Queens Speech

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?

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

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.

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

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…

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

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 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

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.

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.

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

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

Just keep digging that hole Glorianny.

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

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.

Haha

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.

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

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

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?

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

Quite Lucca.

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?

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 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?

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.