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

To: naturalman1975

Does the queen’s wishes (leave/remain) have bearing, or is she obliged to follow the results?

Where does the queen lean on this issue, do you think?


120 posted on 06/23/2016 6:47:53 AM PDT by AFreeBird (BEST. ELECTION. EVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: AFreeBird
Does the queen’s wishes (leave/remain) have bearing, or is she obliged to follow the results?

Constitutionally, the Queen is meant to support the position of Her Majesty's Government - as David Cameron is pro-Remain, in public she must support that.

In private she has the constitutional right to be kept informed, to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn. The Prime Minister has a weekly, private, unrecorded and unminuted meeting with the Queen where they can frankly exchange their views. I would expect she has told him her opinion during those meetings.

Does the queen’s wishes (leave/remain) have bearing, or is she obliged to follow the results?

I have to be careful answering this - I have met the Queen and spoken to her on a number of occasions (I'm friends with two of her sons - having gone to school with the Prince of Wales, and having served alongside the Duke of York). I am not supposed to disclose anything Her Majesty has told me that could be controversial. So I need to make it 100% clear that I have never discussed this issue with the Queen and so cannot disclose anything she has told me.

Having said that, my feeling is that she would be personally supportive of the Leave campaign, on the basis that British sovereignty must remain supreme in the United Kingdom. That is my opinion, not based on anything she or any other member of the Royal family has told me.

There have been some reports in the British press that suggests this is her position as well, but the people who disclosed that information were not following the rules that I actually do do my utmost to respect.

Having said all of the above, Her Majesty would be allowed to act on her own behalf if she believed that the result of her not doing so would be absolutely disastrous for the United Kingdom - but I don't believe that she would regard the current situation anywhere near that seriously. If Europe was a Nazi state, or something, she might intervene - but she would not do so just because she disagreed with a decision, or even if she had moderate doubts about it. Except in a disastrous situation, she would respect the decisions of Parliament, her government, and her Prime Minister, as they are elected by the people of the United Kingdom and Britain is a Constitutional Monarchy where the democratic right of the people to elect a Parliament is a core right.

123 posted on 06/23/2016 6:59:22 AM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | 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