When royals try to be entrepreneurial or work with billionaires, it doesn’t usually go well. Still, there’s always the acting, says Guardian columnist Gaby Hinsliff
‘Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows’.
Those are the words of the Enacting Formula – the standard pattern of words which, with certain variations, precede the clauses of Bills at Westminster. In a single sentence, they capture the meaning of Parliamentary sovereignty.
They clearly don’t say that the legislature is the only source of this sovereignty – in other words, of law-making power. Rather, they tell a story. It is one of that power being shared by the Queen, through the executive branch of government, with the legislature.
That’s why it’s said that we’re governed by the Queen-in-Parliament: it is the place where the monarch, her Government, and the legislature come together. Parliament should work with harmony of a stately dance (come to think of it, “stately” is le mot juste), in which each dancer has his or her part to play. Some of the most riveting steps in their movements came about because of the English Civil War. The dance continues to this day.
The best way of understanding the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday is to grasp that it reads the dance very differently – and, frankly, wrongly. “As long ago as 1611,” its ruling declared, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”. The Court clearly has that civil war, and long-run up to it, very much in mind.
But the King (or, in this case, the Queen) is no longer “the government” – a truth that the learned judges seem to have forgotten as soon as they uttered it. Government is now a shared exercise between “the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty” and those “Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons”. Or, to put it another way, Boris Johnson in no way resembles a Stuart Monarch. Quite apart from anything else, Charles I did not offer the Roundheads the chance to vote him out of office.
Neither is Dominic Grieve John Hampden; nor Lady Hale, Sir Edward Coke; nor Dominic Cummings “Black Tom Tyrant” – the Earl of Stafford, Charles I’s formidable adviser, who was eventually sacrificed as a scapegoat. If anyone thought they were. Above all, this Gollum of a Speaker is not, repeat not, John Lenthall.
Donald Trump will meet the Queen when he visits the UK in July – and it represents a humiliating slapdown for Theresa May.
Trump is due in Britain for a working visit in mid-July, after months of speculation over when the U.S. president would visit what traditionally has been the United States’ closest ally.
But comments made by his ambassador in London suggest he’s more interested in meeting the Queen than the Prime Minister.
Asked if Trump would meet the Queen, U.S. Ambassador Woody Johnson told Sky News: “Yes. He has to see the British head of state,” adding that other details of the trip had not been finalised.
He added: “Meeting her majesty is the most important thing, because she is head of state.”
The extraordinary scenes on Saturday as the Queen welcomed an American actor into her family cloaked an uncomfortable reality. Despite the apparent public appreciation of the pomp and pageantry, the monarchy’s hold on its position is nothing like as stable as the hysteria might suggest.
Nor should the 230 pages of coverage of the event in Sunday’s national newspapers blind us to the fact that the days of newsprint are numbered too. Without denying that there was an intense and genuine public interest in the marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, we need to remove the blinkers to view it for what it is: a turning point in Britain’s history.
In truth, two institutions, monarchy and the press, are walking hand in hand towards their doom after 400 years of interdependence. Viewed rationally, we can see how popular newspapers – which is an oxymoronic term nowadays – spent months manufacturing synthetic public excitement about the marriage. Their coverage, far from reflecting modernity, was marked by all the old tropes: fawning fascination, carping criticism, preposterous speculation and the elevation of the trivial to an implausible level of significance.
Source: Royal wedding shows growing irrelevance of monarchy d press | Roy Greenslade | The Guardian
Diana’s revelations came from interviews with her voice coach Peter Settelen, where she spoke candidly on hers and Charles’broken marriage, their ‘very odd’ sex life and her upbringing.
Such a thoughtful person who will not pay her cleaners a Living Wage, however, they may eventually receive a good pension.
The London Living wage is £9.40 per hour, but the advert does not state the hours to be worked. To earn £16755 per annum they would need to work less than 7 hours per day.
‘………… By Hamish Macdonell
Downing Street, we are told, wants to ‘re-set’ the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood after the referendum. UK ministers apparently want an atmosphere of ‘co-operation; to exist between the two governments.
Well, that’s great but it only seems to be going one way. Just take a look at what Nicola Sturgeon has decided to do over the funding over the Royal Family. Under the Smith Commission proposals, Scotland is going to get control over all Crown Estate assets north of the border. At the moment, the Crown Estates profits are used to fund the Royal Family.
So, if the Crown Estate loses a chunk of its assets, it will lose a chunk of its profits and the Queen will lose out. Scotland will simply be taking the money that currently goes to pay for the Royal Family and spending it on whatever it likes. Scottish ministers could have decided to be conciliatory and to agree to send the same amount south to pay for the Queen as comes out of their Crown Estate profits – about £2 million. But they decided to metaphorically stick two fingers up at the Royal Family, the Treasury and Downing Street and say, No, we will spend on it whatever we like, if you want to fund the Queen, take it out of general taxation.
It is also worth bearing in mind the timing of this announcement. Ms Sturgeon is due to meet the Queen on Wednesday for her first formal appointment as Scotland’s First Minister. This decision to snub the Royal Family financially may cause some embarrassment for aides on both sides ahead of the meeting, but it is not being done to curry favour with the Queen. It is being done to appeal to the now almost 100,000 SNP members who still harbour grievances over the referendum and want Ms Sturgeon to show an aggressive approach when dealing with the British State.
She is certainly doing that and, what’s more, echoes of the old Ms Sturgeon are starting to emerge. Despite all her talk of running Scotland by consensus, she was one of the SNP MSPs who boycotted a visit of the Queen to Holyrood in 2003. She also refused to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen when first elected as an MSP in 1999, preferring instead to swear allegiance to the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. In the short time she has been in charge of the Scottish Government she has effectively declared war on Scottish landowners and picked a fight with the Queen.
Anyone who doesn’t quite know which side of the fence she was coming from, should certainly be aware of it now. Downing Street officials may be keen to ‘re-set’ the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood. However, if they are not careful, they will find that Ms Sturgeon has already done it for them. …………’
The Queen, Elizabeth II when it comes to politics, the monarch is ‘neutral’. The Queen doesn’t get involved in running the government. Nor does she publicly say what she thinks about political issues. This is why people sometimes say the monarch is ‘above politics’. We have a Constitutional Monarchy. In England, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 led to a constitutional English monarchy restricted by laws such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701
Can you see Charles doing this?
He may cause a turn of the tide and the majority of the country could then want a Republic. This would leave the door open for Mr Blair to become President, not a prospect I would relish, as he created many problems for the country when he was Prime Minister, although he does not believe so.