 'I didn't trust myself fully to go straight to her and be as blunt as I needed to be - so I went to Charles.'

Even this grandstanding over his role in saving the Royal Family at their most perilous hour is at odds with what actually happened. He relates how after their return from Balmoral - at his urging - 'the Queen, Charles and the boys visited the front of Buckingham Palace'. In fact, the Prince of Wales took his sons to Kensington Palace which was the main focus of the public grief while the Queen and Prince Philip met crowds in the Mall outside Buckingham Palace.

If the reaction to Diana's death was to set the style for Mr Blair's folksy approach to government, it was also to define his relationship with the Royals. The Queen, of course, would never reveal what she felt about Mr Blair any more than what she thought of any of her other 12 prime ministers. It was said, for example, that the Queen felt warmly of Harold Wilson, but this was the view given by Wilson himself. James Callaghan observed that the Queen offered 'friendliness not friendship'.

After Diana's funeral, Mr Blair and the Queen met at Balmoral, and he admits he 'talked perhaps less sensitively than I should have about the need to learn lessons', and 'at points during the conversation she assumed a certain hauteur'. The visit had not been easy. He found Balmoral 'utterly freaky' and he needed a drink to survive the visit. 'Had it been a dry event, had the Queen been a teetotaller or a temperance fanatic, I don't believe I could have got through the weekend.'

Recalling their first meeting at the castle, he glibly says: 'I was shown up to see the Queen in the drawing room, which was exactly as Queen Victoria had left it. I was just about to sit down in a rather inviting-looking chair when a strangled cry from the footman and a set of queenly eyebrows raised in horror made me desist. It was explained that it had been Victoria's chair and that since her day no one had ever sat in it.'

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 09-08-2010, 09:06 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,095

Oh well, its not the first half-truth to have come from the Blairs!
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 09-08-2010, 07:47 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,476
Peter Morgan accuses Tony Blair of plagiarising lines from his film The Queen - Telegraph

Tony Blair's account of what was said when he went to kiss hands with the Queen in 1997 is perhaps the most controversial part of his memoirs because it represents such a flagrant betrayal of the trust that had previously existed between the monarch and her prime minister.

Now, in an intriguing twist to the affair, Peter Morgan, the screenwriter, tells me that he suspects the former prime minister took the line not from his actual conversation with the Queen, but his Oscar- winning film about her which starred Helen Mirren.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 11-07-2010, 04:51 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,438
When the Queen told Churchill: Stop making me sit through these dreadful films | Mail Online

Quote:
For nearly 50 years the Queen has graced the red carpet at Royal Film Performances.

But newly discovered documents show that in the early years of her reign she found the movies so dreadful she complained to then Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill during an audience at Buckingham Palace.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 11-13-2010, 09:17 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 1
Is there anyone have direct e-mail address to the British Royal Family?
Thank you for the help!
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 11-13-2010, 11:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by yulizah View Post
Is there anyone have direct e-mail address to the British Royal Family?
Thank you for the help!

There is a 'contact us' link on the British Monarchy website. Welcome to the official website of the British Monarchy This will tell where to write, or the number to ring to contact their offices. Sometimes a written piece will garner a personal reply from the relevant royal but usually it is a form letter from one of the staff.

However there isn't a generally known email address and if anyone here did have the personal email address of a member of the family they wouldn't give it out. Like anyone else the members of the family protect o whom they give their email address and that isn't the general public.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 06-01-2011, 05:31 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,502
Why not try the Facebook pages of the British Monarchy ?

The British Monarchy | Facebook
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 07-17-2011, 07:54 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,502
Could we expand the thread to have not only Prime Ministers, but also the First Minister of Scotland, and the two equivalents in Wales and Northern Ireland, please?
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 08-02-2011, 05:17 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,502
The Queen and her First Minister of Scotland
**********************************

At the Opening of the Scottish Parliament on July 1st, 2011, Alex Salmond told the Queen that an independent Scotland will want to retain the Queen as monarch....

Alex Salmond: we'll keep the Queen while England becomes a republic | Politics | guardian.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:17 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,468
There is an article in today's edition of The Guardian speculating that, since a second Brexit referendum would require appropriation of money from HM's Treasury, PM Theresa May would be constitutionally entitled to ask the Queen to withhold royal assent to any referendum bill passed by the House of Commons without the backing of the government.



Frankly, I find that scenario unlikely, but, just for the sake of argument, if it came to that, would the Queen do it ? It would be the first royal veto of legislation in the UK since 1707 and could potentially trigger a major constitutional crisis and even calls for the abolition of the monarchy.


BTW, the suggestion that a royal veto could be on the cards came from Sir Stephen Laws , who formerly served as the First Parliamentary Counsel to the British government, so, as far-fetched as it may sound, it is not a loony proposition.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:24 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 11,916
Wouldn't that lead to an immediate vote of no confidence from the Parliament?
After all May would be attempting to overrule the Parliament! And by coercing the Sovereign in helping her to do so!
- That's pretty close to treason ins't it?
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:26 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 12,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
There is an article in today's edition of The Guardian speculating that, since a second Brexit referendum would require appropriation of money from HM's Treasury, PM Theresa May would be constitutionally entitled to ask the Queen to withhold royal assent to any referendum bill passed by the House of Commons without the backing of the government.



Frankly, I find that scenario unlikely, but, just for the sake of argument, if it came to that, would the Queen do it ? It would be the first royal veto of legislation in the UK since 1707 and could potentially trigger a major constitutional crisis and even calls for the abolition of the monarchy.


BTW, the suggestion that a royal veto could be on the cards came from Sir Stephen Laws , who formerly served as the First Parliamentary Counsel to the British government, so, as far-fetched as it may sound, it is not a loony proposition.
Now this is just a gut reaction from someone that isn't very knowledgeable about how the UK government works so here goes with my take on what the Queen would do.

As the Queen meets with the Prime Minister weekly and her role is to warn and advise, I would imagine that HM would "warn" PM May about the consequences of the action that she is requesting and "advise" her against it with giving logical and thought out reasons why. This is something the Queen is good at. She *knows* what's happening in her government and has kept informed on everything for over 65 years. This is one situation where, I imagine, that the Queen can and would speak freely about what's on her mind regarding the situation. Of course we'll never hear about it as those talks between the monarch and the PM are sacrosanct and private.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:33 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Wouldn't that lead to an immediate vote of no confidence from the Parliament?
After all May would be attempting to overrule the Parliament! And by coercing the Sovereign in helping her to do so!
- That's pretty close to treason ins't it?

I don't know, but a vote of no confidence would pass if the remainer Tory MPs, who presumably would back a second referendum, joined the opposition to topple the government.

I don't see it as treason though. In theory, the Queen has the prerogative to overrule the Houses of Parliament and veto legislation. In this particular case, if I understood it correctly, Sir Stephen's point was that there is a long-standing constitutional convention in the British parliament that bills that appropriate money from the Treasury are introduced only by the government and not by backbenchers. So it would be constitutional for the government to suggest a veto to any backbench bill that implied new public expenditure.


In any case, I think you are right that a vote of no confidence would be the most appropriate course of action if the government opposed the will of a majority of MPs in favor of a second referendum.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 01-21-2019, 08:07 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,059
The Queen has already made it clear to a couple of Prime Ministers that she wouldn't agree to certain legislation and so that legislation was then never put to the parliament.

The Queen is also, by convention, forced to follow the advice of the Prime Minister. IF Mrs May told her to veto the legislation then the Queen would have no choice but to veto it (that was what happened when Queen Anne used the veto - she did so on the advice of the leading ministers of the day - not yet called Prime Minister).

The year is now three weeks old and parliament has been sitting for well over a week and the Queen hasn't had an audience with the PM, indicating that the 'once a week' while parliament is sitting rule doesn't really apply anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 01-21-2019, 08:11 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 11,916
Hmm, interesting.

Let me get the thought process in place:
If a bill for a new referendum is passed in the Parliament, then there of course has to be a majority voting in favor of that. A good deal of those voting in favor would be Tories. - In fact the votes could split all the parties...
Okay, the government is against. PM May goes to the Queen and ask her to de facto veto the bill. The Queen stalls for time. (I can't imagine she would veto a majority in the Parliament!)
The MP's go ballistic! The PM is trying to overrule the will of the Parliament. That would IMO lead to an immediate vote of no confidence for the PM, but probably also the government - if for no other reason than out of principle.
What's the point of having a Parliament if the government and/or head of state can overrule any bills that are passed there?
I find it difficult to imagine the Tory backbenchers would support May, especially those who voted in favor of a new referendum.
Even those who voted against a new referendum would hesitate about overruling the Parliament.

I'm not sure what the technical term for such an action would be.
In DK overruling or attempting to prevent the legal proceedings of a legally elected Parliament is considered high treason. As May might be considered to do in this example.
Or would it be an attempt of a coup d'etat? Because the government is attempting to overrule the Parliament.

Whatever, I sure would take the first flight out of Britain - not even taking time to pack my toothbrush and my favorite slippers! Because that would lead to serious trouble!
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 01-21-2019, 08:15 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post

As the Queen meets with the Prime Minister weekly and her role is to warn and advise, I would imagine that HM would "warn" PM May about the consequences of the action that she is requesting and "advise" her against it with giving logical and thought out reasons why. This is something the Queen is good at. She *knows* what's happening in her government and has kept informed on everything for over 65 years. This is one situation where, I imagine, that the Queen can and would speak freely about what's on her mind regarding the situation.

What if the PM insisted on her advice though even after hearing the Queen's concerns ?


The royal legislative veto is a tricky subject. In theory, it is possible in the constitutions of all European kingdoms except Sweden, which abolished it in 1975. In the UK, on the other hand, although the Queen is advised by the PM, the royal veto is ultimately a personal act of the monarch which, unlike an order in council, is not countersigned as far as I understand. Normally, the Queen as a constitutional monarch would always abide by the PM's advice, but, in that particular case, I don't think she would necessarily have to. The point of my original message was precisely to discuss whether she would or would not do it if asked by May to use the veto.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 01-21-2019, 08:22 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 11,916
There is no royal veto in Denmark.

If a bill is passed in the Parliament it becomes a law. It needs the signature of the Monarch to become valid. - And that's where a "royal veto" can come in. But it would be a personal veto.
And now we have a major constitutional crisis on our hands! Even if the government backs the Monarch's refusal to sign.
The Monarch would basically commit high treason. - But that's for another tread.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british commonwealth, british government, elizabeth ii, margaret thatcher, prime ministers, queen elizabeth ii, tony blair, winston churchill


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Queen Elisabeth Of The Belgians (1876-1965) Julia Belgian Royal History 73 09-25-2018 08:47 PM
The Snow Princess: Queen Astrid Of Belgium, Part 1 Julia Belgian Royal History 198 12-12-2006 10:15 AM
Pavlos And Marie Chantal: Current Events December 2002 - October 2003 Julia Crown Prince Pavlos, Marie Chantal and Family 76 10-14-2003 09:40 PM




Popular Tags
belgian book british royal family camilla clothes commonwealth games current events current events thread danish royal family de belgique denmark duchess of cornwall duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of edinburgh earl of wessex fashion felipe vi forum germany gordon harry and meghan headship interesting facts interests jacobite juan carlos king felipe and queen letizia current events lady louise mountbatten-windsor letizia lineage meghan markle member nelson mandela bay norwegian royal family patron plantagenets porphyria prince aymeric prince harry prince harry of wales princenapoleon prince peter princess princess beatrice princess eugenie princess of belgium princess royal public image queen elisabeth queen elizabeth relationship remarriage royal royal ancestry royal ancestry; oscar and sophia royal family royal geneology royal wedding sarah duchess of york savoy state visit tom bower tradition van belgiŰ wedding wedding of prince harry windsor castle windy city ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:16 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises