Actual Political Powers of Queen of England.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@DSYoungEsq

Um, I chose “English” on purpose. I’m quite well aware of the differences; I’m a bit of an Anglophile myself, which those who know me well on the Board would know. But the concept of the English Empire as still important is hardly a notion that would be embraced by the Scots, the North Irish, or the Welsh. All that we’re so grand stuff is English at its heart and soul. So the sort of silliness that has been espoused by Lust4Life, most of which is clearly undeserving of much attention at all, isn’t “British” but “English,” in my opinion.

Your opinion is worth shit. There’s more than enough Scots who look fondly on the days of the Empire.

[glee]

@Lust4Life

As to being badly treated by Charlie,in the first place it was a dynastic marriage,he was originally destined to marry her older sister as delegated by the politicos but she revealed herself as a loose cannon so lost the opportunity.

Which politicians arrange royal marriages?

@Lust4Life

As to adultery Charlie was ordered to stay away from Camilla after the marriage…

Ah, the heir to the throne being told how to behave.
What a fine selection. :rolleyes:

@Lust4Life

Its a wonder that Charlie held back for so long before going back to the woman he loved after the increasingly more blatent affairs of Diana.

You mean ‘the woman he loved but wouldn’t marry in case it cost him money, privilege and the throne’?
What a fine chap to head the Church of England. :rolleyes:

@Lust4Life

The Queen mum was an old lady who enjoyed a flutter on the ponys,hardly a gambling addiction.

When she died she had a £4 million bank overdraft. Given **her annual income was £643,000 ** (plus free housing of course), where do you think all this money was spent?!

@Lust4Life

Margaret was a loathsome woman who I genuinlly couldnt stand ,she was so far up her own arse she could see what she had for breakfast.

Just another Royal.

[Baron_Greenback]

@DSYoungEsq

Um, I chose “English” on purpose. I’m quite well aware of the differences; I’m a bit of an Anglophile myself, which those who know me well on the Board would know. But the concept of the English Empire as still important is hardly a notion that would be embraced by the Scots, the North Irish, or the Welsh. All that we’re so grand stuff is English at its heart and soul. So the sort of silliness that has been espoused by Lust4Life, most of which is clearly undeserving of much attention at all, isn’t “British” but “English,” in my opinion.

Ahem bullshit. :rolleyes:

[Baron_Greenback]

DSYoung, you’ve just demonstrated that you know jack-shit about the United Kingdom, and the complexities of the relationships between the peoples who live there.

Um, I chose “English” on purpose. I’m quite well aware of the differences; I’m a bit of an Anglophile myself

It is to laugh.

[Polycarp]

Just out of curiosity, while Scotland has been an integral part of the Great Britain and/or the United Kingdom since 1707, it still maintains a certain degree of separation – e.g., Scots law differs from that of England-and-Wales. Given that legal separation, it seems reasonable to ask: Does the Queen retain any special powers (either in her own right or on “advice” of the Minister of State for Scotland or the Scottish Assembly) as Queen of Scotland?

[jayjay]

@Polycarp

Does the Queen retain any special powers (either in her own right or on “advice” of the Minister of State for Scotland or the Scottish Assembly) as Queen of Scotland?

I’m unclear on that. Is she actually styled “Queen of Scotland”? Or is she just “Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, Great Britain being indivisible as far as the realm goes?

[Cunctator]

@glee

If you could give a cite for **any idea ** HM has ever come up with, that would be appreciated.

If you want to get into semantics, then no, I can’t give a cite for any “ideas” that HM has ever come up with. There could have been some fantastic ones in her private life. Who would know? In her public life, as I’m sure you’re aware, her role as sovereign is highly circumscribed. Whatever policy “ideas” she comes up with she keeps to herself. But your original post was about the lack of any evidence of the Queen’s ability to give “effective advice”. Personally I have no idea whether the advice she gives is effective or useful. I’ve never received advice from her. Nor, I expect, have you. The only people qualified to pass judgement on the effectiveness of her advice are those to whom it has been given - namely her Prime Ministers. And they, regardless of sex, nationality or political hue say much the same thing - the Queen is extremely experienced in political matters, has a deep understanding of the constitutional role of the Crown and provides valuable advice. I think that’s pretty conclusive evidence.

[alphaboi867]

@jayjay

I’m unclear on that. Is she actually styled “Queen of Scotland”? Or is she just “Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, Great Britain being indivisible as far as the realm goes?

No, Scotland is not a Commonwealth Realm. It’s merely part of the United Kingdom and any powers the Queen has there are those which she has as Queen of the UK. By the way Scottish monarchs weren’t styled “King/Queen of Scotland”; the form “King/Queen of Scots” was used. It’s know as a popular monarch were the ruler’s style is linked to the people he reigns over rather than the territories he rules.

[glee]

@Cunctator

If you want to get into semantics, then no, I can’t give a cite for any “ideas” that HM has ever come up with. There could have been some fantastic ones in her private life. Who would know? In her public life, as I’m sure you’re aware, her role as sovereign is highly circumscribed. Whatever policy “ideas” she comes up with she keeps to herself. But your original post was about the lack of any evidence of the Queen’s ability to give “effective advice”. Personally I have no idea whether the advice she gives is effective or useful. I’ve never received advice from her. Nor, I expect, have you. The only people qualified to pass judgement on the effectiveness of her advice are those to whom it has been given - namely her Prime Ministers. And they, regardless of sex, nationality or political hue say much the same thing - the Queen is extremely experienced in political matters, has a deep understanding of the constitutional role of the Crown and provides valuable advice. I think that’s pretty conclusive evidence.

So we agree that the Monarch has never been credited with any idea or policy.

I already pointed out that the Monarchy is reasonably popular with British voters, so naturally Prime Ministers (the only politicians who talk to her) will try to take advantage by saying how wonderful the sessions were.
It’s like politicians kissing babies or being photographed driving tanks. Nobody thinks the babies or tanks contribute anything except as a prop.
Here are a couple of former PMs commenting:

Former Prime Minister Sir John Major says:
"The Prime Minister talks to The Queen about what is going on. What has happened, what is happening, what he would wish to happen.
“You talk about personalities, you talk about personal things, you talk about problems - nothing is barred. Everything is open season.”

Lady Thatcher said: "I am delighted to be able to send this message, on the occasion of Her Majesty’s 80th birthday.
"This is a great day - a day when we can express our boundless admiration and affection for our Queen.
“She is truly an inspiration and an example to the whole nation. Long may she rule. Happy Birthday Ma’am.”
Lady Thatcher said the Queen was “eminently accomplished” at putting people at ease, something she did at their first audience in 1979.
“But anyone who believes that such meetings are a mere formality would be greatly mistaken,” she said.
“The Queen takes an intense interest in every aspect of life in our country.”

Note how they avoid saying that the Queen makes any contribution.

Next, consider these scenarios:

• the Monarch, using her ‘extensive network of contacts’, comes up with a diplomatic breakthrough. The Prime Minister of the day promptly takes all the credit. What message does this send to those world leaders who discussed the problem with the Queen?!

• the Monarch has detailed advice specific to foreign policy. However the Prime Minister does not bring the Foreign Secretary to the meeting!

If the Monarch really did give sensible advice, her words would be quoted. Indeed someone would take notes in fact, no notes are ever taken)

**So we have ‘discussions’ in which no records are kept, no advisers sit in and no credit is ever given to the Queen.**Why do you think this is proof that the Queen gives sensible advice?

[Wallenstein]

David Starkey pulls no punches in his assessment of the Queen… really lays into her!

Some of the meatier barbs…

I think she’s got elements a bit like Goebbels in her attitude to culture - you remember: ‘every time I hear the word culture I reach for my revolver.’ I think the queen reaches for her mask.

I didn’t realise that she had no interest whatever in her predecessors. Her history begins with her great grandfather. That is it. It really is it.

She knew her own possessions. She was like a housewife who’d been left them. She’s looked after them, she’s put in place much better arrangements for their care, but again - I suppose it’s this absence of any kind of - to be blunt - serious education.

Interview: David Starkey

[Gfactor]

Two things seem clear:

1. The factual questions have been answered as well as they can.

2. This thread has turned into a slap fight.

3. Slap fights belong in other fora.

Closed.

Gfactor
General Questions Moderator