quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Is there some reason your Queen should be denied a right to offer her opinions in public?
Is this a British thing?
Brexit: the referendum
- Thread starter MikeG
- Start date
Is there some reason your Queen should be denied a right to offer her opinions in public?
Is this a British thing?
Yes, absolutely.
We tolerate an unelected head of state only under certain (unwritten) conditions, included in which is that they remain a-political. Actually, that's the whole point of them: to keep politics away from the role of head of state. I mean, you only have to look at the USA to realise the wisdom in that.
Yes, absolutely.
We tolerate an unelected head of state only under certain (unwritten) conditions, included in which is that they remain a-political. Actually, that's the whole point of them: to keep politics away from the role of head of state. I mean, you only have to look at the USA to realise the wisdom in that.
Highlighted the important part.
The House of Stuart advanced the unwritten British Constitution - especially Charles I and James II due to the nature of their loss of the crown.
To echo what Mike's said - the monarch has significant theoretical powers, it's just that the first time a monarch will try to use them would be the first time that they explicitly get revoked... unless it is a very extreme situation.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
It was not public. Part of the deal with the monarchy is that what they say privately should not be repeated - what happens in the Privy stays in the Privy. Murdoch has breached this convention, but then he is a scumbag vulgarian and proud of it.
Lothian
should be banned
But at least he didn't repeat a conversation he was privy to. The leak is from the **** Gove.
That's where most fingers seem to be pointing.
Would it really help Brexit? I can't imagine many people who would be influenced by what the queen thinks voting for the EU anyway.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
And expressing an opinion in public amounts to invoking those powers?
Weird.
Wouldn't they have to be expecting some sort of a specific result before it could amount to invoking anything?
There were two leaks/ sources. And Gove (and Nick Clegg) both deny being a source. The Sun of course won't name their 2 sources, so I think you may be being slightly too certain.
Last edited:
I strenuously do, if they are discussing political matters when engaging with our elected representatives and other members of the government we should know about it. Her being able to veto bills, bills being approved by her before they go to parliament and so on simply should not happen. The pretence that she is just a figurehead and doesn't meddle needs to be dropped.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
You may have thought you did, but that statement seems less than explanatory as a response to my question.
I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I'm seriously curious. Unwritten or not, is there really some sort of prohibition against one of your royals expressing opinions in public?
What exactly happens to them if they do? Is there an official procedure for censure? Or does everybody just wag their fingers and go , "Bad Queen! Bad! Bad!" and leave it at that?
Is this a commonly held attitude?
I've never signed up to such a plan.
Well, we're rather off the subject of Brexit, and this smacks of the start of a new thread, or the revival of an old one. But basically the answer is.......it's unwritten, and there are all sorts of checks and balances in an old but unwritten constitution. Besides, when you know who is going to be head of state from the moment of their birth you have decades to educate them as to their responsibilities.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
There's no paper trail at all.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
There's some pretty stark precedent as well.
And if it doesn't take, well, Edward VIII provided one of those stark precedents.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
They can be as vocal against sin as they like. They can even promote homeopathy and related woo. What they can't do is express an opinion on the political issues of the day or the quality of the government's ministers.
The occasion has never arisen in relation to the Queen, bless 'er. When it's Phil the Greek (and it usually is) that's about the level of what happens.
I don't think it's a commonly contemplated subject.
If the Exit camp (including Murdoch) come out of this as having tried to take advantage of the Queen they will definitely suffer. Now the question of what is "done" and what is "not done" comes to the fore.
Lothian
should be banned
I presume your mention of Nick Clegg is a joke. Why would he leak it? Cameron wouldn't either. We are looking at one of the splitters. i presume the press know who was at the meeting and narrowed it down. He is total twat. fits with the profile.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Gove is so in the frame for this. Will he deny it or decline to comment? One wonders.
It's all such a farce. And months of it to come. Ditto the US elections. I don't think I've ever seen the world so discombobulated as now, and I'm in my seventh decade.
No. Not at all. He was at one of the meetings, and he has denied he was one of the sources.
You keep making this mistake. It was different sources from 2 different occasions that, according to the editor, are the basis of the story. In other words, it is alleged that on two separate occasions the queen has said something supportive of Brexit, and this has been told to the paper by 2 different people.
Perhaps we can stop with the personality stuff now? So what if they are complete pricks anyway? It is irrelevant as to whether or not the queen is supportive of Brexit, and whether or not she said so during 2 different meetings.
Last edited:
What is very apparent is that we've fed a pack of lies about her not being involved in politics.