Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh Current Events 24: June 2012-April 2013


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
:previous:

Thanks for noticing, just added the relevant link. :)
Not sure how much of a prerogative the Queen exercised, but she certainly did what politicians (everywhere) fail to do: ask the most obvious and important questions.
 
IF she did. I think the whole prerogative thing comes under the fact that this is a political matter, between countries, and the Queen is apolitical. IF she got involved, she shouldn't have.
 
:previous:

I have to disagree with you. If the incident did happen (and I don't see why or how would Gardiner invent it), the Queen had every right to express her opinion on this issue. She did not interfere into politics - she expressed her legitimate concern for the well-being of her people and the fact the laws of her country (laws that are passed and executed in her name) appeared not to work in case of a man who openly preached hatred towards Britain.
 
IF she did. I think the whole prerogative thing comes under the fact that this is a political matter, between countries, and the Queen is apolitical. IF she got involved, she shouldn't have.

My understanding is HM is not allowed to make her views public, but in this instance it was a private conversation with the Home Secretary, in which case HM is allowed to make her views known ( Correct me if I'm wrong) It was the BBC who made all of this public.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is HM is not allowed to make her views public, but in this instance it was a private conversation with the Home Secretary, in which case HM is allowed to make her views known ( Correct me if I'm wrong) It was the BBC who made all of this public.

You are correct, it was BBC defence correspondent Frank Gardner who released the information and he has apologised and the BBC has sent a letter to the palace. Apparently The Queen phoned the Home Secretary saying she was upset he had not been arrested and inquiring why he was still a free man.

There is the alternate story that HM told Frank that she was upset personally, and that she has spoken to a senior minister asking questions. Apparently Frank broke protocol by publishing the information he received from the Monarch.

For me, HM shouldn't be phoning the Home Secretary telling him she's upset and inquiring why he's still here. Or talking to a BBC reporter which ever story is true. It's not a matter she should be involved in. Abu Hamzah has broken the rules and should be punished, but it is for the courts to decide how that happens.

She can voice her opinions all she likes to her family, like most of us do, but to nobody that could take her words in a persuasive manner.
 
For me, HM shouldn't be phoning the Home Secretary telling him she's upset and inquiring why he's still here. Or talking to a BBC reporter which ever story is true. It's not a matter she should be involved in. Abu Hamzah has broken the rules and should be punished, but it is for the courts to decide how that happens.

She can voice her opinions all she likes to her family, like most of us do, but to nobody that could take her words in a persuasive manner.

It is very much HMs prerogative to advise, and to be advised on matters of state by her Ministers. She did not put her views out in the public domain, the BBC did.
 
It is very much HMs prerogative to advise, and to be advised on matters of state by her Ministers. She did not put her views out in the public domain, the BBC did.

Well there are two stories, she spoke to the Home Secretary or she spoke to a BBC reporter. In the Home Secretary case, apparently she phoned him up to express her upset and to ask why he was still here? How is that advising or receiving advise?
 
Well there are two stories, she spoke to the Home Secretary or she spoke to a BBC reporter. In the Home Secretary case, apparently she phoned him up to express her upset and to ask why he was still here? How is that advising or receiving advise?

The one thing you can be sure of is that in 60 years, this monarch has never been accused of overstepping her constitutional role. We are clearly dealing with limited information here, but I still fail to understand why "HM shouldn't be phoning the Home Secretary telling him she's upset and inquiring why he's still here."
 
Last edited:
We are clearly dealing with limited information here, but I still fail to understand why "HM shouldn't be phoning the Home Secretary telling him she's upset and inquiring why he's still here."

I don't see how it's limited information, Frank Gardner gave a lengthy interview to Radio4 about his conversation with The Queen. The issue is that he told when The Queens political conversations are supposed to be private and off limits. My issue is that The Queen spoke to a BBC reporter about something that doesn't concern her. Of all the people to voice opinions to, a reporter is the best person she could find?
This interview took place years ago and Frank decided to monopolise today's announcement and release some new information for the BBC to latch onto.
 
:previous:

How come the safety and well-being of her people doesn't concern the Queen? Abu Hamza was a threat for Britain, something everyone could see, and that includes non-British people who wondered whether Brits have completely lost their marbles for allowing someone to openly preach hatred for their country from their streets and squares. I mean, if a person chose to live in Armenia and then called it a "toilet" and called to fight against it, goodbye would have been the nicest possible thing he could hear.

The Queen obviously shared the concern, and asked her ministers why a man who had clearly broken many laws was still at large. She's supposed to be the protector of the country's laws after all.
 
Last edited:
:previous:

How come the safety and well-being of her people doesn't concern the Queen? Abu Hamza was a threat for Britain, something everyone could see, and that includes non-British people who wondered whether Brits have completely lost their marbles for allowing someone to openly preach hatred for their country from their streets and squares. I mean, if a person chose to live in Armenia and then called it a "toilet" and called to fight against it, goodbye would have been the nicest possible thing he could hear.

The Queen obviously shared the concern, and asked her ministers how come a man who had clearly broken many laws was still at large. She's supposed to be the protector of the country's laws after all.

Completely agree with you.
 
:previous:

How come the safety and well-being of her people doesn't concern the Queen? Abu Hamza was a threat for Britain, something everyone could see, and that includes non-British people who wondered whether Brits have completely lost their marbles for allowing someone to openly preach hatred for their country from their streets and squares. I mean, if a person chose to live in Armenia and then called it a "toilet" and called to fight against it, goodbye would have been the nicest possible thing he could hear.

The Queen obviously shared the concern, and asked her ministers how come a man who had clearly broken many laws was still at large. She's supposed to be the protector of the country's laws after all.

While we don't know when this interview took place, apparently years ago, I'll refrain from commenting on the threat of Abu Hamza.

The Queen told a BBC reporter, she was upset and that she had questioned why he was still in the country. Nobody finds that just a tiny bit stupid? Even for The Queen, whom I respect most highly, that's odd.

Advise the Prime Ministers, express your 'thought's' in those private Tuesday meetings. Yes The Queen is write to be concerned about her country, but be concerned to the right people ma'am. It's not like she can do anything about it, the UK government couldn't do anything, it took 8 years and a million pounds to get someone to agree on his extradition, and he isn't going anywhere yet. What did the Queens upset and concern actual do? Nothing.

I stand by what I said, The Queen should have kept quiet. For me, her opinions should be kept for the ears of her family and when it concerns, the current Prime Ministers.
 
:previous:

As always, I respect your opinion, Lumutqueen, even if I do strongly disagree.
Maybe the Queen couldn't do anything as such, but as far as I'm concerned she was right in her attempt to at least voice her concern.
 
:previous:

As always, I respect your opinion, Lumutqueen, even if I do strongly disagree.
Maybe the Queen couldn't do anything as such, but as far as I'm concerned she was right in her attempt to at least voice her concern.

I agree. It is not as if she actually ordered the mans removal from the UK. She asked a pretty simple and basic question. We don't know if the Home Secretary took any special actions based on her question. As for it being political, well it is not like she expressed a partisan political opinion or was interfering in the actions of the government or parliament. As I said, she asked a simple question. The government was under no obligation to act on it.
 
I strongly disagree with Lumutqueen, also. From what I remember of my constitutional law classes, the Queen was perfectly within her rights to take an interest in this topic and question the Home Secretary about what was holding up Hamza's arrest and extradition (thank you the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights).

The Queen is also entitled to express a private view to whomever she wishes. In this case, she was discussing the issue with Frank Gardner who was left in a wheelchair having been the victim of a terrorist attack by radical Islamist organisations in Saudi Arabia. The Queen is entitled to have a private conversation, with the reasonable expectation that the confidentiality of the conversation be respected, as has become the convention in the UK with regards to discussions with HM.

Ultimately, this whole case demonstrates why the UK must withdraw not only from the EU, but also from the ECHR. It's time to tell these unelected judges and bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg that their days of riding roughshod over the democratic will of the British people are numbered.

I also see that the geniuses at 'Republic' are up in arms over the Queen expressing an opinion and questioning government ministers over this. The fact that they think this is something that might somehow make the Queen look bad, shows how divorced from reality they really are.
 
Ultimately, this whole case demonstrates why the UK must withdraw not only from the EU, but also from the ECHR. It's time to tell these unelected judges and bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg that their days of riding roughshod over the democratic will of the British people are numbered.

I also see that the geniuses at 'Republic' are up in arms over the Queen expressing an opinion and questioning government ministers over this. The fact that they think this is something that might somehow make the Queen look bad, shows how divorced from reality they really are.

I agree completely with your thoughts on the EU and ECHR and as far as 'Republic' is concerned, I've been reading comments and newspaper editorials about this matter and probably 99 percent of people commenting applaud HM for this.
If anything it shows just how important constitutional monarchy is to the United Kingdom
 
Artemisia said:
'Get that man out of one's land': Queen PERSONALLY intervened in case of hate preacher Abu Hamza because 'her country and its subjects were being denigrated'
Nice one, Your Majesty! :clap:
If a person chooses to live in a country, he takes the responsibility to respect that country, its laws, traditions and people. If he breaks that unwritten contract, if he tries to hurt that country or urges others to do that, then thanks for the stay and bye-bye.

Quite amazing though it took an elderly woman who has always tried to stay out of politics to ask a very simple question: why is he he still at large?

The woman's worth her weight and more in precious metals! Good on her for speaking up :clap:.
 
Advise the Prime Ministers, express your 'thought's' in those private Tuesday meetings. Yes The Queen is write to be concerned about her country, but be concerned to the right people ma'am.


She did - she raised the question with the then Home Secretary.

Some time later in a private conversation she told a reporter that she had raised the question with the Home Secretary.

The sad consequence of this is that the entire royal family will now be reduced to 'hello' 'how nice to see you' type comments rather than a more personal one showing some understanding of the person's situation as she and they can no longer trust that their private conversations will be kept private.
 
91 years young and still putting duty first. HRH is amazing!
 
91 years young and still putting duty first. HRH is amazing!

Not only is he amazing but I think he's also looking much younger than his 91 years young. I think Scotland agreed with him this year. He looks fit and well rested.
 
I think this is one powerful and beautiful portrait of Her Majesty The Queen.
 
Talk about "A Penny (or Pence in this case) for Your Thoughts." I think the presents of the train, but no crown or tiara will make this a much talked about portrait for many years to come. If she were wearing either a crown or tiara, would not have made the portrait as interesting.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
It actually make me wish there was an actual ceremony where the Queen would have to walk into Westminster Abbey in her regalia. I mean she just look powerful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom