That bit about the Queen being the State brings to mind something: the monarch (at least in the UK) is not above the law. That tends to show that she is most certainly not the state. She may represent the state. She may even be loved by the populace of said state. But she can’t be the state itself.
Sheesh, your licenses are good for that long across the pond? Ours expire every 5 years here.
Dear Mr/Mrs Guevera,
A little known fact is that I also take a slight interest in message boards, this unruly American one being one of my favourites.
One of my minions, Mr Chowder, has been instructed to reply to your rather distasteful and somewhat cheeky questions.
Firstly, George 111 was NOT a farmer althought he may have dabbled in growing cucumbers for the royal butties.
The incident of the “wet tea” as you so delightly put it, was merely a cover up. We had grown mightily tired of the constant whinging from the colonials and had decided to naff 'em off at the first opportunity, we did not however envisage that the unruly shower of ungrateful buggers would take up arms, still we burnt the White House some years later…so yah boo to them.
You require?? information from me?? Do you have any idea who the hell you’re talking to you servile little person. Be very careful matey, VERY careful.
Listen to me sunshine. I am the head of state, I don’t need a licence for ANYTHING unlike you peasants out there. I can do what I like when I like…I aint even got a TV licence so up yours pal.
The police are MY police, remember that next time you hop into that beat up old banger you call a car and don’t be surprised if you get pulled over many times in the next few months, boy is it gonna cost you plenty me old cock sparrer.
Absinthe Annie, as we fondly call her, has got speeding tickets galore but she does not have to pay them, I let her off, those YOU WILL get are not subject to the same favours so pay up sharpish and smile while doing it.
The kids are OK and so are the corgis, thanks for asking anyway.
Finally a message for Loach
Knock it off with the “old bag” remarks sonny. The blokes outside your hovel are waiting for any future sarcasms.
Yours Liz 2
Expire as in need to take a new driving test, or expire as in simply need to renew it with an up-to-date photo? The old paper (i.e. non-photo) ones lasted that long, but the modern ones need replacing every ten years.
They are valid till you are 70 years old . Then you have to reapply and sign a declaration that you are still fit enough to drive. That’s it, no retest or medical, just the declaration. This process is then repeated every 5 years.
‘The official government document’ isn’t really an accurate description of a driving licence. It’ll depend on what’s on the various documents you use to confirm your identity when you apply for one, and I’m sure there’ll also be accomodation for the use of other names, including deed polls.
FWIW, William chose to go by ‘William Windsor’ when he started university.
Yeah, but Chez is not American, and should include the “servant” at the end of his closing. “Madam” is spot on, though.
From here:
:rolleyes:
Heh …
The Queen and the Dook visited my daughter’s school to open some new buildings - this reports the occasion … and if you click on the picture gallery link, she’s just off the edge of a couple of the photos. :smack:
The queen spoke to my daughter, and got a nervous giggle in response, then later the Dook asked her what she wanted to do career-wise, and when she replied “journalist” he gave her a :rolleyes: and moved on.
Er … no idea where that first :rolleyes: came from …
Actually, hereabouts you used to have to go in and get a new picture, but this time I just went online and ordered a new one (cost me 15 bucks) and they sent one with a new expiration date but the old picture. I guess I can do this in perpetuity. You have to do it every five years, and it conveniently comes due on your birthday.
How rude.
I bet you’re the Duke of Edinburgh in disguise. Anyway, I’ve looked again at the first draft and I’ve decided the tone is too grovelling. The second draft follows in the next post. If anyone has anything to add please advise before midnight GMT.
There is a phone number for the Public Information Office and I might try that first. It’s doubtful, however, that the information we need is readily available. I’m just hoping it is in the public domain. You never know with the Royals. They can be secretive when they want to be.
Public Information Officer
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
Dear Sir/Madam,
There has been some recent speculation between myself and a group of friends as to whether Her Majesty The Queen has a driving licence or not. I am unable to ascertain the truth of the matter elsewhere, and so I would be grateful if you could supply some answers regarding the issue, as follows:
(1) As Princess Elizabeth, the Queen was issued with a licence in 1945. I am given to understand this licence was retained by her driving instructor, and is now an exhibit at the Adjutant General’s Corps Museum in Peninsula Barracks, Winchester. Can you confirm the licence expired on the Queen’s 70th birthday in line with normal DVLA rules?
(2) Did the Queen renew her licence in 1996 in order to preserve its validity?
(3) Does the Queen ever drive on the public highway?
(4) Does the Queen, or whoever is the reigning monarch, require a driving licence in order to drive lawfully on the public highway?
(5) I am sure the Queen’s driving skills are above suspicion but, in theory, if she drove on the public highway and exceeded the speed limit, could a prosecution ensue? Personally I doubt it but I would be pleased if you could confirm.
Many thanks.
Yours faithfully,
C. Guevara
I’d leave the “or whoever is the reigning monarch” bit out. It sounds as if you’re not quite sure who the current monarch is… it might be the Queen but you’re not absolutely certain.
I don’t think so. I think anybody who reads it will assume the “and sometime in the future, her heir” interpretation.
Dear Sir/Madam
'er indoors has authorised yours truly to respond to your latest enquiry, she also requests that you attend Buck 'ouse on Christmas day for lunch, kindly bring a bottle and none of the cheap Aussie muck either, a magnum of Moet and Chandon would go down admirably.
if you finances will not stretch to that then a bottle of Gordons Gin will suffice.
Answers are as follows.
1.The licence did expire when her madge reached 70, Just 'cos she is who she is doesn’t exempt her from certain rules y’know.
2.The boss has NEVER driven on a public highway 'cos there aint any. They are The Queens Highways. As a British subject I am surprised you didn’t know this.
3.See 2 above.
4.See 2 above.
5.See 2 above.
However I must add that her madge cannot be prosecuted in any court, they are after all HER courts.
In conclusion HRH has directed me to extend seasonal greetings to all members of the SDMB.
Carry on educating the masses, the poor, tired and humble.
Yours etc.
pp Liz 2
I am surprised the old girl hasn’t upbraided you for using the incorrect “HRH”. That’s twice now, just watch it.
Chowder, in his first response from the Queen wrote"
…I aint even got a TV licence so up yours pal.
A TV LICENCE!
You gotta have a TV licence in England? I know it makes sense to make sure that anyone on the highways (with the possible exception of the Queen) has at least some minimal qualifacations before being allowed to drive. BUT A TV LICENCE? You have to prove your capable of watching TV?
I can see it now in some official hall"
Licence giver. “I’m sorry young man you’re just not up to snuff yet.”
Young man (Sobbing hysterically, crushed). “No way. I have to have it before Friday. There’s a paper due on whether or not England should join the EU*. My God man, I have to be able to watch that 9 hour documentary this Wednesday.”
LG (Bored, having heard all this many times before). “Well, you should have thought of that when you were preparing for the test. We see your sort in here all the time. Imagine, thinking you have a right to just watch whatever you want, whenever you want to! (Snorts in disgust) TV is a priviledge, not a right.”
YM (falling to floor, overcome with a sense of failure). “Please, please. You don’t understand. I have to have it.”
LG. "Hmmm, well, since you seem to have finally grasped the seriousness of things maybe something can be done. (Ruffles through several papers, engages with a whispered conversation with assistant.) “Right-o, we can, I see, grant you a learners permit that allows four hours of week of SpongeBob Square Pants. ONLY, (jabbing finger skyward), if a licence holding adult is in the room with you.”
YM (Almost inaudible through his sobs) “Thank you, thank you sir.”
*England isn’t in the EU is it? Og, I never feel so stupid as when I’m trying to be clever.
That is a matter of interpretation. Of course, everything that is done by the British state is done in the name of the Queen; she is the head of the executive (HM Privy Council), legislative (the Queen in Parliament), and judicial branches.
However, Parliament has the ability to change the status of the Queen at any time. As one constitutional scholar put it, if Parliament voted on it, it would be the Queen’s constitutional responsibility to sign her own death warrant. Take for example the abdication of Edward VIII; he couldn’t just abdicate, Parliament (and the Commonwealth parliaments) had to pass a law, HM Declaration of Abdication Act, causing him to abdicate. Likewise, it was an act of Parliament (in its own name) that gave William and Mary the throne, and that invested the throne in the heirs of the Electress Sophia.
In that sense, the Queen rules at the suffrance of the elected Parliament, both de facto and, in a certain sense, de jure (since so much of the British Constitution is unwritten and consists of exactly this sort of convention).
You’re quite right; there’s a difference between land that belongs to the Queen in the sense of sovereignty, in the sense that it is the property of the government as opposed to a private party, and in the sense that it belongs personally to the Queen and will belong to her heirs.
Other posters went into the difference between sovereignty and ownership; as a frinstance, if the Canadian government purchases a building in New York as a tourism office, say, the land is owned by HM in Right of Canada, but it is obviously under American sovereignty.* However, there’s also land that belongs to Elizabeth II herself, the so-called ‘crown estates’; the Queen herself owns that land like you own a house, and indeed rents a lot of it out to tenant farmers and such; since George III the revenue from this is turned over to the state, who turns around and gives the royal household a certain amount of that (the civil list) to pay for its activities of state. Similarly, Prince Charles owns a certain amount of land (e.g. the Duchy of Cornwall – not the same thing as the actual region of Cornwall, indeed including several territories outside of Cornwall), that he rents out and from whose revenues he pays for his own activities of state.
Actually, in a number of recent circumstances, various members of the Royal Family HAVE used surnames on assorted government forms that require a surname; marriage licences, for example.
Oh man, let’s not open up that can of worms again. Suffice to say that if you do a search you’ll find some heated debates about the merits of the TV licence, with me as an active participant. You need a licence not to prove that you can handle watching TV, but to receive television at all, because that’s how the BBC is paid for, not by commercials.
The UK is in the EU, and England is part of the UK, so yes, it is in the EU.
Much better.