The Queen and Her Prime Ministers


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Beyond belief. I would have said: "My Lords, your zest for the interest of Our People is well known and appreciated . Said Motion will be taken into Our Consideration. And hereby We command you in the Lord's holy protection".

That leaves the monarch time to have ample counsel on the Motion. At least she can give the impression it was deeply reviewed and considered on all merits.

But just a buzzer, a nod, "approved" and that was it for the UK's most turbulent legislation? Good heavens. This has exposed the monarchy as completely useless. Even the label "defender of the Constitution" can not be glued on them because they just are the PM's Ape Theatre : throw a nickel, and we perform a dance for you.

The day any British monarch refuses a PM is the day Britain becomes a republic.
 
I can't believe the queen's role in suspending Parliament. The pound took a hit but recovered most of the loses

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...dollar-amid-reports-parliament-suspended.html

There will be uncertainty in the markets for a while but the royals need to watch their step with their extravagance. I mean all of them. Stories of designers dresses and expensive jewels will not be a good look for any royal woman at this time. Will the Sussex and Cambridge tours be called off?
 
There is nothing to not believe, the Queen had no choice but to act, not in a sense of moral rights etc, literally had she not have accepted the PMs request that would have been a constitutional crisis. She hasn't chosen to do anything, she did what was expected of her. If you can't believe anything I would suggest not believing that the Government put the Sovereign in this position.

No the tours will certainly not be called off. If anything it is what the RF will want to show - business as usual and how important a role the RF have with foreign relations.

There is no need for the royals to watch their extravagance, the country needing to sell off the family silver just yet. Of course IMO the royals should never flaunt their wealth and after a torrid few months of stories regarding some of the family I hope there is a sense from all of pulling together to put their best face on and to make the headline only for the right reasons. Make the Queen proud of them.
 
Last edited:
The crisis would be if she didn’t listen to the Prime Minister

Exactly

The British people know who is to blame and that it isn't HM. They know she has to take the advice of her PM and Privy Council and that is what she had done.
 
Alastair Bruce described the meeting on Sky news.

He said Jacob Rees-Mogg and the two other privy councillors were picked up at the airport and brought to the castle. They’re met by the Queen’s equerry and lady in waiting. The Queen is in the library waiting and when she’s ready she presses a buzzer and the politicians are brought in.

They stand before a table with a red cloth over it and a candle in the centre. The Lord President of the Council reads out the motion and The Queen nods her head and says “approved”.

That’s it. The politicians fly back to London and the Queen goes back to enjoying her holiday.
Out of curiosity, how does he know this?
 
I can't believe the queen's role in suspending Parliament. The pound took a hit but recovered most of the loses

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...dollar-amid-reports-parliament-suspended.html

There will be uncertainty in the markets for a while but the royals need to watch their step with their extravagance. I mean all of them. Stories of designers dresses and expensive jewels will not be a good look for any royal woman at this time. Will the Sussex and Cambridge tours be called off?

No tours will be called off - not Charles' to Japan, Charles and Camilla's to New Zealand, the Cambrides to Pakistan nor the Sussexes to Southern Africa.

Recycling outfits would be a good look. The only exception I would have allowed would have been if Camilla was going to Japan with Charles as the enthronement ceremony would have demanded a new dress for Camilla but as she isn't going there is no need for most of the women to have a new wardrobe.
 
I have never heard the word prorogue before so had to look it up.
Means; to suspend parliament with dissolving it.
EDIT; sorry i should have said. Discontinue a session of parliament.

I hope we don't have to have a crash course in constitutional law of the UK to understand the coming days and weeks.
I know the British don't have a written constitution as such and use precedence instead. All very confusing at tmes.

Your own parliament in Australia is based on the Westminster model I believe. Certainly in Canada we know the word 'prorogue' well as former prime minister Stephen Harper (also a Conservative:bang:) prorogued Parliament not once but twice in 2010 and 2013:ohmy:
 
Last edited:
I have never heard the word prorogue before so had to look it up.
Means; to suspend parliament with dissolving it.
EDIT; sorry i should have said. Discontinue a session of parliament.

I hope we don't have to have a crash course in constitutional law of the UK to understand the coming days and weeks.
I know the British don't have a written constitution as such and use precedence instead. All very confusing at tmes.

I am surprised that you have never heard the term when the GG prorogued the Australian parliament as recently as March this year when the election was called. The NSW governor also had to prorogued the NSW government this year in the lead up to the NSW election.

It happens all the time in the UK - usually every year between the end of one session and the State Opening of Parliament to start the next session.

It is simply the official term to end the session of parliament. In Australia it is followed by an election so only happens federally every three years and at state level it varies by state.
 
Ok thank you for that. Obviously I have been living under a mushroom for a long time. I have never heard it used before.
 
It is true that The Queen has to taken the counsel of the Prime Minister. But this Prime Minister has no majority on his own and only with support of the DUP they have a majority of ONE vote. Taking into account the highly controversial time-path and the October 31 deadline, the Queen could have delayed it by holding it into Her Most Excellent Majesty's gracious consideration indeed and request to receive other politicians in audience.

Most likely this would not have changed anything, but at least it would have given the impression the Queen has held it in serious consideration and has finally approved with the Motion to prorogue Parliament.

But this: on her holiday destination, waiting in the library, buzzzzz, three gentlemen come forward, the Queen nods and says "approved" and that was it. In Spain, the Netherlands or Norway, the King could have requested to see the Leader of the Opposition at the palace, to hear his/her opinion. They can command a special Council. They can discuss it with the Prime Minister in a second audience. But just approve like this: it is as if she has just hired a new cleaner for the bathrooms at Balmoral. A nod and "approved".
 
Last edited:
^ You give little credit to a diligent Monarch of over 67 years, if you imagine HMQ gave as little consideration to this, as if she were hiring a domestic !

Her application to her constitutional role is generally unquestioned, but I understand that you [especially] seem to struggle with the plain fact that the UK does things differently from Continental Europe [and always has]
 
Last edited:
^ You give little credit to a diligent Monarch of over 67 years, if you imagine HMQ gave as little consideration to this, as if she were hiring a domestic !

Her application to her constitutional role is generally unquestioned, but I understand that you [especially] seem to struggle with the plain fact that the UK does things differently from Continental Europe [and always has].

Indeed it is it is because of this, that we are come to the path of separation with the political choices made by the EU..

No it isn't but we can't discuss it here because this isn't a political thread. Also, don't send me another private message.
 
It is true that The Queen has to taken the counsel of the Prime Minister. But this Prime Minister has no majority on his own and only with support of the DUP they have a majority of ONE vote. Taking into account the highly controversial time-path and the October 31 deadline, the Queen could have delayed it by holding it into Her Most Excellent Majesty's gracious consideration indeed and request to receive other politicians in audience.

Most likely this would not have changed anything, but at least it would have given the impression the Queen has held it in serious consideration and has finally approved with the Motion to prorogue Parliament.

But this: on her holiday destination, waiting in the library, buzzzzz, three gentlemen come forward, the Queen nods and says "approved" and that was it. In Spain, the Netherlands or Norway, the King could have requested to see the Leader of the Opposition at the palace, to hear his/her opinion. They can command a special Council. They can discuss it with the Prime Minister in a second audience. But just approve like this: it is as if she has just hired a new cleaner for the bathrooms at Balmoral. A nod and "approved".


The reality is this has been a possibility for a long time, it has been suggested by many and discussed in the media. I suspect therefore that the Queen's senior advisors have discussed what to do and how to deal with it well before now. The swiftness of the action is perhaps an attempt to play up the mechanicalness of the action, if the Queen were to ponder it, discuss with others, then she makes it her decision. The way it has been done emphasises that this is a constitutional mechanism of the sovereign rather than the Queen's personal decision.
 
According to the Court Circular The Queen held a Council at 12.30pm. There were present:

Jacob Rees-Mogg (Lord President)

Baroness Evans of Bowes (Leader of the House of Lords & Lord Privy Seal)

Mark Spencer (Parliamentary Sec to the Treasury & Chief Whip)

Richard Tilbrook (Clerk of the Council)

Also: The Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP had an audience of Her Majesty before the Council.
 
Last edited:
Anyway. It is an eventful time. To use an understatement. I hoped the Queen would come up for the rights of "Her People", represented by the duly elected Members of the House of Commons. The UK WILL leave the EU. But how? Now in the period when it matters most, Parliament is kaltgestellt for 5 weeks. But I see she had no any room to manoeuvre in this.
 
Actually at this junction, the Queen has fulfilled her constitutional role and the formality of the the "request" was "approved" by the Queen and signed, sealed and delivered. There is absolutely nothing more that she could have done, did or will do. That's her role as a constitutional monarch.

Its all up to Parliament now to decide whether to follow (using song lyrics) the yellow brick road, take the long way home or make something out of nothing at all.

Reminds me a Chinese curse. "May you live in interesting times". ?
 
It is true that The Queen has to taken the counsel of the Prime Minister. But this Prime Minister has no majority on his own and only with support of the DUP they have a majority of ONE vote. Taking into account the highly controversial time-path and the October 31 deadline, the Queen could have delayed it by holding it into Her Most Excellent Majesty's gracious consideration indeed and request to receive other politicians in audience.

Thanks so much for this very clear description of her ultimate lack of choice in final decision. I've read so many analyses that never actually say this succinctly.

I'm in the part of the club that believe this was discussed at length and all due diligence done well before Boris baby made the request. I've always thought HM is strongly motivated to never do drama. And her way to avoid drama in this case was to be well thought in advance and to get on with it.

For sure, QEII was not the creator of this mess. Bless her constancy and excellent leadership IMO. In the end people are getting what they voted for. Maybe we all need to be more deliberate in thinking through our future votes.
Long live the Queen!
 
Let's move on from discussing Brexit and proffering political points of view on that subject - further posts of that nature will be deleted.

With regard to the recent and continuing Parliamentary / Constitutional events, we may discuss this to the extent and in the context of the Queen's involvement and obligations.
 
I find myself thinking how hard HM must have found this. She is perfectly aware of the consequences of this action and I think political pundits would be hard pressed to find a situation or political machinations that she couldn't see coming and has seen all the vainglorious plots and counter-plots before in one way or another.

I would even venture to say she gave Boris a serious talking to before she was finally able to leave for Balmoral. Unlike many MP's, I wouldn't mind betting that her boxes are well read and, on occasion discussed with Charles who also is in receipt of boxes.
 
When does the Prime Minister make the traditional trip to Balmoral for the weekend?

In some ways I can't help but wonder if the Queen and her aides would rather it was all kept quite low key this time around.
 
Last edited:
It is true that The Queen has to taken the counsel of the Prime Minister. But this Prime Minister has no majority on his own and only with support of the DUP they have a majority of ONE vote. Taking into account the highly controversial time-path and the October 31 deadline, the Queen could have delayed it by holding it into Her Most Excellent Majesty's gracious consideration indeed and request to receive other politicians in audience.

Most likely this would not have changed anything, but at least it would have given the impression the Queen has held it in serious consideration and has finally approved with the Motion to prorogue Parliament.

But this: on her holiday destination, waiting in the library, buzzzzz, three gentlemen come forward, the Queen nods and says "approved" and that was it. In Spain, the Netherlands or Norway, the King could have requested to see the Leader of the Opposition at the palace, to hear his/her opinion. They can command a special Council. They can discuss it with the Prime Minister in a second audience. But just approve like this: it is as if she has just hired a new cleaner for the bathrooms at Balmoral. A nod and "approved".

I do not agree with you, in Spain what is happening in Britain is not possible, because in Spain, a change of political leader in the conservatives, does not grant him the right to be president of government. The succession Teresa May by Boris Jhonson, as Prime Minister derived from a change of leadership in conservatives, would not be possible in Spain.

The king is the one who proposes in the parliament, from among the leaders of the political parties, to the politician who aspires to be Prime Minister, who should receive the vote of the parliament. But in case, as it happens today, that no candidate obtains that vote of confidence, the King can: - To call elections or- can proposes a neutral candidate, to the parliament, in attention to the general interest. The state cannot constantly be holding general elections, when the result does not vary from one election to another, it is spending the money, and damaging the stability of the country. Many experts have demanded that the King exercise that competence," to proposes a neutral candidate", in last year's elections and now also. But King Felipe has opted for not exercising those powers, to ingest as little as possible, he has also been criticized for that attitude . Queen Elizabeth has done the same, she has powers that she can exercise, but she as King Felipe chooses to avoid that constitutional intervention. In Britain there has been a referendum, the BREXIT is a decision of the British people, this must be taken into account, Labor wants the queen to prevent the fulfillment of the will of the people expressed in a referendum. Queen Elizabeth has acted correctly, because that referendum cannot be forgotten, it must be the British people who revoke it, she does not. She has acted constitutionally
 
Last edited:
Alastair Bruce described the meeting on Sky news.

He said Jacob Rees-Mogg and the two other privy councillors were picked up at the airport and brought to the castle. They’re met by the Queen’s equerry and lady in waiting. The Queen is in the library waiting and when she’s ready she presses a buzzer and the politicians are brought in.

They stand before a table with a red cloth over it and a candle in the centre. The Lord President of the Council reads out the motion and The Queen nods her head and says “approved”.

That’s it. The politicians fly back to London and the Queen goes back to enjoying her holiday.

I was skeptical about this (presumably the meeting would have been very private) so I tracked down the video. Alastair Bruce described what may have happened, not what did happen. At one point he even states "the Queen would probably have been waiting in the library" [boldfacing mine].


When does the Prime Minister make the traditional trip to Balmoral for the weekend?

In some ways I can't help but wonder if the Queen and her aides would rather it was all kept quite low key this time around.
I suspect there will be an early frost at Balmoral this year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A very clear explanation about how this works. Thank you for posting.
I was skeptical about this (presumably the meeting would have been very private) so I tracked down the video. Alastair Bruce described what may have happened, not what did happen. At one point he even states "the Queen would probably have been waiting in the library" [boldfacing mine].

 
We have seen videos (not fora long while now tbf) of Privy Council meetings and we have seen and heard plenty about the Queen's holidays at Balmoral. Given that Alastair Bruce is also an extra equerry to The Earl of Wessex his thought on what happened is probably the closest we are going to get to "inside info".
 
The queen may have stayed in the lines regarding her position but people are blaming her as well as Johnson for this suspension. #abolishthe monarchy is trending on Twitter and the queen is getting dragged. Andrew's mess is being conflated into this too. The extravagant lives of the royals are tossed in for good measure. People are upset when unsure what's going to happen but it's scary when references to the Romanovs and Oliver Crommell pop up in posts.
 
^ I think its likely to be a mistake to take 'Twitter' outbursts to be an accurate measure of the political temperature of a Nation.
 
I find myself thinking how hard HM must have found this. She is perfectly aware of the consequences of this action and I think political pundits would be hard pressed to find a situation or political machinations that she couldn't see coming and has seen all the vainglorious plots and counter-plots before in one way or another.

I would even venture to say she gave Boris a serious talking to before she was finally able to leave for Balmoral. Unlike many MP's, I wouldn't mind betting that her boxes are well read and, on occasion discussed with Charles who also is in receipt of boxes.


What is the purpose of reading boxes if she has zero comma zero room to have anything to say about it at all? Do you really believe the Queen has any snippet of influence on the Agreement on Cooperation and Mutual Administrative Assistance in Customs Matters, on the National flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England, on the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) concerning the Electronic Consignment Note, and other most enjoyable lecture for a holiday at Balmoral?

The Queen just puts some ink out of a stylo on the dotted line, marked by the Secretary. The sheer size of all daily papers would make that the Queen has to read more hours than there are in a day to have one red box "done". Away with the myth that Her Most Excellent Majesty truly reads ALL her red boxes with her Very Own Most Gracious Eyes to form Her Most Royal Opinion about it. Every simple soul can calculate that this is im-pos-si-ble.

And it has no any purpose: "Prime Minister, in my opinion the obliged profile depth of rubber tyres on lorries should be 2 mm more."
The PM: "Ma'am, I truly am grateful for Your Most Excellent Observation indeed, which the Cabinet surely will take into consideration"
 
Last edited:
A Labour Member of Parliament tweeted this, either from ignorance or mischief:
The Queen should look at what happened to her cousin Tino ex King of Greece when you enable a right wing coup!
Monarchy abolished!
 
We have seen videos (not fora long while now tbf) of Privy Council meetings and we have seen and heard plenty about the Queen's holidays at Balmoral. Given that Alastair Bruce is also an extra equerry to The Earl of Wessex his thought on what happened is probably the closest we are going to get to "inside info".
An educated guess but a guess nonetheless.

What is the purpose of reading boxes if she has zero comma zero room to have anything to say about it at all? Do you really believe the Queen has any snippet of influence on the Agreement on Cooperation and Mutual Administrative Assistance in Customs Matters, on the National flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England, on the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) concerning the Electronic Consignment Note, and other most enjoyable lecture for a holiday at Balmoral?

The Queen just puts some ink out of a stylo on the dotted line, marked by the Secretary. The sheer size of all daily papers would make that the Queen has to read more hours than there are in a day to have one red box "done". Away with the myth that Her Most Excellent Majesty truly reads ALL her red boxes with her Very Own Most Gracious Eyes to form Her Most Royal Opinion about it. Every simple soul can calculate that this is im-pos-si-ble.

And it has no any purpose: "Prime Minister, in my opinion the obliged profile depth of rubber tyres on lorries should be 2 mm more."
The PM: "Ma'am, I truly am grateful for Your Most Excellent Observation indeed, which the Cabinet surely will take into consideration"
This whole affair and the events leading up to it have exposed the weaknesses in the British political system, just as the 2016 presidential election revealed flaws in the American system. What a pity the Queen has been dragged into it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ I think its likely to be a mistake to take 'Twitter' outbursts to be an accurate measure of the political temperature of a Nation.

Yes and no. Often times social media can be well ahead of the curve in sensing undercurrents that turn into full blown tidal waves.

If more analysts had paid attention to where the energy and conversation was happening on social media, lots of "political surprises" like Trump or Brexit wouldn't have been so seemingly out of right field.

Which is all to say that while Twitter isn't the country, not paying attention to where the chatter and energy is is a dangerous thing. It is certainly a fine balance, of course.

The monarchy will be tested in the coming months and years. Brexit will be a seismic shift in British life. During such moments, even seemingly sacrosanct norms and institutions come under questioning as people begin to cast blame, fear, and etc. Boris Johnson has truly placed the Queen in a hard position---and I imagine he rather knew exactly what he was doing too.

My point is that no one, not the Queen, not monarchists, not even us "just in for the fun" royal watchers, should assume that the monarchy's support is so rigid that hurricane force winds can't snap it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom