The Queen and Her Prime Ministers

[Mbruno]

As the Court of Session in Scotland, the High Court in London has also rejected a legal challenge to the prorogation of Parliament.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49604584

The case will now go to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on appeal.

 

[Princess Larisa]

“I understand from a palace source that Boris Johnson will travel to Balmoral tomorrow and stay with the Queen tomorrow night. Plenty to talk about with her 14th prime minister”

Via Rhiannon Mills Twitter

Court Circular 6th September:
Balmoral Castle

The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP (Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury) and Ms Carrie Symonds have arrived at the Castle.

The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP had an audience of The Queen this evening.

 

[rob2008]

I wonder if The Queen will give the Garter to Nicholas Soames MP (grandson of Winston Churchill and expelled from the Conservative Party last week). He and his family are very close to the BRF.

 

[muriel]

I wonder if The Queen will give the Garter to Nicholas Soames MP (grandson of Winston Churchill and expelled from the Conservative Party last week). He and his family are very close to the BRF.

Unlikely, IMO!

 

[Princess Larisa]

Court Circular 7th September:
Balmoral Castle

The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP (Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury) and Ms Carrie Symonds have left the Castle.

 

[Mbruno]

Court Circular 6th September:
Balmoral Castle

The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP (Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury) and Ms Carrie Symonds have arrived at the Castle.

The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP had an audience of The Queen this evening.

I am surprised the PM was accompanied by Ms Carrie Symonds.

 

[tommy100]

I'm not merely as it was announced a while ago that she would be going.

Despite what the media allude to, in recent times I have never known the Queen refuse to invite people to stay because they are not married in more modern times.

 

[ladongas]

I'm not merely as it was announced a while ago that she would be going.

Despite what the media allude to, in recent times I have never known the Queen refuse to invite people to stay because they are not married in more modern times.

We’ll hope they were assigned rooms in opposite wings separated by long and meandering halls!

 

[Osipi]

... and get totally lost in said halls should they go wandering in search of each other in the dead of night.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I wonder if The Queen will give the Garter to Nicholas Soames MP (grandson of Winston Churchill and expelled from the Conservative Party last week). He and his family are very close to the BRF.

As Theresa May's honours lists show: even here it is not the Queen but the Prime Minister making the nomination and decision. So it should be Boris Johnson to nominate Nicholas Soames indeed.

By the way: another Tory grandee has quit as well in the meantime: Charles Arthur Valerian Wellesley, the 9th Duke of Wellington, Prins van Waterloo, Duque de Ciudad Rodrigo, Duque da Vitória has left the Tories in the House of Lords, to sit as an independent. He is in the same situation as Mr Soames now without a party whip.

 

[JR76]

As Theresa May's honours lists show: even here it is not the Queen but the Prime Minister making the nomination and decision. So it should be Boris Johnson to nominate Nicholas Soames indeed.

The Order of the Garter is given at the sole discretion of the Queen after an agreement done by her father with then Prime minister Clement Atlee and Leader of the Opposition Winston Churchill in 1946. This agreement also extends to The Order of the Thistle.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not only the Garter and the Thistle are at the sole discretion of the monarch but so is the Royal Victorian Order and the Royal Victorian Medal.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Order of the Garter is given at the sole discretion of the Queen after an agreement done by her father with then Prime minister Clement Atlee and Leader of the Opposition Winston Churchill in 1946. This agreement also extends to The Order of the Thistle.

These are the notable exceptions. But for an example, in breach with three centuries of tradition, it seems the revengeful Tories want to block a knighthood for Mr Bercow, the outgoing Speaker of the House, whom fiercely defended the rights of the legislative to hold the executive to parliamentary account. It shows how little the Queen has to weigh in all those countless acts in her very own name.

But I bet Mr Soames, Mr Bercow and the Duke of Wellington will receive a honour in due time. They are too prominent to be treated with disdain. The same for the likes of Mr Clarke, the Father of the House. He lost the Tory whip as well. He has such a record of services to the Crown that it would be staggering when even he would be neglected a honour.

 

[tommy100]

Its quite clear the Queen has no say over the majority of honours given out. Honours she oversees herself seem limited to the Garter, the Thistle, the Royal Victorian Order, The Royal Victorian Chain and Order of Merit.
I use to think the same about the Companion of honour but since the appointment of George Osborne in David Cameron's resignation honours I think the government has more say now.

 

[Osipi]

Correct me please if I'm wrong here but how I've kept it straight in my mind is that when it comes to honors, if its an honor for service to the country, its the prerogative of the government to suggest the honors list. If the honor is for service to the Queen and the monarchy, its the sole prerogative of the Queen.

 

[AnnEliza]

Well you did have your chance but then there was all that fuss over tea in Boston harbour

Incidentally this is very funny. It's been around for a while so you may already have seen it:


https://www.facebook.com/notes/scot...-her-sovereign-majesty-queen/291122994249694/

?

I love it! I already have my 4:00 tea every day. Back taxes could be a problem, however.

 

[tommy100]

Correct me please if I'm wrong here but how I've kept it straight in my mind is that when it comes to honors, if its an honor for service to the country, its the prerogative of the government to suggest the honors list. If the honor is for service to the Queen and the monarchy, its the sole prerogative of the Queen.

Pretty much but the Garter and Thistle are used for people who's service would definitely be classed as to the country rather than services to the Queen. E.g. former Prime Ministers Thatcher and Major were appointed to Garter as is a former Director of MI5 and a former Governor of the Bank of England and several former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. However still it is the sovereign who decides who to grant the honour on, how much the government has a role we do not know, I doubt they find out about appointments to these at the same time as the public. What would happen if the Queen appointed someone the government would rather she didn't, well who knows.

Certainly appointments to the Royal Victorian Order are solely made by the Queen for services to her and her family and I suspect pretty much left to HM and the Royal Household to sort out.

 

[gerry]

Pretty much but the Garter and Thistle are used for people who's service would definitely be classed as to the country rather than services to the Queen. E.g. former Prime Ministers Thatcher and Major were appointed to Garter as is a former Director of MI5 and a former Governor of the Bank of England and several former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. However still it is the sovereign who decides who to grant the honour on, how much the government has a role we do not know, I doubt they find out about appointments to these at the same time as the public. What would happen if the Queen appointed someone the government would rather she didn't, well who knows.

Certainly appointments to the Royal Victorian Order are solely made by the Queen for services to her and her family and I suspect pretty much left to HM and the Royal Household to sort out.

Good heavens, this post suddenly reminds me of the recent Trump family visit to London; surely the Queen did not bestow any orders on them

 

[wbenson]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49756756

David Cameron's revelation that he sought help from the Queen ahead of the Scottish independence vote in 2014 has caused displeasure at Buckingham Palace, a source says.

 

[Gawin]

IMO Cameron should have kept his mouth shut.

 

[Mbruno]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49756756

David Cameron's revelation that he sought help from the Queen ahead of the Scottish independence vote in 2014 has caused displeasure at Buckingham Palace, a source says.

I understand the Palace's displeasure, but, to be frank, I think that people in the UK insist on an unreasonably orthodox approach to the Queen's neutrality. By contrast, we see monarchs in the continent, most notably in Belgium and Spain, who have spoken clearly and explicity against internal independentist/separatist movements without raising too much domestic controversy. Needless to say, that would be impossible in the UK.

 

[wyevale]

He has a book to tout, so any embarrassment he may cause HMQ is 'collateral damage'...

 

[Durham]

I understand the Palace's displeasure, but, to be frank, I think that people in the UK insist on an unreasonably orthodox approach to the Queen's neutrality. By contrast, we see monarchs in the continent, most notably in Belgium and Spain, who have spoken clearly and explicity against internal independentist/separatist movements without raising too much domestic controversy. Needless to say, that would be impossible in the UK.

I don't think it is "unreasonable" for the monarch to remain strictly neutral. I think it makes perfect sense. It is the crown that is important not the personal views of the temporary occupant of the office. Political views are neither wanted nor welcome. I suspect a "political" monarch would soon be an ex monarch.

"As Head of State The Queen has to remain strictly neutral with respect to political matters" - a direct quote from the British Monarchy website.

I don't know much about the situation in Belgium but the King of Spain's intervention over Catalonia was not universally appreciated.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43193481

 

[Dman]

Interesting that Cameron is confessing and now the palace has been caught in a lie. Of course the palace wouldn’t be happy about it.

 

[MARG]

The Queen's position is, I believe, a strangely odd one. On the one hand she cannot be seen to be publicly partisan however, she seems to actually fill the role of the PM's 'Confessor.

In that role she maintains a total silence as to what her various PM's have asked of her. Was it validation or vindication, congratulation or consolation or maybe just a sounding board that could encourage or discourage a course of action based on decades of experience of behind the scenes knowledge of political posturing, conferring with their predecessors. Whatever it was, HM kept the silence of the 'Confessional'. It is disappointing that some previous PM's have sought to use that innately private experience to burnish their egos.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Exactly.

I don't think the Queen is meant to be neutral when it come to talking to her Prime Minister. Then she should have an opinion and discussions. That is wholely different from proclaiming a postion publicly. And they should continue to be private conversations for at least the lifetime of the monarch.

 

[tommy100]

The reality is what the Queen said wasn't taking sides, asking people to think carefully means just that, think carefully before you vote either way.

However, Cameron saying he wanted her help and involving her for his side (even if the way she spoke wasn't taking sides) reveals perhaps her true feelings which though understandable (I can't think of a sovereign who would really want their country to split)still mean speaking the opposite to what many of her subject may think. It is bad form though of Cameron IMO to reveals the Queen and BP was happy to help in this way. It certainly appears a breach of the trust between the Queen and PM (former or current) where it is understood talking about the Sovereign beyond mere civilities and at most gossipy insights is forbidden. Discussing involving the Queen in one side during a national debate (again even if what the Queen said was not taking sides) is poor form on Cameron.

Whether you believe it was partisan or not, given the Palace said at the time The Queen's comments were unpolitical and spontaneous Cameron is outing them as lying, even though they likely only did so to help him and his government at the time.

Part of me can't help but think it was done to boost publicity for his new book with it otherwise expected to be pretty dull. I imagine the Queen is feeling insulted and betrayed that one of few people she is meant to be able to trust had dragged her into a new debate. e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ls-queen-should-stay-out-future-scotland-vote

Oh and I suspect the former Eaton schooled Cameron can kiss any chance of the garter or any other honour from HM goodbye

 

[victor1319]

to "Advise and Warn"

"Though The Queen remains politically neutral on all matters, she is able to 'advise and warn' her ministers - including her Prime Minister - when necessary."
https://www.royal.uk/audiences

And everything else would be disappointing! A monarch is mostly schooled by his family, which were schooled by their family and so on: A breed, successfull in centuries of political fights! This is a completly different upbringing and descendency than the ones of some political adventurers aka elected politicians. Just my humble opinion!

 

[victor1319]

To deepen this explanation of the relationship between the Majesty and the Ministers:

One Walter Bagehot wrote a book called "The English Constitution" and Wikipedia claims, that his observations on the Monarchy are still seen as up to date - besides, that he wrote these some 150 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_English_Constitution

He wrote:“The sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights – the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. And a king of great sense and sagacity would want no others. He would find that his having no others would enable him to use these with singular effect...”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...onstitution-part-5-the-monarchy-10313818.html

 

[Durham]

To deepen this explanation of the relationship between the Majesty and the Ministers:

One Walter Bagehot wrote a book called "The English Constitution" and Wikipedia claims, that his observations on the Monarchy are still seen as up to date - besides, that he wrote these some 150 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_English_Constitution

He wrote:“The sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights – the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. And a king of great sense and sagacity would want no others. He would find that his having no others would enable him to use these with singular effect...”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...onstitution-part-5-the-monarchy-10313818.html

Yes indeed Bagehot is still in effect the bible on these types of constitutional matters.

The three rights he describes are a very interesting choice of words. There is of course a whole world of difference between discussing matters of policy in a private audience & a monarch making some sort of public declaration on a contentious issue.

I think Edward VIII came perilously close to being what I would describe as a "political" monarch.