Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ole Okie
This speech has nothing to do with the Queen's own beliefs. It's a speech she is required to make by her Government as a Constitutional Monarch. It would be unconstitutional for her not to do so.

On political matters, the Queen is the servant of Parliament, unless exercising the reserve powers which would only be done to address a constitutional crisis.

The article is also, in my view, misrepresenting the speech which does not, in fact, refer to sexuality even once. It refers to racial discrimination, sex discrimination, skin colour, religion, and political beliefs explicitly. It does mention sexuality at all.

13 posted on 03/10/2013 5:12:31 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: naturalman1975

” It would be unconstitutional for her not to do so.”

LOL. Then the monarchy has clearly outlived its usefulness. The queen will suposedly use socialist code words like “gender equality” and “women empowerment”. Everyone knows what she’s talking about and I doubt that this is all a consensus in the “commonwealth”.


16 posted on 03/10/2013 5:31:26 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson