The Queen and Her Prime Ministers

[Muhler]

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.

 

[Jacknch]

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!

 

[wyevale]

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..

 

[tommy100]

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.

 

[Durham]

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.

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

 

[wyevale]

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.

 

[Dalriada]

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.

 

[Durham]

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.

 

[Dalriada]

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?

 

[Durham]

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.

 

[Gawin]

This made me chuckle. A clumsily translated article about the Queen and Johnson's request to prorogue Parliament:

"Last minute news.. United Kingdom Queen Elisabeth II will be invited to hang today the British Parliament."

She was invited to hang Parliament? That would have made Johnson happy! But probably not the Supreme Court! ?

 

[Marengo]

This thread is not intended for running commentary on Brexit. This thread will remain closed until a relevant new discussion about the Queen and her prime ministers appears in the press.