It's called the Great Seal and it involves wax rather than rubber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_Realm
It's called the Great Seal and it involves wax rather than rubber.
If the prorogation was unlawful then all who made it happen were acting unlawfully.Oldjohnw wrote: ↑19 Sep 2021, 2:41amThe judges never said HMQ acted unlawfully. They said that Johnson and his government did. The advice given to her was unlawful. The difference matters. In the same way that the content of the Queens speech is not her approval.
Having said that, the system is absolutely absurd.
That is not legally the case. The civil servants who actually completed the paperwork were also not acting unlawfully.
Alien lizard maybe. Seal? Surely not.thirdcrank wrote: ↑19 Sep 2021, 7:27amIt's called the Great Seal and it involves wax rather than rubber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_Realm
One last comment - judges are called Her Majesty's Judges and sit as part of Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service. That being the case they won't be critical of Her Majesty.Oldjohnw wrote: ↑19 Sep 2021, 8:19amThat is not legally the case. The civil servants who actually completed the paperwork were also not acting unlawfully.
And I am neither a royalist, bloody or otherwise, nor a believer in the divine right of kings. I completely reject the concept. I made the very point earlier about people thinking the monarch can do no wrong. I am just saying here that it was our stinking, lying, perfidious government which was wrong and which the Supreme Court found had acted unlawfully. The queen was not part of that judgment. Read the judgement and you will find out for yourself.
Anyway, I guess this particular aspect of the Royals is probably done to death. The saga unfolds in other aspects.
As you say, quite a few things she could have done without crossing the line into politics.Jdsk wrote: ↑20 Sep 2021, 11:18am What should the Queen have done on receiving the request for prorogation?
1 The system is unfit for purpose, and any answer needs to be read in that light.
2 A competent head of state would have had a playbook ready.
3 Faced with this the monarch should have called a meeting of the Privy Council with her in attendance in say, two weeks from the request for prorogation which had been presented to her by... Privy Councillors. During that time the monarch should have taken steps to ensure that the Prime Minister had the confidence of the House of Commons.
That would have involved no new principles or processes. But it would have stopped the gaming over the timetable.
Jonathan
No-one can be required to do anything unlawful.
That's debatable
This may generate a bit of hatred - possibly for me!