The "Royals" Thread

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

sjs wrote: 18 Sep 2021, 9:46pm If the only role of the monarch is to tick whatever box is put in front of her, she can't be blamed for doing that. But a big rubber stamp would be a lot simpler and cheaper.
It's called the Great Seal and it involves wax rather than rubber.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_Realm
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Oldjohnw »

You might say - and some have said - that it was just as political for the sovereign to sign as to refuse. Not so. Her role is to do that recommended by the legitimately elected government of the day and the vote of the House of Commons. However much we detest Johnson and his corrupt crew, they were legitimate elected. (And part of her role is, in fact, to prorogue parliament when requested). So then it was a matter for the other arm of Government: the judiciary. They examined the case and found the government had acted unlawfully. Their judgement was stunning in its rejection and HMQ didn’t get a mention.

She might, of course, privately like Johnson. As a wealthy, privileged, entitled elitist herself she might actually agree with him and his running down of the plebs. I have no idea, although I suspect she might not like him selling the whole kingdom off to the highest bidder, which he seems intent on doing
John
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by pete75 »

Oldjohnw wrote: 19 Sep 2021, 2:41am
pete75 wrote: 18 Sep 2021, 11:24pm
Oldjohnw wrote: 18 Sep 2021, 6:39pm

Touche! Stalemate, I guess. I have the constitutional lawyers on my side though😃
Yep and I have the judges who declared it unlawful on my side. A judgement checkmates a lawyer's opinion any day.
The 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.
If the prorogation was unlawful then all who made it happen were acting unlawfully.

The trouble with you bloody Royalists is you seem to think the monarch can do no wrong. The rest of us don't believe in the divine right of kings - or queen's.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Oldjohnw »

pete75 wrote: 19 Sep 2021, 8:15am

If the prorogation was unlawful then all who made it happen were acting unlawfully.

The trouble with you bloody Royalists is you seem to think the monarch can do no wrong. The rest of us don't believe in the divine right of kings - or queen's.
That 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.
John
sjs
Posts: 1306
Joined: 24 Jan 2010, 10:08pm
Location: Hitchin

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by sjs »

thirdcrank wrote: 19 Sep 2021, 7:27am
sjs wrote: 18 Sep 2021, 9:46pm If the only role of the monarch is to tick whatever box is put in front of her, she can't be blamed for doing that. But a big rubber stamp would be a lot simpler and cheaper.
It's called the Great Seal and it involves wax rather than rubber.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_Realm
Alien lizard maybe. Seal? Surely not.
Debs
Posts: 1335
Joined: 19 May 2017, 7:05pm
Location: Powys

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Debs »

pete75 wrote: 19 Sep 2021, 8:15am ...The rest of us don't believe in the divine right of kings - or queen's.

Jdsk
Posts: 24630
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

"Has Andrew been failed by his lawyers?"
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/has-an ... is-lawyers

Typically excellent piece by Rozenberg.

Jonathan
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

When I read the Telegraph piece he's commenting on, I assumed it was an attempt to blame lawyers for this mess. Lawyers give advice but it's the client who gives them instructions.
Jdsk
Posts: 24630
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

And I should have said... ignore the title!

Jonathan
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by pete75 »

Oldjohnw wrote: 19 Sep 2021, 8:19am
pete75 wrote: 19 Sep 2021, 8:15am

If the prorogation was unlawful then all who made it happen were acting unlawfully.

The trouble with you bloody Royalists is you seem to think the monarch can do no wrong. The rest of us don't believe in the divine right of kings - or queen's.
That 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.
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.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Jdsk
Posts: 24630
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

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
Psamathe
Posts: 17647
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

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
As you say, quite a few things she could have done without crossing the line into politics.

e.g. she could have said "I am uncertain as to the lawfulness of your advice and thus need to consult my judges before following your recommendation". Reasonable non-political response to unlawful advice.

Ian
Jdsk
Posts: 24630
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

Oldjohnw wrote: 19 Sep 2021, 8:02amTheir judgement was stunning in its rejection and HMQ didn’t get a mention.
No-one can be required to do anything unlawful.

But the applications didn't include any request for review of the monarch's actions, so we don't know whether they were unlawful or not.

At the tactical level I think that it was very wise not to include anything of the sort. It would have complicated the issue, and it wasn't necessary in order to win. (A bit like the lawyer's maxim of not asking a question to which you don't know the answer.)

Jonathan
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Oldjohnw wrote: 19 Sep 2021, 8:02amHowever much we detest Johnson and his corrupt crew, they were legitimate elected.
That's debatable :P
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
JohnW
Posts: 6667
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by JohnW »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 20 Sep 2021, 12:41pm
Oldjohnw wrote: 19 Sep 2021, 8:02amHowever much we detest Johnson and his corrupt crew, they were legitimate elected.
That's debatable :P
This may generate a bit of hatred - possibly for me!
What we've seen of the Queen - as distinct from the English Ruling Class - is that she's a human being.
I can't say that about the ruling class brigade - the rich hurray-Henry's - who have no idea about humanity - only their own wealth and power, and the preservation and growth of it.
Perversely I see Boris as being a bit more human that most of the ruling class - although like most of us, most of what I see/hear of him is via television.
For far too long it's the ruling class that have been elected - lawfully, but whether legitimately is possibly "debatable", considering the influence and the actions and behaviour of the press.
Is Rupert Murdoch dead yet?
A problem with the last previous election was, in my opinion,that it was a choice between bunions and a bad knee (although I've had neither).
When Theresa May was being pilloried by the English Ruling Class (or would you say 'leading Tories?).didn't Boris give his word that he wasn't 'interested' in being prime minister?
Now this will raise some comment,but as we are at the moment, I'd be much happier if Downing Street was occupied by the Queen and Theresa May...............and wait for another Clement Attlee to appear.
Post Reply