The Queen and Her Prime Ministers

[RoyalistRiley]

I suspect Tony Blair was pretty unpopular with HM, whilst I think HM respected Mrs Thatcher.

I'd like to think she respects all of them regardless of her own views.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I don't think Tony was that unpopular at the start of his PM job, maybe at the end.

 

[georgiea]

I hear that the Queen did not like Margaret Thatcter but I can not remember why. I think her favor was Winston Churchill.

 

[Royal Fan]

Wonder how She gets on with Mr Cameron

 

[Lumutqueen]

Don't forget there are two PM's atm.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Don't forget there are two PM's atm.

There are not two PMs. There is one PM - Cameron - and a higher than normal Deputy PM - Clegg.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Well that's still two main people making decisions for my country. They both have to meet the Queen every week.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well that's still two main people making decisions for my country. They both have to meet the Queen every week.

Your country had a Deputy PM under PM Brown etc.

Do they both have to meet the Queen every week? What would happen if the deputy gave her contrary advice to the PM when she is constitutionally bound to take the advice of the PM? She might see them both but she certainly wouldn't have to.

I know that Britain isn't used to a coalition but here in Australia it is normal when we don't have a Labor government and the Deputy (who always comes from the National Party) doesn't meet with the GG every week unless the PM is overseas for the simple reason that at times the views of the two parties are different. They work it out before the PM goes to the GG and thus the GG is only getting the advice of the PM so that they are not put in a constitutional problem.

I would highly doubt if the Queen has to see both Cameron and Clegg each week unless she sees them together as only the PM is truly able to advise the monarch and that is Cameron.

As I said she may choose to do so out of courtesy to Clegg but if push comes to shove she can't take his advice over Cameron's as Cameron is the PM.

 

[wbenson]

According to the Court Circular, the Queen has had two audiences with Nick Clegg (May 13th and June 9th). The first was the day he was appointed, and the second was before a Privy Council meeting. She's had three audiences with David Cameron in that time period (May 19th, June 2nd, and June 23rd), in addition to the day he was appointed PM and his being present on the day the rest of the cabinet was sworn in.

 

[wbenson]

The Queen is not amused by Tony Blair's indiscretions - Telegraph

If anyone was more dismayed than Gordon Brown by Tony Blair's shameless volume of memoirs, it was the Queen. Senior courtiers tell Mandrake that there is a "profound sense of disappointment" in him at Buckingham Palace for betraying Her Majesty's trust by revealing sensitive details of private conversations he had with her when he was the prime minister.

 

[RJ TAYLER]

I think he just crossed a line that must never be crossed there. I also think he 'might' have crossed himself out of a few honours usually bestowed upon H.M.'s former Prime Ministers as well.

 

[Jacknch]

It is regrettable that Mr Blair's head continues to be positioned at the wrong end of his torso.

 

[AuroraB]

It is regrettable that Mr Blair's head continues to be positioned at the wrong end of his torso.

So succinct. Now I'll clean the coffee off of my monitor!

 

[Warren]

More on Tony Blair's memoirs. The emphasis is on Diana but his dealings with HM following the death of Diana are mentioned.

TONY BLAIR'S MEMOIRS: Did he really warn Diana about Dodi? | Mail Online

excerpts

[Diana's] death, he says, was ' menacing' for the Royal Family. The Queen was reluctant to speak to the nation because she 'didn't want to pretend to a view of Diana that was more conflicted than the public would accept'. But he criticised the old-fashioned way the Palace operated and the fact that the tragedy not even mentioned in the church service the Royals attended the same day. He blamed this failing on the fact there 'would have been no Alastairs (Campbell, the Downing Street spin doctor) in the entourage' warning the Queen that forcing William and Harry to go to church looked 'incredibly, almost blatantly, insensitive'.

Revealingly, he says he had a 'problem' with the Queen during the Diana crisis because 'there was no easy point of connection in age, or outlook, or experience'. 'I didn't trust myself fully to go straight to her and be as blunt as I needed to be - so I went to Charles.'

Even this grandstanding over his role in saving the Royal Family at their most perilous hour is at odds with what actually happened. He relates how after their return from Balmoral - at his urging - 'the Queen, Charles and the boys visited the front of Buckingham Palace'. In fact, the Prince of Wales took his sons to Kensington Palace which was the main focus of the public grief while the Queen and Prince Philip met crowds in the Mall outside Buckingham Palace.

If the reaction to Diana's death was to set the style for Mr Blair's folksy approach to government, it was also to define his relationship with the Royals. The Queen, of course, would never reveal what she felt about Mr Blair any more than what she thought of any of her other 12 prime ministers. It was said, for example, that the Queen felt warmly of Harold Wilson, but this was the view given by Wilson himself. James Callaghan observed that the Queen offered 'friendliness not friendship'.

After Diana's funeral, Mr Blair and the Queen met at Balmoral, and he admits he 'talked perhaps less sensitively than I should have about the need to learn lessons', and 'at points during the conversation she assumed a certain hauteur'. The visit had not been easy. He found Balmoral 'utterly freaky' and he needed a drink to survive the visit. 'Had it been a dry event, had the Queen been a teetotaller or a temperance fanatic, I don't believe I could have got through the weekend.'

Recalling their first meeting at the castle, he glibly says: 'I was shown up to see the Queen in the drawing room, which was exactly as Queen Victoria had left it. I was just about to sit down in a rather inviting-looking chair when a strangled cry from the footman and a set of queenly eyebrows raised in horror made me desist. It was explained that it had been Victoria's chair and that since her day no one had ever sat in it.'

​

 

[muriel]

Oh well, its not the first half-truth to have come from the Blairs!

 

[wbenson]

Peter Morgan accuses Tony Blair of plagiarising lines from his film The Queen - Telegraph

Tony Blair's account of what was said when he went to kiss hands with the Queen in 1997 is perhaps the most controversial part of his memoirs because it represents such a flagrant betrayal of the trust that had previously existed between the monarch and her prime minister.

Now, in an intriguing twist to the affair, Peter Morgan, the screenwriter, tells me that he suspects the former prime minister took the line not from his actual conversation with the Queen, but his Oscar- winning film about her which starred Helen Mirren.

 

[Lumutqueen]

When the Queen told Churchill: Stop making me sit through these dreadful films | Mail Online

For nearly 50 years the Queen has graced the red carpet at Royal Film Performances.

But newly discovered documents show that in the early years of her reign she found the movies so dreadful she complained to then Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill during an audience at Buckingham Palace.

 

[yulizah]

Is there anyone have direct e-mail address to the British Royal Family?
Thank you for the help!

 

[Iluvbertie]

Is there anyone have direct e-mail address to the British Royal Family?
Thank you for the help!

There is a 'contact us' link on the British Monarchy website. Welcome to the official website of the British Monarchy This will tell where to write, or the number to ring to contact their offices. Sometimes a written piece will garner a personal reply from the relevant royal but usually it is a form letter from one of the staff.

However there isn't a generally known email address and if anyone here did have the personal email address of a member of the family they wouldn't give it out. Like anyone else the members of the family protect o whom they give their email address and that isn't the general public.

 

[Renata4711]

Why not try the Facebook pages of the British Monarchy ?

The British Monarchy | Facebook

 

[Renata4711]

Could we expand the thread to have not only Prime Ministers, but also the First Minister of Scotland, and the two equivalents in Wales and Northern Ireland, please?

 

[Renata4711]

The Queen and her First Minister of Scotland
**********************************

At the Opening of the Scottish Parliament on July 1st, 2011, Alex Salmond told the Queen that an independent Scotland will want to retain the Queen as monarch....

Alex Salmond: we'll keep the Queen while England becomes a republic | Politics | guardian.co.uk

 

[Mbruno]

There is an article in today's edition of The Guardian speculating that, since a second Brexit referendum would require appropriation of money from HM's Treasury, PM Theresa May would be constitutionally entitled to ask the Queen to withhold royal assent to any referendum bill passed by the House of Commons without the backing of the government.



Frankly, I find that scenario unlikely, but, just for the sake of argument, if it came to that, would the Queen do it ? It would be the first royal veto of legislation in the UK since 1707 and could potentially trigger a major constitutional crisis and even calls for the abolition of the monarchy.


BTW, the suggestion that a royal veto could be on the cards came from Sir Stephen Laws , who formerly served as the First Parliamentary Counsel to the British government, so, as far-fetched as it may sound, it is not a loony proposition.

 

[Muhler]

Wouldn't that lead to an immediate vote of no confidence from the Parliament?
After all May would be attempting to overrule the Parliament! And by coercing the Sovereign in helping her to do so!
- That's pretty close to treason ins't it?

 

[Osipi]

There is an article in today's edition of The Guardian speculating that, since a second Brexit referendum would require appropriation of money from HM's Treasury, PM Theresa May would be constitutionally entitled to ask the Queen to withhold royal assent to any referendum bill passed by the House of Commons without the backing of the government.



Frankly, I find that scenario unlikely, but, just for the sake of argument, if it came to that, would the Queen do it ? It would be the first royal veto of legislation in the UK since 1707 and could potentially trigger a major constitutional crisis and even calls for the abolition of the monarchy.


BTW, the suggestion that a royal veto could be on the cards came from Sir Stephen Laws , who formerly served as the First Parliamentary Counsel to the British government, so, as far-fetched as it may sound, it is not a loony proposition.

Now this is just a gut reaction from someone that isn't very knowledgeable about how the UK government works so here goes with my take on what the Queen would do.

As the Queen meets with the Prime Minister weekly and her role is to warn and advise, I would imagine that HM would "warn" PM May about the consequences of the action that she is requesting and "advise" her against it with giving logical and thought out reasons why. This is something the Queen is good at. She *knows* what's happening in her government and has kept informed on everything for over 65 years. This is one situation where, I imagine, that the Queen can and would speak freely about what's on her mind regarding the situation. Of course we'll never hear about it as those talks between the monarch and the PM are sacrosanct and private.

 

[Mbruno]

Wouldn't that lead to an immediate vote of no confidence from the Parliament?
After all May would be attempting to overrule the Parliament! And by coercing the Sovereign in helping her to do so!
- That's pretty close to treason ins't it?

I don't know, but a vote of no confidence would pass if the remainer Tory MPs, who presumably would back a second referendum, joined the opposition to topple the government.

I don't see it as treason though. In theory, the Queen has the prerogative to overrule the Houses of Parliament and veto legislation. In this particular case, if I understood it correctly, Sir Stephen's point was that there is a long-standing constitutional convention in the British parliament that bills that appropriate money from the Treasury are introduced only by the government and not by backbenchers. So it would be constitutional for the government to suggest a veto to any backbench bill that implied new public expenditure.


In any case, I think you are right that a vote of no confidence would be the most appropriate course of action if the government opposed the will of a majority of MPs in favor of a second referendum.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen has already made it clear to a couple of Prime Ministers that she wouldn't agree to certain legislation and so that legislation was then never put to the parliament.

The Queen is also, by convention, forced to follow the advice of the Prime Minister. IF Mrs May told her to veto the legislation then the Queen would have no choice but to veto it (that was what happened when Queen Anne used the veto - she did so on the advice of the leading ministers of the day - not yet called Prime Minister).

The year is now three weeks old and parliament has been sitting for well over a week and the Queen hasn't had an audience with the PM, indicating that the 'once a week' while parliament is sitting rule doesn't really apply anymore.

 

[Muhler]

Hmm, interesting.

Let me get the thought process in place:
If a bill for a new referendum is passed in the Parliament, then there of course has to be a majority voting in favor of that. A good deal of those voting in favor would be Tories. - In fact the votes could split all the parties...
Okay, the government is against. PM May goes to the Queen and ask her to de facto veto the bill. The Queen stalls for time. (I can't imagine she would veto a majority in the Parliament!)
The MP's go ballistic! The PM is trying to overrule the will of the Parliament. That would IMO lead to an immediate vote of no confidence for the PM, but probably also the government - if for no other reason than out of principle.
What's the point of having a Parliament if the government and/or head of state can overrule any bills that are passed there?
I find it difficult to imagine the Tory backbenchers would support May, especially those who voted in favor of a new referendum.
Even those who voted against a new referendum would hesitate about overruling the Parliament.

I'm not sure what the technical term for such an action would be.
In DK overruling or attempting to prevent the legal proceedings of a legally elected Parliament is considered high treason. As May might be considered to do in this example.
Or would it be an attempt of a coup d'etat? Because the government is attempting to overrule the Parliament.

Whatever, I sure would take the first flight out of Britain - not even taking time to pack my toothbrush and my favorite slippers! Because that would lead to serious trouble!

 

[Mbruno]

As the Queen meets with the Prime Minister weekly and her role is to warn and advise, I would imagine that HM would "warn" PM May about the consequences of the action that she is requesting and "advise" her against it with giving logical and thought out reasons why. This is something the Queen is good at. She *knows* what's happening in her government and has kept informed on everything for over 65 years. This is one situation where, I imagine, that the Queen can and would speak freely about what's on her mind regarding the situation.

What if the PM insisted on her advice though even after hearing the Queen's concerns ?


The royal legislative veto is a tricky subject. In theory, it is possible in the constitutions of all European kingdoms except Sweden, which abolished it in 1975. In the UK, on the other hand, although the Queen is advised by the PM, the royal veto is ultimately a personal act of the monarch which, unlike an order in council, is not countersigned as far as I understand. Normally, the Queen as a constitutional monarch would always abide by the PM's advice, but, in that particular case, I don't think she would necessarily have to. The point of my original message was precisely to discuss whether she would or would not do it if asked by May to use the veto.

 

[Muhler]

There is no royal veto in Denmark.

If a bill is passed in the Parliament it becomes a law. It needs the signature of the Monarch to become valid. - And that's where a "royal veto" can come in. But it would be a personal veto.
And now we have a major constitutional crisis on our hands! Even if the government backs the Monarch's refusal to sign.
The Monarch would basically commit high treason. - But that's for another tread.