# Does Queen Elizabeth ever say much? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 12, 2006, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565 "2006-05-12T20:51:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/21 "2006-05-13T19:49:19Z")
> [@SaintCad](#): > > So could she theoretically become the head of state again? Just to add something : despite the well-known reverence of american people for their constitution, a constitution is only a piece of paper. It holds only as long as the population is strongly supportive of the way the political system works. So, it doesn’t matter what Elizabeth II could or could no do “theorically”. What matters is what the social body will deem acceptable or not, and for this purpose, an unwritten tradition is exactly as good as a written constitution. To take three very different situations, George Bush can’t ignore the constitution that forbids him to do so and make himself emperor of America, Chirac can’t take dictatorial powers despite it being technically possible according to the article 16 of the french constitution, and Elizabeth II can’t resume actual power despite the lack of formal statutes preventing her from doing so. They can’t, not because it’s written somewhere, but simply because it’s politically unthinkable and (in the current circumstances at least) the population supports the system and would never accept such a situation. The survival of a modern democracy doesn’t rest in documents, but in the people. To take an example close to home, see how easy it has been in France in 1940 to switch from a democracy to a personnal dictatorship overnight, simply by the assent of the political class backed by popular support, statutes, constitution and other technicalities be damned. ---
**Author:** ![Gotterfunken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@Gotterfunken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gotterfunken)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/22 "2006-05-13T20:06:56Z")
> [@Usram](#): > > Surely Charles I in 1649, during the Civil War? Yep, and he’s not a direct ancestor of Elizabeth II. She’s descended from Elizabeth Stuart,\* Charles’s sister. So, really, it was Lizzie’s great-great-etc. _uncle_ who got his head cut off. (not sure about the number of “greats”). \*The 1701 Act of Settlement stipulated that the descendants of Elizabeth Stuart–or, more specifically, the descendants of her daughter, the Electress Sophia–were the rightful heirs to the English throne, even though the descendants of Charles I were still alive and had a more direct claim to the throne. In this way, George I, the son of Sophia and thus the great-grandson of James I of England, ascended to the throne as the first Hanoverian king. Poor bastard could barely speak a word of English, but Parliament preferred him to an English-speaking, Roman Catholic Stuart (the Act of Settlement also stipulates that the heir to the throne cannot be, and never can have been, a Roman Catholic). This Act gives Parliament final say in whoever succeeds to the throne, and thus eliminates any vestiges of the monarch’s political power. ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/23 "2006-05-13T22:31:04Z")
What with the legendary interbreeding of European aristocrats, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was one of the Queen’s great-great-…-grandfathers by some other route. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/24 "2006-05-13T22:35:45Z")
> [@Cat Jones](#): > > She _ **IS** _ the head of state, she’s just not the head of government. Sorry, I knew it was one of the two. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/25 "2006-05-14T00:13:08Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > Do the prime ministers of Commonwealth countries also meet with their respective Governors-General once per week? The Australian GG and PM do meet to discuss issues of significance when necessary but I don’t think that there’s a scheduled weekly meeting as there is in the UK. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/26 "2006-05-14T02:18:07Z")
> [@Szlater](#): > > 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. The Queen can do whatever she wants, _once_. If she dissolved parliament and refused to allow new elections she would likely be deposed just as James II/VII was. Only this time the monarchy would likely be abolished for good. Regarding royal assent the Queen doesn’t personally assent to acts of parliament (Victoria was the last to do so). Three to five Lords Commisioner are appoint (the Lord Chancellor is always one) and they assent to legislation in the Queen’s name. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/27 "2006-05-14T02:52:26Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > 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. Not at all unlikely, given a close election with no majority and a couple of minor parties thrown into the mix. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/28 "2006-05-14T08:15:47Z")
One of the things the Monarch does is stop the Prime Minister from becoming a dictator. The monarch can say, “No”, and saying so could provoke a constitutional crisis. Going back to Bigears being so disliked, beyond what the others have said, I think he reminds a lot of people of Edward VIII. ---
**Author:** ![carterba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/85e7bf/32.png) [@carterba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carterba)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/29 "2006-05-14T13:12:39Z")
> [@Usram](#): > > What with the legendary interbreeding of European aristocrats, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was one of the Queen’s great-great-…-grandfathers by some other route. The ancestry of the royals is pretty well-documented. If he was, someone surely would’ve found out about it by now. Charles I has lots of great[sup]n[/sup]-grandchildren running around, but Elizabeth II isn’t one of them. Prince William _is_ a descendent of Charles I (through Diana). When/if he becomes king, he’ll be the first monarch descended from Charles II and the first since Queen Anne descended from Charles I. I believe he is actually descended from every English king that has descendents. Incidentally, Winston Churchill was also a descendent of Charles I. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/30 "2006-05-14T21:38:13Z")
> [@Götterfunken](#): > > Yep, and he’s not a direct ancestor of Elizabeth II. She’s descended from Elizabeth Stuart,\* Charles’s sister. So, really, it was Lizzie’s great-great-etc. _uncle_ who got his head cut off. (not sure about the number of “greats”)… Mary I of Scotland was the last direct ancestor of Elizabeth II to be beheaded. Of course she’d abdicated the Scotish throne several years before. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/31 "2006-05-14T21:44:39Z")
> [@Inigo Montoya](#): > > Does Queen Elizabeth ever say much? Her majesty’s a pretty nice girl, but she doesn’t have a lot to say. ---
**Author:** ![Laughing\_Lagomorph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6bbea6/32.png) [@Laughing\_Lagomorph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laughing_Lagomorph)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/32 "2006-05-15T00:39:26Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > Her majesty’s a pretty nice girl, but she doesn’t have a lot to say. Damn, I wish I’d thought of that. Good one! ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/33 "2006-05-15T02:30:54Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > Her majesty’s a pretty nice girl, but she doesn’t have a lot to say. FINALLY! I thought of that the second I saw the OP, but I get gunshy about making joke-only posts in GQ. Thanks for handling it, **Eve**. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/34 "2006-05-15T02:46:37Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > FINALLY! I thought of that the second I saw the OP, but I get gunshy about making joke-only posts in GQ. And the joke to which you’re all referring is…? ---
**Author:** ![Operation\_Ripper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/34f0e0/32.png) [@Operation\_Ripper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Operation_Ripper)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/35 "2006-05-15T02:49:00Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Just to add something : despite the well-known reverence of american people for their constitution, a constitution is only a piece of paper. It holds only as long as the population is strongly supportive of the way the political system works. Hah! You sir, are profoundly ignorant of **A** merican history. The **C** onstitution has held numerous times when the population was _not_ strongly supportive, a fairly recent obvious example was the [Civil Rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) struggle. It is incomparable with the British and French examples you cite. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/36 "2006-05-15T02:55:54Z")
> [@Operation Ripper](#): > > Hah! You sir, are profoundly ignorant of **A** merican history. The **C** onstitution has held numerous times when the population was _not_ strongly supportive, a fairly recent obvious example was the [Civil Rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) struggle. It is incomparable with the British and French examples you cite. I suspect what clairobscur meant was a huge majority - one in which insurrection is not only possible but highly likely to succeed. Should a huge majority at some point become annoyed by the Constitution, then it would changed or ignored; perhaps a better example might be your civil war. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/37 "2006-05-15T03:35:57Z")
> [@Operation Ripper](#): > > Hah! You sir, are profoundly ignorant of **A** merican history. The **C** onstitution has held numerous times when the population was _not_ strongly supportive, a fairly recent obvious example was the [Civil Rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) struggle. It is incomparable with the British and French examples you cite. So are you saying that during the Civil Rights struggle, a majority of the U.S. population, across the United States, not just in the South, was opposed to the decisions of the Supreme Court? If so, how did the Civil Rights Act of 1963 get passed? I would have thought that a better take on it was that the southern population was badly split on the issue, with the black segment and a minority of the white segment supportive, and possibly a majority of the white segment opposed. But that kind of split doesn’t mean that “the population” as a whole was “_not_ strongly supportive,” and even less so when the non-South population was factored in. ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/38 "2006-05-15T03:38:14Z")
> [@Operation Ripper](#): > > Hah! You sir, are profoundly ignorant of **A** merican history. The **C** onstitution has held numerous times when the population was _not_ strongly supportive, a fairly recent obvious example was the [Civil Rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) struggle. It is incomparable with the British and French examples you cite. Hmm. . . I think it’s fairly simplistic to term the civil rights movement as the Constitution victorious over the will of masses. First of all, I disagree with the basic premise that the extension of civil rights protections in the fifties and sixties was done in spite of popular sentiment. Certainly there was vocal opposition among a segment of the white population in the south – but let’s remember that the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act passed by overwhelmingly margins in both the House and the Senate. But more fundamentally, I think the example of civil rights only proves **clairobscur** ’s point that " [a constitution] holds only as long as the population is strongly supportive of the way the political system works." There was a lot of dissent and rage at the Supreme Court’s integration decisions – but remember that Gov. Faubus stepped aside when push came to shove. While many white southerners may have disagreed vehemently with the substance of the decision, there was no repetition of 1861. And the difference is that the southern population, however reluctantly, accepted the fundamentaly validity of the underlying political system that produced the decisions. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/39 "2006-05-15T03:43:39Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Regarding royal assent the Queen doesn’t personally assent to acts of parliament (Victoria was the last to do so). Three to five Lords Commisioner are appoint (the Lord Chancellor is always one) and they assent to legislation in the Queen’s name. Are you certain she _never_ does? I understood she does sometimes, in a ceremonial way for certain very important pieces of legislation. For example, I thought she personally gave assent to the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Operation\_Ripper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/34f0e0/32.png) [@Operation\_Ripper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Operation_Ripper)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2006, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565/40 "2006-05-15T03:45:05Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > So are you saying that during the Civil Rights struggle, a majority of the U.S. population, across the United States, not just in the South, was opposed to the decisions of the Supreme Court? Yes, a majority of the U.S. Population (i.e. whites), across the United States, not just in the South, was opposed to the decisions of the Supreme Court during this time period. An easy example of this attitude was de facto (typically outside of the South) segregation, where in the South it was de jure, mostly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-queen-elizabeth-ever-say-much/356565.md?page=3)