The Queen versus Gordon Brown

[thaddeus6th]

There's an off-chance he could be officially known as King Arthur.

[the smiling weirwood]

I wouldn't expect her to send letters, since she's not the one who sent them off to die. People die in the name of Jesus Christ or Allah all the time and they don't send letters.

I'm not equating the Queen with god, mind you, I'm just pointing out that it's a symbolic act when people say for Queen and country.

[Peter Graham]

I get the impression that he would be quite happy to be a minor, eccentric country squire shuffling about the huge library of a grand house out in the sticks somewhere and occasionally putting on his tweed, going out and blowing away small woodland animals with a 12-bore

Sounds idyllic to me......

I'm not equating the Queen with god, mind you, I'm just pointing out that it's a symbolic act when people say for Queen and country.

Not really. The Queen is our Head of State. The government is her government and Brown is her Prime Minister. The armed forces are her armed forces (Royal Navy, Royal Air Force) and she is Commander in Chief. Her officers swear allegiance to her and hold their commissions by her grant. If the chips were down and we had a second civil war, I wouldn't mind betting that most of our armed forces would actually turn out for the Queen over Parliament.

No law is binding until it has the royal assent and no Parliament can be dissolved (and therefore no election called) until Her Majesty OK's it. Her Majesty also secures safe passage for her subjects by exhorting foreign customs johnnies to be nice to us on the first page of our passports.

OK - in reality we have a constitutional monarchy in which Parliament holds the real power and the Queen is held back for opening things, waving at people and encouraging tourists to part with their cash, but strictly speaking, she is in control. The fact that she is not actually able to exercise any real control because of the way things have developed is by the by.

Regards

Peter

[pyan]

Originally Posted by High Eight

Despite all the jokes about the longevity of his mother, I don't think that Charles is all that desperate to be King anyway.

The longer the Queen, gawd bless 'er, lives, the shorter Charles's reign is likely to be. Look at Victoria (64 years) and her son Bertie (Edward VII, 9 years)

The chances are that Charles's son William Arthur Philip Louis (who almost certainly will be William V, given the other choices - King Louis I??), will be King by 2025 anyway, as Charles may abdicate in favour of him. One thing the Queen cannot do is abdicate in favour of William, by the way.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

OK - in reality we have a constitutional monarchy in which Parliament holds the real power and the Queen is held back for opening things, waving at people and encouraging tourists to part with their cash, but strictly speaking, she is in control. The fact that she is not actually able to exercise any real control because of the way things have developed is by the by.

I am very prepared to prostrate myself before your superior knowledge on this, but does she truly hold de jure as opposed to de facto power, Peter? I never did constitutional law, but isn't it the case that is she refused, say, to give the Royal Assent, then it is possible for the executive to get around it?

Mind you, the bit I loved from my Property Law is that the Queen (?and the Duchy of Lancaster) owns all the land, and the rest of us just hold it from her. Pity we abolished all those old-fashioned fuedal tenures - watching some bigwigs trying to raise a few hundred knights could be fun.

J

[pyan]

Originally Posted by TJ

...does she truly hold de jure as opposed to de facto power,

It seems so, if Wikipedia is to believed in this instance...

In the Westminster system of government, executive authority is often split between a de jure executive authority of a head of state and a de facto executive authority of a prime minister and cabinet who implement executive powers in the name of the de jure executive authority. In the United Kingdom, the Sovereign is the de jure executive authority, even though executive decisions are made by the elected Prime Minister and his Cabinet on the Sovereign's behalf, hence the term Her Majesty's Government.

(My emphasis)

wiki/De_facto

[Peter Graham]

I am very prepared to prostrate myself before your superior knowledge on this, but does she truly hold de jure as opposed to de facto power, Peter?

I think she does, but I might be wrong. I believe that it's only good old convention which prevents her from ever exercising actual power. Perhaps the current shower of joyless Cabinet authoritarians should show a little more respect for the long-cherished but unwritten agreements which uderpin our constitution if they want to avoid a one way trip to the headsman via Traitor's Gate.

I never did constitutional law, but isn't it the case that is she refused, say, to give the Royal Assent, then it is possible for the executive to get around it?

I don't think so. They can get around the Lords by using the Parliament Acts, but I'm not sure there is any equivalent to get around the Royal Assent.

the bit I loved from my Property Law is that the Queen (?and the Duchy of Lancaster) owns all the land, and the rest of us just hold it from her. Pity we abolished all those old-fashioned fuedal tenures - watching some bigwigs trying to raise a few hundred knights could be fun.

Absolutely. But don't forget that Her Majesty holds her power by reason of her divine right to rule, so ultimately God owns Britain, which is fair enough given that he made it in the first place (if Genesis is to be believed). The Duchy still holds the County Palatine of Lancaster and bits of Cumbria still form part of the Duchy to this day - the Duchy is no respecter of the 1974 changes.

I don't know about you, but round here yeomen like myself still have to attend the wapentake on an annual basis...

Regards,

Peter

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

I don't know about you, but round here yeomen like myself still have to attend the wapentake** on an annual basis...

A yeoman? Now that has ruined my image of you. I had you pegged as one of Sellar & Yeatman's 'eaoldermen'...

J

**have just realised why I always think of rye bread when I see 'wapentake'

[High Eight]

Originally Posted by pyan

The longer the Queen, gawd bless 'er, lives, the shorter Charles's reign is likely to be. Look at Victoria (64 years) and her son Bertie (Edward VII, 9 years)

The chances are that Charles's son William Arthur Philip Louis (who almost certainly will be William V, given the other choices - King Louis I??), will be King by 2025 anyway, as Charles may abdicate in favour of him. One thing the Queen cannot do is abdicate in favour of William, by the way.

King Arthur the....... Oh, yeah, see what you mean.

[Clansman]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

I think she does, but I might be wrong. I believe that it's only good old convention which prevents her from ever exercising actual power. Perhaps the current shower of joyless Cabinet authoritarians should show a little more respect for the long-cherished but unwritten agreements which uderpin our constitution if they want to avoid a one way trip to the headsman via Traitor's Gate.



I don't think so. They can get around the Lords by using the Parliament Acts, but I'm not sure there is any equivalent to get around the Royal Assent.



Absolutely. But don't forget that Her Majesty holds her power by reason of her divine right to rule, so ultimately God owns Britain, which is fair enough given that he made it in the first place (if Genesis is to be believed). The Duchy still holds the County Palatine of Lancaster and bits of Cumbria still form part of the Duchy to this day - the Duchy is no respecter of the 1974 changes.

I don't know about you, but round here yeomen like myself still have to attend the wapentake on an annual basis...

Regards,

Peter

Similar in Canada, where the Queen in Right of Canada (or in Right of each of the Provinces, given our confederation system), through her Governor General (for Canada, and the Lieutenant-Governors for each province) must give Royal Assent. The GG can refuse assent, but that has not happened since 1925 (or was it 1926), when GG Byng refused to drop a writ for an election in a minority parliament (he didn't actually refuse to sign legislation, just refused to call an election, and asked the opposition to attempt to form a government).

Neither Parliament nor the provinicial Legislatures can get around Royal Assent. A refusal of assent would mean a lack of royal confidence in Her Majesty's advisors, and a request of the opposition to form government. If the opposition cannot do so with the support of Parliament, then an election would be needed. This has not happened in modern history, and if it did, it would likely mean the end of the monarchy and royal assent, at least as we know it, unless the PM was waaaaay off base, and the public backed the play of the GG.

Ostensibly, the monarch (or the viceroy) is the last defender of the constitution. Should the PM try to pull a Hitler and violate the Constitution along with Parliamentary sovereignty and tradition, the monarch or viceroy could refuse to give Royal Assent. Hard to see such a situation, but, with our current Harper (uber Tory) government, anything is possible.

[Peter Graham]

Hi Clansman,

A great post, if I might say so. I was wondering if it worked the same way in those countries where Her Majesty was still head of state.

So perhaps the next question is how each of us would turn out in the event of a clash between Crown and Parliament. To extend Judge's reference to Sellars and Yeatman (authors of the seminal "1066 And All That", and if you haven't read it you really should!), can we still see Parliament as "Right but Repulsive" and the Crown as "Wrong but Wromantic"?

I always have seen things this way in the past, but it is now difficult to see a single law which Parliament have proposed during the last ten years which I would have turned out to defend (or, rather, sent my vassals out to defend) had Her Majesty put the royal biro away and remained resolutely not amused.

I stand by, ready to raise the Westmorland Yeomanry in defence of Good Queen Bess! Cry God for England*, Harry** and St George***

Regards,

Peter

PS: Judge - the similarities to the Ancient Britons are remarkable, although I don't live in a wheelbarrow.....

* and the rest of the UK, her commonwealth, her dependancies, colonies, crown lands and protectorates

** a pudding-headed Norman thug by descent

*** never came closer to England than Constantinople.

[Clansman]

1066 And All That is the best book on English history of all time. Period. Outrageously funny, too.

And I will issue the hue and cry to the vales of Leeds (Eastern Ontario Leeds, that is) and the Highlands of Lanark County. Cry God for Her Majesty, for Canada*, Sir John A. Macdonald**, Sir Wilfred Laurier***, and Pierre Elliot Trudeau***!

*totally independent from England and the UK since 1931 with the Statute of Westminster, though some argue 1982 with patriation of the Constitution (because it took us over 50 years to agree on the darn thing, and even then, it wasn't total agreement, and there are still problems...)

** a drunken Scot Canadian whose greatest quote was "A British subject I was born, and a British subject I shall die". And he did. He's on our tenner.

*** a French Canadian Prime Minister (the word Quebecois had yet to be invented) who succeeded in opening up the West of Canada, started the Canadian navy (in an Imperial age that was no small feat) who graces our five dollar bill, and whose name is on one of our most famous hotels.

**** a French Canadian Prime Minister who spearheaded the patriation of the Canadian Constitution, including a Charter of Rights, but who managed to exclude Quebec in the process of doing so. Led to a revitalization of the Quebec sovereignty movement years later, after a Conservative PM poked the darn hornets' nest with a great big stick called The Meech Lake Accord. Trudeau's greatest quote? "Just watch me", in response to a reporter asking him how far he would go in stopping the FLQ bombings/kidnappings of 1970. (or "Fuddle duddle", for those willing to google it). He has an airport named after him, but no money yet.