Queens Speech

ixion

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?

Or could it be that there is substantially more wrong with her and it is being kept from the public?

I wondered whether there are other problems too. Someone on this thread suggested incontinence or dizziness which got me thinking it would be impossible for her to go out and about.

I'm over being disappointed that she decided to cancel her appearance at The Queen's Speech. The job got done efficiently without her presence and things move on. The problem with the Jubilee Thanksgiving service and the balcony wave is more of an issue because those events are all about her and nobody else. No one else can stand in for her. I hope she can attend.if

Glorianny

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?

Yes, many of us know - for example

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption?msclkid=754aa889d15c11ecaf5d47557d26592e

Glorianny

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?

I wonder how many legal documents you would sign without understanding them or checking they are okay. Obviously everyone you have ever been asked to.

Haha

DaisyAnne

Glorianny

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?

I wonder how many legal documents you would sign without understanding them or checking they are okay. Obviously everyone you have ever been asked to.

If in my professional life I had signed any document, or indeed even read a document without fully understanding or appreciating the contents of that document I would not only have been guilty of professional incompetence I could have placed others at risk.

But that's all irrelevant anyway. HM just spots documents which might affect her in any way and then hands the information to her legal representatives who advise her on the best course of action to protect her own interests.

I do wonder how many of the royalists on here would accept the same sort of behaviour from an elected H of S?

Just keep digging that hole Glorianny.

The face of a man who's finally got the job he's always wanted, only to realise it's a crock.

If the Queen’s power ! is exercised behind closed doors no one
would know if the door is closed

25Avalon

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'd ask him how his mum was. I'd probably say I wish her well. It's what a polite person would do.

Still a republican though.

Grany

The face of a man who's finally got the job he's always wanted, only to realise it's a crock.

No idea what that means but re your picture.

You do search hard for people with your extreme views Grany. This one is in Sydney and the quote was taken out of an article supporting a book she had written. She seems to receive funding from a variety of sources although she records that she works for Sydney University.

If you read the full article here you will see she leans heavily on assumptions and that nothing being done is in any way illegal - well it wasn't going to be was it.

Maybe the rules/laws should be updated; that would not surprise me. However, that does not, in any way, mean anything underhand has been done or that the Queen is a bad person. This was how it was. It think it's a bit much to expect her to have known in the 1970s what Grany would think in the 2020s.

I'm sure this woman sold many books and got additional employment on the back of this. However, many countries have decided they do not want our Queen as head of their country. It is extremely reasonable that Australia may reach that conclusion too.

It is extremely reasonable that Australia may reach that conclusion too.
And extremely reasonable that the UK might reach the same conclusion if anyone bothered to ask them.

You still haven't explained to me DaisyAnne how your assertion that the Queen has no power is compatible with the special considerations she has managed to wangle for herself and family members

To go back a bit, I would like to point out that there is a difference between an elected HoS like the American President, who is also Head of Government, and one like the Irish President, who is HoS but not HoG. It would seem sensible, if we should ever go down the path of having an elected HoS, that it would be of the Irish rather than the American kind. That would fit in with the rest of our governing system, where the Prime Minister is HoG.

It seems HM is going to be at the Royal Windsor Horse Show…

DaisyAnne

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.

I can’t imagine Prince Charles automatically rubber stamping everything the government produces.
We may be in for a shock…

He doesn't have a choice hollysteers. Another misapprehension or the spreading of fake news? He will, no doubt, check and if necessary have them checked by his lawyers. If concerned he could make the minister concerned aware but he will still sign them.

DaisyAnne

He doesn't have a choice hollysteers. Another misapprehension or the spreading of fake news? He will, no doubt, check and if necessary have them checked by his lawyers. If concerned he could make the minister concerned aware but he will still sign them.

He may well sign them. He may also, as he signs, already have lobbied for exemptions for himself as the Queen has done.

I can see it bothers you Petera; this maybe world you live in. Should the day come you will have your vote. It will be equal to each other persons and we will see, won't we.

DaisyAnne

I can see it bothers you Petera; this maybe world you live in. Should the day come you will have your vote. It will be equal to each other persons and we will see, won't we.

Yes we will. But what do you think about the monarch lobbying for exemptions?

DaisyAnne many of us have provided links to examples of how HM has had legislation adapted to protect her and her family's interests you appear to think it hasn't happened.
So please can you tell me
Is it OK that she had legislation adapted so she wouldn't have to pay tax in the 1970s?
Is it OK that members of the RF can have the contents of their wills made private and unavailable to the public for long after their death?
Is it Ok that the Queen's private estates in Scotland (which are nothing to do with being royal) will be exempt from legislation about environmental issues?

Glorianny

DaisyAnne many of us have provided links to examples of how HM has had legislation adapted to protect her and her family's interests you appear to think it hasn't happened.
So please can you tell me
Is it OK that she had legislation adapted so she wouldn't have to pay tax in the 1970s?
Is it OK that members of the RF can have the contents of their wills made private and unavailable to the public for long after their death?
Is it Ok that the Queen's private estates in Scotland (which are nothing to do with being royal) will be exempt from legislation about environmental issues?

I don't know who you think you are lady, but I'm not on this earth to aid you to pursue political views backed by the repetion of arguments generally used by the extremes of politics. All I have asked for on this thread was that people find the truth behind what backs their opinions. If you now feel you have done that "Bravo".

Personally, and this is only my OPINION, if we can get away from the Johnson method of gaining undemocratic power, our traditional and historical way of having a Head of State will continue to change over the years, as it has always done.

At some point, when we haven't got a government that isn't deliberately fomenting civil unrest (I wonder where that idea came from?) we will probably change how we do things. But I won't join your attempt at culture wars and I won't attempt to destroy the reputation of other people for the sake of a liar and a lawbreaker or those who hang on to his coat tails.

DaisyAnne

Glorianny

DaisyAnne many of us have provided links to examples of how HM has had legislation adapted to protect her and her family's interests you appear to think it hasn't happened.
So please can you tell me
Is it OK that she had legislation adapted so she wouldn't have to pay tax in the 1970s?
Is it OK that members of the RF can have the contents of their wills made private and unavailable to the public for long after their death?
Is it Ok that the Queen's private estates in Scotland (which are nothing to do with being royal) will be exempt from legislation about environmental issues?

I don't know who you think you are lady, but I'm not on this earth to aid you to pursue political views backed by the repetion of arguments generally used by the extremes of politics. All I have asked for on this thread was that people find the truth behind what backs their opinions. If you now feel you have done that "Bravo".

Personally, and this is only my OPINION, if we can get away from the Johnson method of gaining undemocratic power, our traditional and historical way of having a Head of State will continue to change over the years, as it has always done.

At some point, when we haven't got a government that isn't deliberately fomenting civil unrest (I wonder where that idea came from?) we will probably change how we do things. But I won't join your attempt at culture wars and I won't attempt to destroy the reputation of other people for the sake of a liar and a lawbreaker or those who hang on to his coat tails.

No idea what Johnson has to do with this. HM has pursued her own and family interests since the 1970s regardless of who was PM. I have no doubt she will continue to do so and so will Charles. Is it politically extreme to find that unacceptable?

volver

25Avalon

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'd ask him how his mum was. I'd probably say I wish her well. It's what a polite person would do.

Still a republican though.

I think I’ll keep a copy of this for the next time you are accused of being “nasty” about the queen.
?

Thanks Lucca

If anyone really wants to see people being nasty to the Queen they should see some of the comments on a Facebook page local to us asking people if they would like to come to a street party for the Jubilee