The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #401  
Old 09-10-2019, 03:23 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malm, Sweden
Posts: 3,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
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.
__________________

  #402  
Old 09-10-2019, 04:08 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
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.
__________________

  #403  
Old 09-10-2019, 04:09 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
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.
  #404  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
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.
  #405  
Old 09-12-2019, 06:45 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,757
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.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #406  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:26 PM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
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/scotl...1122994249694/


I love it! I already have my 4:00 tea every day. Back taxes could be a problem, however.
  #407  
Old 09-15-2019, 06:03 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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.
  #408  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:28 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
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
  #409  
Old 09-19-2019, 09:54 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
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.
  #410  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:06 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
IMO Cameron should have kept his mouth shut.
  #411  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:20 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
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.
  #412  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:22 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
He has a book to tout, so any embarrassment he may cause HMQ is 'collateral damage'...
  #413  
Old 09-19-2019, 01:57 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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
  #414  
Old 09-19-2019, 03:29 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,835
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.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #415  
Old 09-19-2019, 03:32 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,868
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.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #416  
Old 09-19-2019, 03:44 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
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.
  #417  
Old 09-19-2019, 03:51 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
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/politics...-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
  #418  
Old 09-19-2019, 04:13 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 635
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!
  #419  
Old 09-19-2019, 04:36 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 635
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/u...-10313818.html
  #420  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:40 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
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/u...-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.
__________________

Closed Thread

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 91 06-03-2021 10:54 AM
The Snow Princess: Queen Astrid Of Belgium, Part 1 Julia Belgian Royal History 198 12-12-2006 09:15 AM
Pavlos And Marie Chantal: Current Events December 2002 - October 2003 Julia Crown Prince Pavlos, Marie Chantal and Family 76 10-14-2003 08:40 PM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones genetics gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hello! henry viii history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan japan history kensington palace king edward vii lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:42 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×