The Queen and Her Prime Ministers

[rob2008]

The BRF are part of the conservative establishment they have many friends and relatives who have been Conservative MPs and Lords. Their challenge is to appear to be neutral and distinct from the Conservative Party. They have generally been able to act as one-nation conservatives but the appearance is under strain because the Conservative party has been taken over by the far right attitude. It must be unsettling for the BRF. I think HM should honour Nicholas Soames with the Garter. He deserves it for the loyalty he shows to the one nation ethos at least.

 

[Mbruno]

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

I think the Queen must stay neutral in terms of not siding with any particular political party for example, but the Scottish independence referendum was quite different from a general election or any normal partisan contest. A Head of State is supposed to defend the territorial integrity of his/her state. In that sense, it is not unreasonable then for. a Head of State to speak against a political movement that aims at breaking the state apart, as King Felipe did.

Again, I understand your POV, but I still think the Brits take an ultra-orthodox view on the political neutrality of the Crown in matters where the Crown, one could argue, may actually have a duty not to stay neutral.

 

[Durham]

I think the Queen must stay neutral in terms of not siding with any particular political party for example, but the Scottish independence referendum was quite different from a general election or any normal partisan contest. A Head of State is supposed to defend the territorial integrity of his/her state. In that sense, it is not unreasonable then for. a Head of State to speak against a political movement that aims at breaking the state apart, as King Felipe did.

Again, I understand your POV, but I still think the Brits take an ultra-orthodox view on the political neutrality of the Crown in matters where the Crown, one could argue, may actually have a duty not to stay neutral.

I can see where you're coming from. It's interesting to hear a different perspective. I guess I think that the present system works well enough which is in itself a reason to continue with things as they are.

Odd as it may sound I don't think that British people are actually that naturally monarchist. I think that the survival of the monarchy into the present day is an accident of history that could very easily have had a different outcome. My instinct is that in terms of a political role the monarchy is tolerated only in so far as it does not take sides in anything remotely politically controversial. I think that the question of the union between England & Scotland is one such topic.

In addition, to be fair to the SNP their policy was/is to retain the monarchy unlike in Catalonia where I think the aim is to establish a republic.

 

[ladongas]

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.)

 

[Muhler]

Good grief!

Is there anything this man, Cameron, hasn't screwed up?

IMO the greatest threat, if there really is such a threat, to the British monarchy is not that QEII is taking sides, but that she is seen acting on behalf on an agenda by the government.

I think it's very understandable that QEII should urge caution in connection with the Scottish referendum. She is after all the monarch and head of state, with Scotland being a prominent part of the realm - and the BRF as well.
I will even go as far as to say it's her job to urge people to think carefully before casting their vote.

 

[Ista]

Good grief!

Is there anything this man, Cameron, hasn't screwed up?

IMO the greatest threat, if there really is such a threat, to the British monarchy is not that QEII is taking sides, but that she is seen acting on behalf on an agenda by the government.

I think it's very understandable that QEII should urge caution in connection with the Scottish referendum. She is after all the monarch and head of state, with Scotland being a prominent part of the realm - and the BRF as well.
I will even go as far as to say it's her job to urge people to think carefully before casting their vote.

Urging caution is one thing, but I think that's at the limits of what she can do and still stay in her lane.

I also think that Cameron's indiscretion is likely to make QEII even more restrained and cautious about what she does and does not say to a sitting PM, which is a real shame, since many previous PM's have found their time spent with her to be extremely beneficial.

 

[tommy100]

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.

 

[Durham]

Urging caution is one thing, but I think that's at the limits of what she can do and still stay in her lane.

I also think that Cameron's indiscretion is likely to make QEII even more restrained and cautious about what she does and does not say to a sitting PM, which is a real shame, since many previous PM's have found their time spent with her to be extremely beneficial.

I agree & I think that's a great shame. What on earth was Cameron thinking of.

Good grief!

Is there anything this man, Cameron, hasn't screwed up?

IMO the greatest threat, if there really is such a threat, to the British monarchy is not that QEII is taking sides, but that she is seen acting on behalf on an agenda by the government.

I think it's very understandable that QEII should urge caution in connection with the Scottish referendum. She is after all the monarch and head of state, with Scotland being a prominent part of the realm - and the BRF as well.
I will even go as far as to say it's her job to urge people to think carefully before casting their vote.

The monarchy is far less popular in Scotland then elsewhere in the UK. There is the risk of it becoming even less popular if it seen as championing unionist sentiment. Scots obviously know that the British monarch will not be in favour of the dissolution of the UK but many would still resent the monarch entering the public debate & actually saying so.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16238128.poll-only-41-per-cent-of-scots-support-monarchy/

 

[Lumutqueen]

The monarchy is far less popular in Scotland then elsewhere in the UK. There is the risk of it becoming even less popular if it seen as championing unionist sentiment. Scots obviously know that the British monarch will not be in favour of the dissolution of the UK but many would still resent the monarch entering the public debate & actually saying so.



https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16238128.poll-only-41-per-cent-of-scots-support-monarchy/

I mean that poll is ridiculous, the survey takes in 500 people out of a population of 5.425 million.

 

[Durham]

I mean that poll is ridiculous, the survey takes in 500 people out of a population of 5.425 million.

If that was the only evidence of the popularity of the monarchy in Scotland vs the rest of the UK I would take your point but there are other indications that opinion in Scotland is different. This should't surprise us, after all politics in Scotland is becoming increasingly distinct from England. Interestingly the Scottish Greens are officially republican & that is pretty unusual for a British political party.

Here is another link & whilst it shows that the monarchy remains hugely popular it also clearly demonstrates that attitudes are somewhat different in Scotland. Not massively so but enough to be noticed:

"There is little difference in support for the monarchy across England and Wales, but republicanism does appears to have more support in Scotland, with one in five favouring a republic compared to, for example, one in ten in the North of England."

https://whorunsbritain.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/2017/10/14/public-opinion-and-the-future-of-the-monarchy/

I would accept that "far less" is perhaps a mischaracterisation of the evidence but there is a demonstrable difference in attitudes north & south of the border.

Maybe one of our Scottish members could give us their perspective?

 

[Lumutqueen]

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.

 

[Durham]

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.

Well of course they're not. There are an indication, a suggestion, nothing more. Polls can be wrong as well.

But if opinion is different in Scotland then the monarchy needs to be careful not to make the difference wider by appearing to take sides on the independence question.

Which take us back to Cameron's irresponsibilty in firstly asking the Queen to become involved & then making things worse by telling us all about it three years later.

 

[Gawin]

I agree & I think that's a great shame. What on earth was Cameron thinking of.

Selling his d***ed book.

 

[Durham]

Selling his d***ed book.

Cameron has been rich all his life. Born with a silver spoon. If that's his motive then he is as greedy as he is dishonourable.

A really contemptible betrayal of the monarch. Unforgivable.

 

[Muhler]

I agree & I think that's a great shame. What on earth was Cameron thinking of.

Evidently, he wasn't...

Back to the Scottish referendum.

I doubt QEII's appeal for consideration, would have made much difference for those who were in favor of independence.
Nor would it have made much difference to those who were pro-union and pro-monarchy for that matter.
It was those (I don't know how big percentage) who were undecided or who would likely have stayed at home this was mainly directed at. There QEII's appeal might have moved a percent or two or made them leave their couches to go the ballot booths - and that's mainly due to her huge personal credit IMO.
I suspect it was not the words of the monarch as much as the words of Elizabeth Windsor, who happens to be Queen, that would have made a difference.
I think her words would have appealed just as much to republicans, as to monarchists as well as those who are indifferent.

Of course the Scottish nationalists would make a big song and dance act of out this. - They lost.
Had they won, they would have trumpeted that "the Scottish people were defiant of QEII or the Scottish people were not moved by this desperate appeal by QEII..."

 

[Pranter]

Scottish opinion of the Monarchy worse than even those in N.I. about the Monarchy? Hmmm that would be interesting.



LaRae

 

[MARG]

Good grief!

Is there anything this man, Cameron, hasn't screwed up?

IMO the greatest threat, if there really is such a threat, to the British monarchy is not that QEII is taking sides, but that she is seen acting on behalf on an agenda by the government.

I think it's very understandable that QEII should urge caution in connection with the Scottish referendum. She is after all the monarch and head of state, with Scotland being a prominent part of the realm - and the BRF as well.
I will even go as far as to say it's her job to urge people to think carefully before casting their vote.

To encourage the people to think carefully about their vote when it came to the Scottish Referendum is not political at all. She is Queen of the United Kingdom and as such is probably more historically invested in keeping the realm intact than any politician.

As to the Queen acting behalf of an agenda by the government? That is her job and credit where credit is due, she has dutifully rolled out the Red Carpet and best champagne for some of the most degenerate dictators in the world at the behest of her government. I cannot, in my wildest imagination, believe that she has enjoyed every carriage ride, guided tour, State Dinner, etc. In fact, it is my personal belief that there are many that when she was finally home and "en famille" that she knocked back more than a few G and T's and said all those things she wished she could say.

Actually, it has been said that she did just that with David Cameron!

 

[Durham]

Scottish opinion of the Monarchy worse than even those in N.I. about the Monarchy? Hmmm that would be interesting.



LaRae

Ok, well let me put like this - support for the monarchy in NI is entirely predictable depending which of the two traditional communities you belong to, for well known historical reasons.

Support in Scotland is not predictable. Years ago Scottish self rule/independence was just the interest of a small fringe. Now it's mainstream, obviously. Opinions on national identity and the monarchy are not set in stone in Scotland. They are up for debate, especially among the young.

If the future does turn out to be a return to the pre-1707 two kingdoms one king model on the island of Great Britain then the the monarchy needs to hedge its bets in order to head off a potential Scottish republic. That means being non partisan. The monarchy needs to retain the support of Scots who are both monarchists and nationalists. They do exist, holding both opinions is not a contradiction. Why alienate such people?

Articles like this show clearly how easily the monarchy has been dragged into controversy over Scottish issues by the last PM but one.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ls-queen-should-stay-out-future-scotland-vote

 

[Pranter]

Ok, well let me put like this - support for the monarchy in NI is entirely predictable depending which of the two traditional communities you belong to, for well known historical reasons.

Support in Scotland is not predictable. Years ago Scottish self rule/independence was just the interest of a small fringe. Now it's mainstream, obviously. Opinions on national identity and the monarchy are not set in stone in Scotland. They are up for debate, especially among the young.

If the future does turn out to be a return to the pre-1707 two kingdoms one king model on the island of Great Britain then the the monarchy needs to hedge its bets in order to head off a potential Scottish republic. That means being non partisan. The monarchy needs to retain the support of Scots who are both monarchists and nationalists. They do exist, holding both opinions is not a contradiction. Why alienate such people?

Articles like this show clearly how easily the monarchy has been dragged into controversy over Scottish issues by the last PM but one.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ls-queen-should-stay-out-future-scotland-vote

Ah I see...interesting, thanks! Is there still much of a difference between views in the lowlands vs highlands?



LaRae

 

[Durham]

Ah I see...interesting, thanks! Is there still much of a difference between views in the lowlands vs highlands?



LaRae

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.

 

[Pranter]

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

 

[Durham]

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

 

[Lady Marlboro]

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!

 

[MARG]

It gives us a whole new perspective of her driving the King of Saudi Arabia around the estate!

 

[Durham]

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

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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:

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.

I mean that poll is ridiculous, the survey takes in 500 people out of a population of 5.425 million.

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".

 

[Dman]

BREAKING NEWS:
The Supreme Court ruled PM Johnson advice to The Queen to suspend Parliament was UNLAWFUL-

https://twitter.com/x/status/1176431738379259904

 

[Osipi]

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

 

[Mbruno]

BREAKING NEWS:
The Supreme Court ruled PM Johnson advice to The Queen to suspend Parliament was UNLAWFUL-

https://twitter.com/x/status/1176431738379259904

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.

 

[Osipi]

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".