BTW, why Brenda? What’s the explanation for using that name as a nickname for her?
So the Queen does intervene in policy matters, but secretly, but it’s not so secret that everyone doesn’t know about it anyway, but she’s done nothing about a possibly existential threat to Britain?
Seems likely.
Decades ago, Private Eye reported that high society gossip had taken to giving the royals down-market nicknames - Brenda and Keith, Yvonne for Margaret, Brian and Sharon for Charles and Diana.
To the point that the comedian Stanley Baxter produced
skits like this for his TV show, on the expectation that most of his audience would have heard of the nickname.
Ok, thanks. I thought the explanation would turn out to be Cockney rhyming slang.
Cite, please? I’m curious to learn more of this.
As has been pointed out to you before, this particular claim makes no sense. In March 2009 the then Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, appearing before the Commons Treasury Select Committee, warned the Labour government against further economic stimulus. But that was before he had his rare meeting with the Queen. Anyway, a central banker warning against economic stimulus is not exactly something that seems to demand an extraordinary explanation.
Aside: both times I’ve read APB’s response, I involuntarily wonder when “Mervyn Keene, Clubman” became Governor of the Bank of England. 
And yet it happened. I don’t think it was 2009 or about economic stimulus, but my searches have failed me.
I’ve seen mentions in the press of her asking why no-one saw the credit crunch coming, but that was in the context of talking to academic economists on a routine public engagement, not somehow carpeting ministers and officials - that, I’m sure, is done much more diplomatically and through backstairs channels - and usually only if something is likely to embroil her in political controversy.
In the book by Hennessey I mentioned above, there is an instance where Harold Wilson floated the idea of a royal visit to (then) Rhodesia in the hope that it would dissuade the white minority regime from UDI. The message back from her private secretary to his was that of course she would do anything helpful - but the proposal had to be seen to come from the PM, in writing, with a clear explanation of the rationale. And that was the end of that.
If it happened, there should be a clear record of it.
The government is free to introduce any legislation. The first bill for each new session of Parliament, before they even vote on the Speech from the Throne, is a pro-forma statement that Parliament is not limited to matters included in the Speech and can introduce bills on any topic. In the House of Commons this is traditionally titled A Bill for the more effectual preventing clandestine Outlawries while the House of Lords has A bill for the better regulating of Select Vestries. The Canadian equivalents are An Act respecting the administration of oaths of office and An Act relating to Railways. (Note that the titles of the bills are long-standing tradition and have no connection to the content.)
Interesting, thanks. I presume Britons would feel safer with better regulated vestries, though.
In this case, Wilson’s casual proposal would have had HM do something on behalf of the government. Does the book cite any instances where she inserted herself in matters that didn’t directly involve her?
If you’re going to convince anyone, you’re going to have to do better than that.
The thing is that Mervyn King’s comments in March 2009, which were rather more pointed than usual and so got a lot of attention, were made on the same day as his only ever private audience with the Queen. So you can see why someone might have jumped to the conclusion that they were connected. But by the time he saw the Queen, he had already made the comments. So as a fallacy, this wouldn’t even be a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
It’s quite difficult to tell what you’re asking about. It’s public knowledge that the Queen is well briefed about national issues and government matters. Those briefs also include subject matter briefings about any officials she’s scheduled to meet. She gets a red box containing briefing papers more or less every day. So if the Queen was meeting someone, say Donald Trump, where the subject of NATO was likely to come up, she’d know about and be free to discuss NATO with that person. What she wouldn’t do is offer an opinion on the UK or US policies regarding NATO.
The Queen’s meeting with the Prime Minister is different. The main purpose of the meeting is for the Prime Minister to brief the Queen on the status of her Government. But it’s also an opportunity for the Queen to ask questions, and to make observations based on her long history or working with many different prime ministers. Tony Blair, at least, has stated that he found his meetings with the Queen useful. It’s almost certain that the Queen and Theresa May have discussed Brexit. It’s quite possible that the Queen has offered May advice, or at least her insights. However, these meetings are confidential, so no one will know what was said in them.
There are some royal reporting “Kremlinologists” who say that the Queen does send out soft signals on issues. I’m personally very sceptical, and anyway tend not to read that sort of article. However, if you want to believe them, the Queen is apparently pro-Brexit. Or at least that was the rumour last year.
I was expressing skepticism about Quartz’s assertion. No doubt ERII does offer advice of some kind. He was saying she intervenes to kibosh policies she doesn’t like. I don’t buy it.
My other, not clearly stated point was that Brexit threatens the integrity of Britain; Scotland is certain to hold another independence referendum if Britain leaves. I doubt the Queen wants her summer estate to be in a foreign country.
Not that I recall.
Of course she gets lots of letters from individuals about all sorts of issues, that the staff will bat off to the appropriate government department, but I don’t know if any are sent on with some sort of note indicating that HM would like a briefing on whatever the issue is. She might well do so on the various reports and information that routinely go to her, and for all we know might well do a Sgt. Wilson “Are you sure that’s wise” in her private audiences with the PM.
But she is ultra-cautious about risking getting involved in current political controversies.
A few years ago the Guardian got the Prince of Wales’ ‘Black Spider Memos’, the Guardian and various republican commentators decreeing they were examples of scandalous, outrageous interference by a royal in the affairs of government.
They sunk without a trace, as they were a whole load of nuffin’.
I’m going from memory, but I recall that there were polls on the monarchy prior to the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum, and they were pretty overwhelmingly in favour of Scotland having a monarchy, whether or not the vote was for independence. So Balmoral is safe even if her United Kingdom title changes a bit.
As a side note, that was one of the times that the confidentiality of the Queen’s conference was violated. David Cameron was heard stating that the Queen “purred like a kitten” when Cameron called to tell her the result of the vote.
And she got roasted in the Scottish press when she said Scottish voters should think very carefully about their vote on independence.