The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #501  
Old 09-24-2019, 05:19 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Personally I think many of her ordinary subjects would, but [as for the politicians] I think its unlikely - they are too set on the furtherance of their own agenda/career to care a fig for such a plea - just look at their behaviour over the last three years..
Well I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on that. I think a lot would not & probably some would be downright hostile.

Queen waving & riding in carriages is one thing. That's what most people think when they do even think about her. Unelected head of state intervening brazenly in politics is quite another.
__________________

  #502  
Old 09-24-2019, 05:29 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
^ I'd suggest that 5 years ago that view might have been widespread, but now.. such is the contempt for politicians [of all 'colours'], who have manifestly failed to honour the promises on which they were elected things - have changed..
Being elected lacks the cachet it once had, since such duplicity has been revealed there is NO trust left.
That isn't the case for HMQ..who has 'played it by the book', and broken no promises, never lied or done down her country, nor put the institution she represents in jeopardy.
She IS trusted, as no-one else..
__________________

  #503  
Old 09-24-2019, 05:31 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
It must be terrible for her to have to remain passive, while watching the politicians acting so selfishly. She has devoted her entire life to keeping Britain and the British together and now the country is more divided since - since I don't know when.
There is after all a genuine risk of Scotland breaking away in a not too distant future as well.
I think the last time the country was this divided would be during the Suez crises or over the Munich agreement of 1938.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
^ I'd suggest that 5 years ago that view might have been widespread, but now.. such is the contempt for politicians [of all 'colours'], who have manifestly failed to honour the promises on which they were elected things - have changed..
Being elected lacks the cachet it once had, since such duplicity has been revealed there is NO trust left.
That isn't the case for HMQ..who has 'played it by the book', and broken no promises, never lied or done down her country, nor put the institution she represents in jeopardy.
She IS trusted, as no-one else..
I do get all that. I understand your point of view. The thing is neither of us know for sure how people would react. I do think there is a lot of "soft" support for the monarchy which would quickly disappear in these sorts of scenarios.

The Queen is respected, adored by many, but this is not universal. The drama of 1997 & criticism of the Queen quickly blew over but a political intervention would have long term consequences & open up a pandoras box.
  #504  
Old 09-24-2019, 05:40 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
In regard to the Queen intervening in this current situation, I don't think she should at the moment. In fact it would it would require a government in total control of parliament proposing to do something utterly catastrophic to the well being of the people - and even then it would require the population en-mass to call upon the Queen intervention.

Remember that in connection with certain political issues facing the country, not only are her Government, Opposition and Parliament divided, but her entire country is divided. What intervention could Her Majesty possibly do that wouldn't cause or result in at least 50% of her people (citizens and politicians) disapproving of such intervention?
__________________
JACK
  #505  
Old 09-24-2019, 05:49 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
In regard to the Queen intervening in this current situation, I don't think she should at the moment. In fact it would it would require a government in total control of parliament proposing to do something utterly catastrophic to the well being of the people - and even then it would require the population en-mass to call upon the Queen intervention.

Remember that in connection with certain political issues facing the country, not only are her Government, Opposition and Parliament divided, but her entire country is divided. What intervention could Her Majesty possibly do that wouldn't cause or result in at least 50% of her people (citizens and politicians) disapproving of such intervention?
Couldn't agree more. So even if we ignored the fact that the Queen is an unelected HofS there's the blunt truth that she would probably alienate as many people as supported her in any intervention.

That's me done for the night.

Thank you for all those who posted here today. It's been really interesting.

As Scarlett said "tomorrow is another day"
  #506  
Old 09-24-2019, 06:00 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I think the last time the country was this divided would be during the Suez crises or over the Munich agreement of 1938.
The Winter of Discontent, the Miners Strike, the Poll Tax and the Bedroom Tax wee quite divisive eras too.

The political system of "the winner takes it all" paired with an unbelievably partisan press does not help consensus either....

I saw the Labour Party Conference singing The Red Flag and Jerusalem. That is something you do not see anymore with West-European social democrats. So devisive in Northerners and Southerners. In Scots and English. In the many and the few. It is mind-boggling.
  #507  
Old 09-24-2019, 07:26 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I think the last time the country was this divided would be during the Suez crises or over the Munich agreement of 1938.
I see this from Germany, so, what do I know?

But it is inherent to politics, that there are cleavages: Center vs periphery, poor vs rich, city vs rural, old vs young and so on.

The point for us could be, that the court has taken a prerogative of the monarch away, the right to suspend/prorogue parliament, by declaring the decision of the Queen as void. Isn't this the real scandal: A court, not the parliament...?

And the Queen was acting on behalf of the Prime Minister! So, on her side was everything according to the rules.

And now comes the fun part: If the decision of the Supreme Court is wrong, to whom do you go to appeal? Well, the EU-court - impossible for the Brexiteers... The parliament, to clarify the right of the Queen to suspend the parliament? Well, there could be a conflict of interest...
  #508  
Old 09-24-2019, 07:47 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
I see this from Germany, so, what do I know?

But it is inherent to politics, that there are cleavages: Center vs periphery, poor vs rich, city vs rural, old vs young and so on.

The point for us could be, that the court has taken a prerogative of the monarch away, the right to suspend/prorogue parliament, by declaring the decision of the Queen as void. Isn't this the real scandal: A court, not the parliament...?

And the Queen was acting on behalf of the Prime Minister! So, on her side was everything according to the rules.

And now comes the fun part: If the decision of the Supreme Court is wrong, to whom do you go to appeal? Well, the EU-court - impossible for the Brexiteers... The parliament, to clarify the right of the Queen to suspend the parliament? Well, there could be a conflict of interest...
As long as there is a 'reasonable justification' parliament can still be prorogued in the future. However, "The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict."; the most important one imo being "Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey: this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased." and secondly "Parliamentary Accountability" (as stated by the Supreme Court), so the Supreme Court showed today that there is a safeguard against misuse of this prerogative [But I must admit that I never understood in the first place why the executive power could effectively 'put aside' parliament for a while against the legislative body's own wishes]
  #509  
Old 09-25-2019, 03:27 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
I see this from Germany, so, what do I know?

But it is inherent to politics, that there are cleavages: Center vs periphery, poor vs rich, city vs rural, old vs young and so on.

The point for us could be, that the court has taken a prerogative of the monarch away, the right to suspend/prorogue parliament, by declaring the decision of the Queen as void. Isn't this the real scandal: A court, not the parliament...?

And the Queen was acting on behalf of the Prime Minister! So, on her side was everything according to the rules.

And now comes the fun part: If the decision of the Supreme Court is wrong, to whom do you go to appeal? Well, the EU-court - impossible for the Brexiteers... The parliament, to clarify the right of the Queen to suspend the parliament? Well, there could be a conflict of interest...
It used to be to the Privy Council.
  #510  
Old 09-25-2019, 06:43 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 635
Thanks, @Somebody and Iluvbertie! So, it is complicated.

From what I did read, the discussion is more about the Supreme Court as guardian of the constitution. While others said, the Queen has not to fear legal consequences out of this affair, the very affair in which she simply followed the Prime Minister in order to suspend the Parliament, because she is above criminal and civil law.

Well, at least this...

We will see how all this unfolds!
  #511  
Old 09-25-2019, 10:21 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
In regard to the Queen intervening in this current situation, I don't think she should at the moment. In fact it would it would require a government in total control of parliament proposing to do something utterly catastrophic to the well being of the people - and even then it would require the population en-mass to call upon the Queen intervention.

Remember that in connection with certain political issues facing the country, not only are her Government, Opposition and Parliament divided, but her entire country is divided. What intervention could Her Majesty possibly do that wouldn't cause or result in at least 50% of her people (citizens and politicians) disapproving of such intervention?
Thanks for your replies to my hypothetical questions.

They were most illuminating for me and to be honest a little surprising as well.

To the marked bit in Jacknch's reply: I was thinking something along the lines of QEII appealing strongly and publicly, as head of state, to the politicians to find a common solution and co-operate on a solution, setting aside party politics.
I imagined that she as head of state could perhaps do something like that, in the name of national interests and because there is a widespread frustration among the British for the politicians, she could perhaps be the voice of the people.
I was in no way suggesting QEII should take on what would in effect be dictatorial powers by ruling by decree outside the Parliament.

In a number of other countries, even monarchies, the head of state urging political co-operation in the national interests would be a very likely scenario.
  #512  
Old 09-25-2019, 01:04 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
I was thinking something along the lines of QEII appealing strongly and publicly, as head of state, to the politicians to find a common solution and co-operate on a solution, setting aside party politics.
I imagined that she as head of state could perhaps do something like that, in the name of national interests and because there is a widespread frustration among the British for the politicians, she could perhaps be voice of the people.
Well, I can see what you're saying, but again even an appeal for a common solution and co-operation it's not something I can see the Queen doing or being asked to do by national address. Privately, I have no doubt at all that she would want political co-operation and indeed she may well have inferred that to the Prime Minister and others long before now.

As frustrating and divisive the current circumstances are, the UK has not fallen into sustained revolt or national civil unrest . There have been various marches and protests around the Kingdom from time to time, which could be seen as reflecting the general public's concerns. However, nothing has happened to warrant the Head of State making a public address for unity - maybe a mild reference will be made during the Christmas Day Message!
__________________
JACK
  #513  
Old 09-25-2019, 01:30 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
As 'the dust settles' from yesterday's Supreme Court decision its clear that the PM broke no law, since no law existed governing what must/must not be considered when offering advice to the Sovereign on prorogation.

Since that failed to suit the purposes of these judges, they MADE a law up, and retroactively found the PM guilty of its contravention. His actions were therefore entirely legal, at the time he took them.

Until yesterday it was Parliament [and ONLY] Parliament that made the laws under which we live, and the role of the judiciary was to adjudicate on that Law.. this is no longer the case..
  #514  
Old 09-25-2019, 01:45 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Yes, 11 of the country's best law experts and judges simply all decided to make up a law to suit their personal preferences.

I love how the conservative party are now fuming at the Supreme Court yet I can't help but think if this was action against a Labour , Lib Dem or SNP politician they wouldn't be calling for it to be scrapped.

I think all politicians have acted selfishly in the matter of Brexit. The Queen, I have no doubt, despairs of them. I would have loved to have been listening to that call from the PM to the Queen after the court ruling was announced. I wonder how the Queen must feel - a current PM who has been judged by 11 of the most senior judges in the land to have lied to her and dragged her into politics and a leader of the opposition who is an active republican who wants to abolish her role along with many of the things HM loves.
  #515  
Old 09-25-2019, 01:51 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The Winter of Discontent, the Miners Strike, the Poll Tax and the Bedroom Tax wee quite divisive eras too.

The political system of "the winner takes it all" paired with an unbelievably partisan press does not help consensus either....

I saw the Labour Party Conference singing The Red Flag and Jerusalem. That is something you do not see anymore with West-European social democrats. So devisive in Northerners and Southerners. In Scots and English. In the many and the few. It is mind-boggling.
Yes they certainly were although I think those were relatively standard political disagreements that you could find elsewhere. Post war France has plenty of examples for instance as a country of a similar size to the UK.

I do think that Suez & Munich are a close match because they both divided opinion over ways that Britain viewed its place in the world/Europe. They were fundamental, critical really, to Britain's future. I hope I'm using the right word when I say that they both dealt with Britain's weltanschauung.

I do think that there is far more that unites than divides us though & the monarchy plays an important part in that. I think all countries can sometimes navel gaze a bit too much & think they're going to hell in a hand cart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
However, nothing has happened to warrant the Head of State making a public address for unity - maybe a mild reference will be made during the Christmas Day Message!
That made me smile. Thank you
  #516  
Old 09-25-2019, 02:02 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
current PM who has been judged by 11 of the most senior judges in the land to have lied to her
That is absolutely untrue, the Judges found no such thing, and those words [nor anything approaching them] do not appear on the transcript of Lady Hales remarks.
  #517  
Old 09-25-2019, 02:18 PM
Dalriada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 372
The Queen and Her Prime Ministers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
Well, I can see what you're saying, but again even an appeal for a common solution and co-operation it's not something I can see the Queen doing or being asked to do by national address. Privately, I have no doubt at all that she would want political co-operation and indeed she may well have inferred that to the Prime Minister and others long before now.



As frustrating and divisive the current circumstances are, the UK has not fallen into sustained revolt or national civil unrest . There have been various marches and protests around the Kingdom from time to time, which could be seen as reflecting the general public's concerns. However, nothing has happened to warrant the Head of State making a public address for unity - maybe a mild reference will be made during the Christmas Day Message!


In “modern times” the Queen’s grandfather was not personally averse to knocking heads together between all politicians within the United Kingdom at a time of national crisis. The Buckingham Palace Conference, sometimes referred to as the Buckingham Palace Conference on Ireland, was a conference called in Buckingham Palace in 1914 by King George V to which the leaders of Irish Nationalism and Irish Unionism were invited to discuss plans to introduce Home Rule to Ireland and avert a feared civil war on the issue. The King's initiative brought the leaders of Nationalism and Unionism together for the first time in a conference that was soon thwarted by the outbreak of WW1. I actually think Charles would have acted the same unlike his mother.
  #518  
Old 09-25-2019, 02:57 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalriada View Post
In “modern times” the Queen’s grandfather was not personally averse to knocking heads together between all politicians within the United Kingdom at a time of national crisis. The Buckingham Palace Conference, sometimes referred to as the Buckingham Palace Conference on Ireland, was a conference called in Buckingham Palace in 1914 by King George V to which the leaders of Irish Nationalism and Irish Unionism were invited to discuss plans to introduce Home Rule to Ireland and avert a feared civil war on the issue. The King's initiative brought the leaders of Nationalism and Unionism together for the first time in a conference that was soon thwarted by the outbreak of WW1. I actually think Charles would have acted the same unlike his mother.
Thank you that's really interesting. I'm not sure that would work today though. I think people are a lot less deferential to monarchy. In 1914 many men & all women did not have the vote. We live in a far more democratic & meritocratic society.
  #519  
Old 09-25-2019, 03:08 PM
Dalriada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Thank you that's really interesting. I'm not sure that would work today though. I think people are a lot less deferential to monarchy. In 1914 many men & all women did not have the vote. We live in a far more democratic & meritocratic society.


I quite agree that more people have the vote which is another question. Does the sovereign have less influence over politicians to covene?
  #520  
Old 09-25-2019, 03:27 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalriada View Post
I quite agree that more people have the vote which is another question. Does the sovereign have less influence over politicians to covene?
A good question! I'm not sure everyone would want the sovereign to be involved. Plenty would see her as overstepping her role. On the face of it it does sounds reasonable, harmless in fact, but I'm sceptical.

Society was so hierarchical in 1914 that even Irish Nationalists were prepared to accept monarchical involvement.
__________________

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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen victoria royalty of taiwan st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:32 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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