Does Queen Elizabeth ever say much?

Specifically about government and international policy and stuff? I know Tony’s pretty much the captain of the ship and all but she’s you know, The Queen. Last thing I heard from her was “Hey! Thanks for all the birthday cards!”

Does royalty play much part in actual government anymore?

No, she has no active role in government at all. Yes, she’s still head of state, and all laws have royal consent, and the winning party at an election is ‘invited’ to form ‘her’ government, but the royals are very deliberately apolitical. Indeed, some of Prince Charles’ various pronouncements, on matters such as education, have been controversial because they hinted at political matters.

I spose that’s what happens when you cut off great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandaddy’s head.

My understanding is that she does quietly advise the PM on political matters, since she’s been around for so long and knows all the players.

The Queen meets with the UK Prime Minister once a week. Presumably their discussions aren’t restricted to the weather or the latest sporting results.

Do the prime ministers of Commonwealth countries also meet with their respective Governors-General once per week?

As far as I can tell, the system that’s set up seems to operate on the principle that if we tie up one person from birth till death with taking the well-being of the UK as their entire purpose in life, and involve them intimately with all the affairs of state, that works out to the benefit of the nation. So the sovereign meets weekly with the PM to discuss matters of state, but, theoretically, is only speaking for a sort of “yay-rah-rah Britain” point of view. These days, having been meeting with PMs over these matters for 53 years, the PM has good reason to take her advice as being well worth listening to.

A couple questions:

  1. It’s my understanding that Queen Elizabeth has started to allow the Prince of Wales access to matters of state (the “red boxes”). Is this true, and what is his level of involvement?

1.5) (This could be its own thread, but…) Why is Charles so hated? I’ve never understood the antipathy towards the guy. As far as royals go, he doesn’t seem especially objectionable.

  1. Isn’t it a bit odd that the Google Ads are advertising Morrissey and/or Smiths tickets in a thread about the monarchy?

2.5) Why did I click on “reply to post” rather than the “Morrissey Tickets” link? Goddam, if Morrissey’s playing around here, I want to be there.

I wouldn’t say it’s outright hatred, except for those of us that hate the royalty full-stop. It’s more that he’s regarded as an embarassment, and not worthy of representing the country, for various reasons including:

  • Was a bastard to Diana

  • Despite only getting two middling A Levels at school, somehow managed to get a place at Cambridge, something that doesn’t happen to anyone else

  • He’s a bit loopy…talking to flowers etc.

  • He tends to pontificate at length about subjects he isn’t a real expert on, such as architecture, art and the environment, often giving the impression that he is using (perhaps without realising) his priveledged position to give his own views publicity.

  • A perception, whether or not true, that he’s all too eager to take over as king. Very un-British.

Pretty much what GorillaMan said. Broadly speaking, it’s not a case of hating the guy so much as viewing him as a greatly embarassing buffoon. He has a sad(and apparently incurable) habit of pontificating on a broad range of social issues in a way that is, perhaps, well-intentioned, but that only serves to show how out of his depth he is. There’s also the issue of gobsmacking hypocrisy. This is the man who can, with a straight face, make a public speech about how terrible it is that there are homeless people on the streets of London, and wouldn’t it be better if we all had a think about how to achieve a fairer, more caring and sharing society. Plus there’s the whole Diana thing. I didn’t care for her either, but that’s just me. Most Brits liked her, and for her to go while he survived felt a bit like the wrong way around. Sort of like the Lennon / Yoko thing.

Whoa. There’s a comparison that had never occurred to me.

Where does this perception come from?

I know you didn’t mean this literally, but this is the Straight Dope: who was the most recent royal ancestor to lose their head?

Surely Charles I in 1649, during the Civil War?

There was an interesting article in today’s Times about the Queen Mother and some of her private thoughts on politics. She was considered the most right-wing member of the family and would often toast Maggie Thatcher after dinner. A letter written by her in 1945 has just been released where she voices her opinion about the new Labour government . One phrase is “I suppose that the high hopes of a socialist heaven on earth are beginning to fade a little - poor people, so many half educated and bemused . I do love them.”

The full article is here

Now that she’s 80 queenie is actually thinking about cutting down a bit on all her gadding about and official duties; Charles and other members of the family will be ‘helping out’ more - I guess he will be allowed access to matters pertinant to his new duties such as visiting her ‘other realms’, welcoming foreign dignitaries etc. All that sounds a bit wooly I know but it sometimes hard to pin down what the Royals actually do.

Incidentally I read a quote recently from Charles’ godmother, Margaret Rhodes, saying that he feels able to make comments about controversial subjects while he is merely Prince of Wales but that once he is King he will retreat into a silence similar to his mother’s.

Hijack in process:

At one time, the British monarch had a great deal of power which they gave to Parliament. Since the monarch still has a lot of traditional power, is there anyway they can sieze power again? For example, when she opens Parliament, rather than presenting the PM’s ideas, can she present her own?

She doesn’t have the kind of power that monarchs pre-Civil War had but she could still refuse to give Royal Assent to new laws that she didn’t like or dissolve parliament and refuse to reinstate it.

So could she theoretically become the head of state again?

She IS the head of state, she’s just not the head of government.

I assume you know it, but in case it would be confusing, she is head of state. Her actual powers (or lack thereof) are irrelevant.

In parliamentary democracies, the head of state, be it a president or a king, has few actual powers (the main one being typically to pick someone to try to form a new government when the result of the elections don’t give a clear majority to anybody. In all likehood, that’s the most significant political decision the queen of England could ever have to make, and even that is unlikely to happen given the british electoral system and political traditions) or even, as I believe it is the case in Japan, no power altogether.

Often, though, apart from his constitutionnal powers (“constitutionnal” in a broad sense, including the UK that doesn’t have any written constitution) the head of state has (or is expected to have at least) some sort of moral authority (sometimes earned, like in the case of the king of Spain. The king of Thailand is also famous for the high level of respect he gets, and his great political influence, but I don’t know the extent of his actual powers, who might be much broader than in a typical constitutionnal monarchy) and he might be expected to use this moral authority in case of crisis.

So, he must be “a uniter, not a divider” hence must not display partisanship, even though in parliamentary republics, the head of state typically is a former influential politician. In constitutionnal monarchies, the head of state, not having any popular legitimacy beyond tradition, is typically even more strongly expected to stay away from any matter of political signifiance, at least publically. The Israeli president is likely to adress the nation in his own name from time to time, but it would probably take extreme circumstances for Elizabeth II to do the same.
I vastly drifted away, but anyway, a powerless emperor is as much a head of state as a dictator.