Prime Ministers, Political Advisers and the Powers & Prerogatives of the Monarch


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I read in another thread here that the Queen can leave the country without permission now...George I repealed that rule.


MM
 
But would she want to be able to do some of these things? Whilst there must be times when she must feel like speaking out & trying to weave some influence, she must be very aware of her unique position of having the right to be consulted & being able to advise - She receives the privy papers/meets with the Prime Minister on a weekly basis. She can also look back on a life that has given her the opportnity to meet the greatest & most influential people over the last couple of generations. It depends on your interpretation of being "controlled". I also think given her vast experience over the years she must have discovered ways to subvert her "containment" if she wants her own way;)
 
Iluvbertie said:
...The Queen can't say what she thinks, publicly on any issue.
Click to expand...
HM has the PM to do the talking,as is custom in a Constitutional Monarchy.Re-inventing the wheel isn't nessecary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Midwestern Mom said:
I read in another thread here that the Queen can leave the country without permission now...George I repealed that rule.


MM
Click to expand...


What George I asked parliament to repeal - he couldn't do it himself - he didn't have that power - was to repeal the necessity for Parliament to approve the leaving of the kingdom. For parliament to approve it would take a vote of the two houses of parliament.

These days the Queen has to have the consent of the government in the person of the Prime Minister - no debate in parliament - just the PM saying 'yes ma'am you can go to France to go to the races'.

The best example of this was in 1944 when George VI wanted to go to France at the time of the D-Day landings and Churchill refused his request to go - so the King promptly refused permission for Churchill to go - although in the end Churchill certainly did go but I am not sure whether the King did or not - after the beachheads had been secured. They both wanted to go on 6th/7th June and neither would give permission for the other to leave the country in order for them to go to the battlefields.
 
I think HM is amazing to hav put up with being allowed to do so little for so long and she is a great queen - the monarch may not run the country anymore but we still have to respect her because she is the representative of our country - if ur from the UK of course xx
 
lucien said:
HM has the PM to do the talking,as is custom in a Constitutional Monarchy.Re-inventing the wheel isn't nessecary.
Click to expand...


I am not suggesting that we re-invent the wheel but simply trying to point out that she is less free than any of the people over whom she reigns.

They can all speak their minds, refuse to met someone of whom they don't approve, refuse to visit a country they don't want to, go to a foreign country when they want to, and she simply can't do these things.

I think sometimes people think she has a cushy life but when you look at what limitations there on her day to day living it is a lot.

Unlike the rest of us when we leave work we leave work but she can't - she is The Queen whether on a public appearance or having a cuppa watching TV at night - she is still The Queen and is always treated that way.
 
She herself has said that she would have liked to be a simply country woman so yes if she had her free choice about a career it wouldn't have been to be The Queen but to be a wife of a country estate owner and have her horses and her dogs.

I was trying to list the the drawbacks, the things she can't do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would think its more a case of she cannot just get up and go to the beach in Spain or jet off to the jungles in Thailand and there's several reasons. One would be security that would be needed to be put in place. Two would be that while the Queen in out of the country, she needs one of her Councillors of State to fill in for her if needed. Three would be someone needs to feed the corgis while she's gone and Four being with a calendar filled way in advance, there would probably be events that she'd need to cancel. :)

This is interesting in thinking of all the restrictions that would be in place being Queen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course there are reasons for the restrictions.

I find it interesting that people are quick to justify the restrictions without actually considering the fact that she has less freedom than any other person living in Britain today so being the reigning monarch takes away a number of the rights that the rest of Britains take for granted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How New Labour gave the Royal family exemption from the Freedom of Information Act - Telegraph
3 November 2011

How New Labour gave the Royal family exemption from the Freedom of Information Act

From the moment the Freedom of Information Bill first passed through Parliament in 1999, Tony Blair’s Labour government was determined to protect the Royal family from the spotlight the resulting Act would shine on public bodies. Under the terms of the Act, which came into force in 2005, the Royal family is exempt from having to release information because it is not regarded as a public authority.

Freedom of Information campaigners have long argued that the exemption is peculiar because the monarchy is central to the UK’s system of government and is funded by the public. The Act provides for royal documents to be released if they pass a public interest test, though even this caveat would have been abolished if Labour had won the 2010 general election, as Gordon Brown had announced plans to scrap it and give the monarchy absolute exemption from the Act.

Environmental matters are covered by the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, rather than the Freedom of Information Act, and it was under the EIR that the Duchy of Cornwall was ordered to release information yesterday.
 
Would one really go unpunished for murdering a Welshman in that city? Would they really have been able to hang Diana? Probably not, because it would look pretty bad...
HarryKateWilliam said:
...the monarch may not run the country anymore but we still have to respect her because she is the representative of our country - if ur from the UK of course xx
Click to expand...
Or Canada, or any other of her many realms!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I clicked on this thread I thought it would be about the actual powers of the Queen.

Boy, was I surprised.....
 
Members who require legal advice should consult a solicitor or lawyer.
This forum is not the place to discuss personal legal issues.
Nor is it the place to casually toss around a few wild defamatory accusations.

It should come as no surprise that the current discussion, if it could be called that, has been removed.

Warren,
Administrator
 
Warren said:
It should come as no surprise that the current discussion, if it could be called that, has been removed.

Warren,
Administrator
Click to expand...

Good job Warren .. that was ... bizarre ...
 
New Powers for The Queen and Prince Charles?
Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed | UK news | The Guardian

Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed Information commissioner orders release of guide to how Queen and Prince Charles must be consulted before laws are passed

A little-known power enjoyed by the Queen and Prince of Wales to alter new laws is due to be exposed after the government lost a legal battle to keep details of its application private. The information commissioner has ruled that the Cabinet Office must publish an internal Whitehall guide to the way the senior royals are consulted before legislation is introduced to ensure it does not harm their private interests. The effects of the bills are explained to the royal household, including the Duchy of Cornwall, discussions ensue and if necessary changes are made to proposed legislation.

A judgment issued last week by the deputy information commissioner, Graham Smith, means the Cabinet Office has until 25 September to release the confidential internal manual. It details how the consent of "The Crown and The Duchy of Cornwall" is obtained before bills are passed into law and what criteria ministers apply before asking the royals to amend draft laws. If it fails to do so it could face high court action.

In the past two parliamentary sessions Charles has been asked to consent to at least 12 draft bills on everything from wreck removals to co-operative societies. Between 2007 and 2009 he was consulted on bills relating to coroners, economic development and construction, marine and coastal access, housing and regeneration, energy and planning. In Charles's case, the little-known power stems from his role as the head of the £700m Duchy of Cornwall estate, which provides his £17m-a-year private income. The Duchy of Cornwall runs farms and industrial property, builds houses and acts as a landlord as well as taking responsibility for large areas of the natural environment in south-west England.

The Ministry of Justice consulted Buckingham Palace in 2008 and 2009 over the detail of the apprenticeships bill and how it would affect the Queen "in her personal capacity". As an employer of 1,200 staff the royal household stood to be affected, along with thousands of other employers. The civil servants wanted to know "Her Majesty's intentions in relation to the bill" before its second reading in the House of Commons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is very interesting, given the Queen has been scrupulously reluctant to express any views in public that could be considered in any way political.

The Queen voiced concerns to the previous government about the inability of UK authorities to arrest Abu Hamza al-Masri, it has emerged.

The BBC's Frank Gardner says the Queen told him she had spoken to a home secretary about the issue.

[...]

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, our correspondent said the Queen had been upset that there was no way to arrest the radical cleric and spoke to the then home secretary to ask why somebody who appeared to be inciting violence and hatred was still at large.

"Like anybody, she was upset that her country and its subjects were being denigrated by this man," said our correspondent, who stressed that the monarch was not lobbying but "merely voicing the views that many have".
Click to expand...

BBC News - Abu Hamza concerns raised by Queen

This reminds me of when the Queen visited the London School of Economics in 2008. She stumped the economists there by asking why they didn't see the economic crash coming.

The Queen asks why no one saw the credit crunch coming - Telegraph

It's amazing that it takes an elderly, unelected and privileged woman to ask those in a position of power and influence the kind of difficult questions that they, for some inexplicable reason, failed to ask themselves.

It just goes to show that the Queen is more in touch with the issues that concern her subjects than all the democratically elected so-called 'representatives of the people' put together.
 
All she has done is ask a question of the appropriate minister and then tell another person she asked that question - believing that she was also talking 'in confidence'.

That she has always done.

The wrong thing here is that a reporter decided to tell the world of that confidential discussion.

The Queen has done nothing wrong. It is her job to ask questions about issues, to be informed, to discuss things etc. She does so in the expectation that those discussions will be confidential so that her political views aren't made public. This question was never meant to be made public.

Like Kate's photos the Queen had a right to expect that the confidentiality or privacy of the conversation would have been kept but it wasn't.
 
EIIR said:
I also see that the geniuses at 'Republic' are up in arms over the Queen expressing an opinion and questioning government ministers over this. The fact that they think this is something that might somehow make the Queen look bad, shows how divorced from reality they really are.
Click to expand...
Some republican commentators seem to be denying the Queen the conventional right to "warn, advice and be consulted", in private. They say she should either not talk at all about politics (in case she interfers too much), or do so in public, so that everyone knows what her views are and what she is saying to the government.

I personnally don't think they are right. If the Queen is forced to disclose her views publicly, it will be hard for her to represent the whole nation, because some will agree, and others won't.

And it would be a pity is she is forbidden to "warn, advice and be consulted" in private : why preventing the prime minister and/or the government to talk to someone who has quite a lot of experience and knowledge, is not afiliated to any party and doesn't pursue any agenda ? It isn't as if they had to listen and follow her advice : they still are the one elected and making decisions.

Plus I am quite sure she uses these rights carefully. If that wasn't the case and she was only talking rubbish or trying to impose her views, prime ministers would have stopped the weekly meetings long ago and she wouldn't be as protected as she is from leaks and breachs of confidence. I think prime ministers and governments are always the ones ultimately in charge, as it should be in any democracy. If they still go and see her, it is because they have something to gain from that.

Of course there is still the issue that she has access to the government only because she is the Queen. Well, that is the whole point of monarchy : the monarch takes his/her legitimacy from history and tradition, and sometimes personal aura. In a republic, the head of state will get his/her legitimacy from something else, usually election. The important point is that he/she must be seen as legitimate by the people of the country, which seems to be definitely the case for EIIR.

I don't think this story will do any harm to the Queen...
 
It's very much a case of the Emperor's new clothes.

The politicians and experts (including economists) tend nowadays to sit inside a bubble, in which they only interact with people like themselves. And those "outsiders" who dare question them are dismissed, because "they, the economists, are in the know", - all their friends, associates and colleagues say so.
QEII however is not an "expert", she's one of those annoying outsiders - whom they can't ignore or dismiss because of her position.

There is in my eyes nothing wrong or even odd, that a Monarch, who has a constitutional role as QEII has, from time to time asks questions, or even question the policy of her ministers.
On the contrary, I would think less of her if she didn't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its not like this is something new. HM herself has talked in tv documentaries about how she can ask to see anyone and ask them questions. I don't think anyone really thought she was exchanging recipes during these audiances. It is how she finds out what is going on. It is up to government ministers as to whether or not they act on her questions/opinions. Much ado about nothing.
 
Last edited:
:previous: I agree as usual. I'd be shocked if HM wasn't having conversations with her ministers.
 
Duke-of-Earl said:
:previous: I agree as usual. I'd be shocked if HM wasn't having conversations with her ministers.
Click to expand...

Agreed - conversations (communication) are key.

I find in life that when I ask people questions, they tell me things I might not have guessed. And when people ask me questions - even as I may disagree with them, I find insight to possible solutions for the gap between our points of view.

Even if all Her Majesty is doing is asking questions to point out the weakness in a position - by doing so she warns her ministers that the weakness is visible. If visible - it can be exploited by the press or the opposition. Further strategy can be planned. It is a discreet, but I am sure, often effective approach.

I have always found Elizabeth II to be a subtle monarch. Sometime so subtle, that we missed the subtlety. ;)

The same goes for the Duke of Edinburgh's humor sometimes (but methinks, not always :lol:)
 
I can only speak personally, but it's reassuring to me that the Queen cares about these issues so much and attempts to use her position for the common good. To know that behind closed doors the Queen is asking the sort of questions that her subjects would ask if they had the opportunity of a one-on-one with the Home Secretary is heartening.

The geniuses at 'Republic' have changed the angle of their attack. They're now saying that the leak of HM's conversation was a deliberate ploy by the Palace and the BBC to try and make the Queen look good. This after saying that the public would be unhappy at her 'interference' in issues she shouldn't be involving herself with. They're suggesting that it's an attempt to fool the British people by playing up to populist anger over the Abu Hamza debacle. :rolleyes:

They complain about not being taken seriously. All they need do is look in the mirror.
 
:previous: It must be disheartening for 'republicans' to come to terms with the fact their 'movement' is little more than a website and a couple of dozen champagne socialists that preach about a 'divisive' class system whilst living in million pound mansions :lol:
 
Last edited:
In 2002, Graham Turner wrote a series of interesting articles about the Queen in the Telegraph. One was about her relationship with politicians and public servants, how she discusses issues with her Prime Ministers and how there is a whole ring of silence around her that prevents leaks. It quotes a lot of people and is quite revealing :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3294556/The-real-Elizabeth-II-part-two.html

The Queen appears almost like the ideal monarch : dedicated, clever, discreet, efficient, stoic, ... In fact, the article is so positive that I would have almost put in doubt the sincerity of the journalist ; but he is quite harsh and negative in depicting her family life in this other article, so I think that, after all, he may not have tried to embelish what he had been told about her dedication to her job !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3294538/The-real-Elizabeth-II.html
 
Last edited:
Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills | UK news | The Guardian

The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret.

-------

You'll notice that the first mention of this power being exercised on the advice of the government of the day is in paragraph 17. The existence of the power isn't exactly a secret, either. It works the same way in the Canadian Parliament. The fact that the Queen was asked by the government to not consent to the bill on military action in Iraq was already publicly known, and it was actually published in Hansard.
 
Last edited:
Its only a "secret" for those who don't know how their own government works.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
2 3
Replies
69
Views
9K
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
  • Sticky
Prime Ministers, Political Advisers and the Powers & Prerogatives of Charles III
Replies
11
Views
624
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
2K
Tatiana Maria
T
Blog Real
Other Royal Pantheons of Spain (of the monarchs of Asturias, Leon, Castile, Aragon, Navarre and Others)
Replies
4
Views
864
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Marengo
  • Sticky
Queen Elizabeth (1926-2022) and the Duke of Edinburgh (1921-2021)
2 3
Replies
74
Views
10K
tommy100
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom