The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #441  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:14 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I would imagine opinions on anything are as diverse in Scotland as you would find in England or the US but with some regional/historical differences. But I'm no expert!

I think the old romantic highland/lowland split on monarchy/Jacobites etc (if it ever really existed) is long gone.

The Glasgow Herald & The Scotsman are two well known newspapers in Scotland. They often have some interesting articles on politics & society in Scotland. There's also BBC Scotland.

I thought perhaps pro/anti Monarch might still be more defined based on geographical location. You typically see that play out (minus the Monarchy part) even here..where you live factors as to your political views.

I wish we could get programing like BBC Scotland etc.



LaRae
__________________

  #442  
Old 09-21-2019, 01:14 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I thought perhaps pro/anti Monarch might still be more defined based on geographical location. You typically see that play out (minus the Monarchy part) even here..where you live factors as to your political views.

I wish we could get programing like BBC Scotland etc.



LaRae
I am sorry but unfortunately it's not something I know anything about. I guess people in Royal Deeside/Aberdeenshire are traditionally loyal whereas there has always been a radical (republican?) tradition among certain communities in Glasgow (interestingly the Glasgow area did vote for independence in 2014).

There will be republican unionists & republican independence supporters as well as monarchist unionists & monarchist independence supporters. Not to mention those with no opinion!

Oh dear, it's all as clear as mud
__________________

  #443  
Old 09-21-2019, 01:52 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Anderson, United States
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
On the other hand, isn’t it funny to hear that the Queen drives at breakneck speed? Reminds me of the Beach Boys song, Little Old Lady from Pasadena.
(She drives real fast and she drives real hard.)
Thank you for the best laugh I have had all day!
  #444  
Old 09-21-2019, 08:11 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,868
It gives us a whole new perspective of her driving the King of Saudi Arabia around the estate!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #445  
Old 09-22-2019, 04:50 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Any Questions is a regular discussion programme on the BBC's flag ship current affairs radio station Radio 4. One of the questions asked in the latest edition is "is it inevitable that the queen will increasingly be drawn into politics?".

The panellists don't really answer the question very well in my opinion (it descends into the usual squabbling over the dreaded B word) but it's interesting that the question is being asked at all really. My instinct is that it's yet another indication that the UK constitution is open for debate in a way it's not been for a long time. The crown of course is central to all of this.

Interesting times ahead I think.

Here's the link if anyone is interested (from 11.35 in)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008jqx
  #446  
Old 09-22-2019, 05:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I think there are two issues:

Is it okay for the Sovereign of a country to urge her people to think carefully before voting to split the country up? Even with the underlying theme of it being because she doesn't want it to split.

IMO - yes this is what most sovereigns would do and most would want to keep the country together.

On the other hand, is it okay for the Queen to be used by one side of the argument against another (when both sides are made up of her own people) and to for the sovereign to be used for what is essentially political purposes?

IMO - no, the Sovereign should stay neutral in all things political.


To me it is not what the Queen said that is the problem, it was that Cameron asked her to say something that is the issue, well him revealing that he asked for it to happen.

At the time no one could argue with the Queen's words, because no matter what people may have thought HM's private belief was, what she said was purely neutral - how could either the independence or union side of the debate say people shouldn't think carefully about the way they vote. Of course they couldn't, because BP is thorough in its work and worded it so that it appeared neutral and not taking sides. It is Cameron revealing that the Queen did so because (so he makes out) there was worry the vote would go against remaining in the Union, that makes it seems she was taking sides.

It is even worse when you consider BP has been made out as liars for trying to do their job to keep the Queen neutral and exposed as liars by Cameron.

In other words - if the Queen had said what she did without being asked to do so by either side what she said would have been okay, it is why she said it that exposes apparent side taking.
Interestingly, a story from the Guardian on the former Prime Minister's disclosures mentioned that at the time of the referendum, Buckingham Palace pointedly did not deny the perception that Queen Elizabeth was casting doubt on Scottish independence. The paper was told in December 2014:

Quote:
Buckingham Palace declined at the time to comment publicly on the Queen’s remarks, but in private, officials were keen for reporters to broadcast every syllable uttered by the monarch. The Whitehall source said that the Queen’s statement was no accident: “She knew exactly what she was doing. There are two possible responses on the referendum: one, you buy into this as a fantastic festival of democracy; or two, you suggest this is a decision filled with foreboding. So by saying I hope people will think carefully, you imply the second. If they’d said: ‘What do you think of the referendum Ma’am’ and she’d said: ‘Oh it’s lovely’, that would be very different. Without her taking a side, it cast just the right element of doubt over the nature of the decision.”

The Queen’s remarks were crafted with great care by the two men at the heart of the “deep state” to ensure that she did not cross a line – as some had alleged she did decades earlier, when she spoke of the benefits of the UK in her silver jubilee address to a joint session of parliament in 1977. In remarks that were seen as an attempt by the Labour government to warn of the dangers posed by the SNP after it had won 11 seats in the October 1974 general election, she said: “I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps this jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits which union has conferred, at home and in our international dealings, on the inhabitants of all parts of this United Kingdom.”
Which, as you indicated, affirms that Elizabeth's stated "displeasure" was not targeted so much at the revelation that her 2014 statement was an intervention as the revelation that it was made at the then prime minister's request.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I mean that poll is ridiculous, the survey takes in 500 people out of a population of 5.425 million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I’m not at all surprised that the opinion is different in Scotland. But polls aren’t the most reliable source for that information, particularly not ones that ask just 0.01% of the countries population.
The mathematical formulas used to calculate the "reliability" (confidence and margin of error) of a poll are not as simple as calculating the percentage of the population which was asked. A sample of 0.01% of an extremely large population is not ridiculous at all, provided that the sampling method is truly randomized. https://www.research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm
Having said that, please feel free to share the "most reliable source".
  #447  
Old 09-24-2019, 06:27 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,835
BREAKING NEWS:
The Supreme Court ruled PM Johnson advice to The Queen to suspend Parliament was UNLAWFUL-
https://mobile.twitter.com/PARoyal/s...31738379259904
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #448  
Old 09-24-2019, 06:41 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,757
Here's more information from the BBC on the court's decision that proroguing Parliament is unlawful.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #449  
Old 09-24-2019, 06:41 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
BREAKING NEWS:
The Supreme Court ruled PM Johnson advice to The Queen to suspend Parliament was UNLAWFUL-
https://mobile.twitter.com/PARoyal/s...31738379259904
It was a surprising decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the PM’s advice was unlawful, which was a concrete possibility, but it went further than that by also declaring the Queen’s order in Council null and void. That has an impact on the constitutional position of the monarchy and on the reach of the royal prerogative.

Victorian judges probably would never have made such a ruling, but judicial activism has now become a reality in most Western countries.
  #450  
Old 09-24-2019, 06:49 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It was a surprising decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the PM’s advice was unlawful, which was a concrete possibility, but it went further than that by also declaring the Queen’s order in Council null and void. That has an impact on the constitutional position of the monarchy and on the reach of the royal prerogative.

Victorian judges probably would never have made such a ruling, but judicial activism has now become a reality in most Western countries.
I cannot see where this would reflect on the Queen and the monarchy at all as she acted as she was supposed on the advice from her Prime Minister. I believe it would have looked worse for the constitutional position of the monarchy if the Queen had refused to act on Mr. Johnson's advice.

All of this lies solely on the head of Boris Johnson and nowhere else as far as I can see. From the one report that I've read from the BBC, some are calling for Boris Johnson now to step down as Prime Minister.

Then again, I'm American and not overly educated in the ways and means of the UK's constitution. I do have to say though that all of these recent developments kind of remind me of a Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times".
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #451  
Old 09-24-2019, 06:59 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I cannot see where this would reflect on the Queen and the monarchy at all as she acted as she was supposed on the advice from her Prime Minister. I believe it would have looked worse for the constitutional position of the monarchy if the Queen had refused to act on Mr. Johnson's advice.

All of this lies solely on the head of Boris Johnson and nowhere else as far as I can see. From the one report that I've read from the BBC, some are calling for Boris Johnson now to step down as Prime Minister.

Then again, I'm American and not overly educated in the ways and means of the UK's constitution. I do have to say though that all of these recent developments kind of remind me of a Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times".
What I was trying to say is that, prior to the ruling, the general consensus was that, if the Court ruled that the PM’s advice was unlawful, it would mandate the PM to advise the Queen to issue another order recalling Parliament, which in practice would require a hasty Queen’s speech.

That was not, however, what happened. Not only did the Court say that the PM’s advice was unlawful , but also it quashed the prorogation order itself meaning, in Lady Hale’s words, that Parliament in practice “ was never prorogued” and the order read by the Lords Commissioners was “ a blank piece of paper”.

That affects the Queen’s constitutional position as it creates a precedent under which the Courts can revoke the use of a royal prerogative based on the claim that the Queen was wrongly advised. The orthodox position , reaffirmed in this case by the London High Court, was that royal prerogatives were not subject to judicial review. That is now gone, based probably on partisan politics.

I suppose it might also have legal implications in other Commonwealth countries like Canada where prorogation has been used several times in s similar way by prime ministers.
  #452  
Old 09-24-2019, 07:11 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
The Supreme Court has just torn up 400 years of the British Constitution and the separation of powers and appointed itself as superior to the Government, Parliament and the Crown..

We are in 'uncharted waters' - the Judiciary are now seen as nakedly political,, yet they are un-elected and that is unprecedented and likely a disaster for their 'standing' in the United Kingdom.
  #453  
Old 09-24-2019, 07:11 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
The Queen knew she was lied to, without any shame and straight into her face, by the Lord President of the Privy Council (Jacob Rees Mogg). And this extraordinary act, sending Parliament home in an utmost crucial period in British Constitution, was simply met with a standard nod and "approved", as if it was the purchase of a new hat.

The Queen has shown herself not to be an absolute Defender of the rights of Parliament but luckily the eleven Justices of the Supreme Court have said the words the Queen had to say in that private telephone conversation with the Prime Minister (Lady Hale mentioned it) before the three Private Councillors headed to Balmoral: "Prime Minister, your proposal is unlawful, void and can not have effect".

Luckily Lady Hale and the other ten Justices had more guts. This was the utmost exposition of the uselesness of the monarchy in the current constitution. Not Elizabeth's fault: she simply has no backstop (there is that word again) to rely on, correcting abuse of power: a written Constitution, vesting her rights in concrete.
  #454  
Old 09-24-2019, 07:16 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,868
I don't see the issue with the Queen. She doesn't just sign what is shoved at her.

1. She relies on the integrity of the. Prime Minister, and
2. She relies on those who administer the rules of Parliament, Civil Servants, to ensure the proper checks and balances are followed.

Both let her and the Country down. BJ lied by omission, the rest allowed themselves to be rushed into not doing their due diligence.

Strangely, I believe HM will think the betrayal of the people more serious than the betrayal of her.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #455  
Old 09-24-2019, 07:23 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Prorogation is a matter reserved to the Crown, is the Court now intending to put itself above the Crown ?

11 Judges have the temerity to overturn this centuries old power, without reference to any elected or representative persons whatsoever..
  #456  
Old 09-24-2019, 07:26 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
I don't think this court ruling will affect the Queen or her constitutional position directly as I think most people would (or should) recognise that she is extremely limited in her ability not to act on the advise of her prime minister.

However, it does highlight the fact that the Monarch is clearly vulnerable to being mislead. As such, what recourse might the Monarch have to allow her to refuse or delay consent at a privy council meeting?

Obviously we can't go back in time as we only now find that the request to prorogue parliament was unlawful - had the Queen known at the time of the privy council meeting that it would be unlawful, one wonders how she would have reacted.
__________________
JACK
  #457  
Old 09-24-2019, 07:53 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
"if power without law may make laws, may alter the fundamental laws of the kingdom, I do not know what subject he is in England that can be sure of his life, or anything that he calls his own."

King Charles 1st at his trial in 1649, and absolutely 'on point' for today's travesty of 'justice'..
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	charles ist.jpg
Views:	35
Size:	116.5 KB
ID:	301892  
  #458  
Old 09-24-2019, 07:58 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
But Mbruno and wyevale both make important points. The court didn't simply rule that Johnson's advice was illegal, it went another step and voided the Queen's Order in Council. By doing so it ran roughshod over the Queen's (admittedly symbolic) prerogative or right to prorogue Parliament. As Mbruno pointed out, this symbolic right would have been respected and left intact by requiring Johnson to advise the Queen to call Parliament back into session.
  #459  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:03 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It was a surprising decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the PM’s advice was unlawful, which was a concrete possibility, but it went further than that by also declaring the Queen’s order in Council null and void. That has an impact on the constitutional position of the monarchy and on the reach of the royal prerogative.

Victorian judges probably would never have made such a ruling, but judicial activism has now become a reality in most Western countries.

I think, you are right about the Victorian judges.

I mean, Queen Elisabeth II has not even a driver's license for example - she is normally above the law, a case of a permanent immunity from the law. And this is a good thing, that the Queen normally can't be harassed by the often political, activist courts.

BUT: She has accepted, to pay income taxes! Sure, if she does not, she won't be thrown into the Tower - somebody else will be shackled there, the poor chap, who manages her finances. But she has accepted, that a judge can look into her finances, surely only if the judge has a suspicion - but... she is here a subject of the law, not over, but under the law.

One can't do this so easily with the tax and income declarations of the American President Trump for example - he is a Head of State and not easy to bully.

The English Monarchy is slowly rendered from a political institution into a mere decoration.
  #460  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:04 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
The full statement of the Supreme Court given by Lady Hale:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810680

It also addresses the issue concerning Courts being above the Crown.
__________________

__________________
JACK
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 baby names birth britain britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan kensington palace king edward vii lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten names nara period pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida taiwan tradition united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:44 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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