Queens Speech

hollysteers

It is a misapprehension to believe that the Queen wields no real power.
In 1963, she chose Sir Alec Douglas Home to be Prime Minister without a leadership election.

It is a real, not imagined misapprehension that she had the power to chose. This was the last time the Conservatives chose a leader without an election. Hume was chosen, by his party, in the time-honoured way that Conservatives did. It was the days of Conservative decisions being made by 'men in grey suits' behind closed doors. The Queen was then advised by Harold Macmillan that Douglas Home was the Party's choice. She was merely rubber-stamping what the party in power had chosen. Just as she would now rubber-stamp a leader chosen by an internal election.

If only I could Lucca. I lost her six weeks ago yesterday. She was the perfect dog to set on someone - and in every other way.

thank you volver

volver

colliemum

Wholeheartedly agree with you, twinnytwin. She has been a wonderful Monarch, and doesn't deserve the shabby comments made by the dissenters here. You are in a small minority, Republicans, so please keep your thoughts to yourself at this time.

No, I don't think I will.

Nobody is making shabby comments about the sainted Queen, people are just telling the truth. That's allowed in a democracy, whether you like it or not. Also, if you took time to read the thread properly, including links, you'd see that 40% are in favour of a republic. Maybe not such a small minority as you think.

Is that 40% of gransnet or 40% of the population? If the latter, the polls disagree. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=regressions%20(LOESS).-,Poll%20results,-%5Bedit%5D

colliemum

Wholeheartedly agree with you, twinnytwin. She has been a wonderful Monarch, and doesn't deserve the shabby comments made by the dissenters here. You are in a small minority, Republicans, so please keep your thoughts to yourself at this time.

As GSM says colliemum everyone is entitled to hold an opinion. However, some are taking the Mickey Bliss.

I know you don't need me to tell you but if you are arguing about something based on law (as our Constitution, including the postition of the Monarch, is) then an unverified, unsubstantiated opinion is not a valid argument and it certainly doesn't become a truth just because someone with an axe to grind says it often enough.

colliemum

volver

colliemum

Wholeheartedly agree with you, twinnytwin. She has been a wonderful Monarch, and doesn't deserve the shabby comments made by the dissenters here. You are in a small minority, Republicans, so please keep your thoughts to yourself at this time.

No, I don't think I will.

Nobody is making shabby comments about the sainted Queen, people are just telling the truth. That's allowed in a democracy, whether you like it or not. Also, if you took time to read the thread properly, including links, you'd see that 40% are in favour of a republic. Maybe not such a small minority as you think.

Is that 40% of gransnet or 40% of the population? If the latter, the polls disagree. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=regressions%20(LOESS).-,Poll%20results,-%5Bedit%5D

This morning 8:02.

Germanshepherdsmum

If only I could Lucca. I lost her six weeks ago yesterday. She was the perfect dog to set on someone - and in every other way.

So sorry. ?

Actually, I just re-read it. Its 24% in favour of an elected Head of State, I stand corrected. Still hardly a small minority.

60% in favour of a monarchy.

You have restored my faith Volver. Thank you.

GSM so sorry to hear about your loss.

And if HM carries on wearing her cloak of invisibility she will damage support for the monarchy. IMHO.

Thanks Lucca.

Parsley3

Can you give an example of her wonderfulness, please, colliemum?

She doesn't have to. Saying the Queen is wonderful is her opinion. As is her comments about the "shabby comments" on here. She is not trying to prove a fact, or convince you to change your mind. She is not challenging something in law. For once we have someone who is only voicing an opinion.

When will people realise the difference?

Germanshepherdsmum

And if HM carries on wearing her cloak of invisibility she will damage support for the monarchy. IMHO.

Do you think? I thought it might be a good transition.

I doubt the disaffection will go quite that far.

I wonder how many of those wanting an American style government realise that Sovereign immunity exists in the US, where it applies to Federal and State governments. It was derived from our laws.

It means that the government cannot be sued without its consent, although it can wave that consent.

I can quite understand why our Sovereign, embodying the state would still be in this position. However, it could well be time to limit the members of the Royal family to whom it applies. As Prince Charles has already shown he wants only a small number of the family involved in State roles, it would not surprise me if he did not encourage this. (Just in case someone doesn't understand this paragraph is opinion, not fact).

Our Constitution changes and moves forward all the time. Again, in my opinion, that adds to our stability. However, we live in an unstable world at the moment and it's an instability that has been deliberately caused by some for their advancement and wealth. I can imagine a deliberate attempt to destabilise us further by inciting groups to turn against the Sovereign and, therefore, our government and democracy.

GSM I think many will respect the fact that she is 96, has
been active for 68 years but is now not physically able carry out
all public duties and understand how she cares about this.

Anybody on here been asking for an American style government? Anyone? Anyone at all? How's your chance to speak up. No?

Are you an anarchist? No?

Thought not...

I do Annie. That was what I meant about a "good transition"; I don't think I was clear. I meant they are using this time well and getting us used to both the inevitable outcome and the changes that will happen. Whatever some on here think, I think there will be a great deal of grief when she is no longer with us.

I was hoping that Colliesmum would share her opinion of the Queen with me and I could share my opinion with her. However, you have answered for her DaisyAnne So I will never know.

Well plenty of well wishers asking Charles “How’s your mum?” when he went walkabouts in a South London market today. Some of the 61% in favour of the monarchy.

I haven't answered for her. She has free will and can answer for herself.

I wouldn't answer such a silly question but Colliesmum may choose to.

I agree Annie but there seems to be a conflict between her vow and what she now does. I don't know why she cannot use a wheelchair or other mobility aid to fulfil duties. She renewed her vow very recently. She has previously said that she needs to be seen, but appears to be turning into Queen Victoria who didn't have today's mobility aids to assist her. Is she ashamed to be seen in a wheelchair?

Callistemon21

^The Queen's consent is the misuse of power by the RF because of our lack of a proper constitution^.

Do you have a list of specific instances where HM has misused any power she may have because of our lack of a proper constitution please, Glorianny.

You must know as you state that quite confidently and it would save me having to research.
Thank you ?

There are over 1000 instances where she has chosen to review bills before they are presented to parliament. She has chosen to lobby for change to many of them, particularly where the bill affected her personal situation. With things like not admitting inspections for animal cruelty o her properties for example
nationalpost.com/news/the-queen-prince-charles-vetted-1062-laws-before-passage-in-parliament-the-guardian

Did anyone know she could do this? Or that it was constitutional.
And it isn't just herself she protects. Family members are permitted to keep their wills private. Why? Why are they different to other rich people?

The Queen has been riding for most of her life.
Had she suffered a catastrophic fall in her 20s, 30s, 40s etc, and spent her remaining life in a wheelchair, would she have stayed hidden away from the public view and carried out only tv broadcasts from the Palace?
How would 'mobility issues' have impacted on her desired 'way of doing things'?
Or is it just her perception of her senior years which is resulting in limited activities?

Yhis is an open forum, royalists and republicans can say what they like.

Quite Lucca.