Kate Middleton admitted to hospital in labor

Just out of curiosity, how did you feel about the Queen endorsing the “Gay Marriage” decree?

She did no such thing.

She gave the Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament as she is constitutionally obliged to do. She does not have the power to do otherwise. The Royal Assent can only be refused on constitutional matters, and there's nothing in the recent laws that touch on British constitutional law.

No monarch has refused the Royal Assent since 1708. No monarch has even considered it since 1914 - do you think that's because they've personally agreed with every single law in the last 305 years? No, it's because the reign of Queen Anne (who was Queen in 1708) came at the beginning of the modern constitutional monarchy, and the constitutional conventions that the monarch would only intervene to preserve the forms of the British constitution.

The last time a monarch made any attempt to refuse the Royal Assent over a law they felt should be blocked on moral or religious grounds (specifically on the grounds that they felt it violated their Coronation Oath to uphold the Supremacy of the Church of England) was in 1829 when George IV wished to refuse assent to the Roman Catholic Relief Act. At that time, it was made clear by Parliament and his Ministers that the monarch no longer had the power to refuse assent on such grounds.

The way some sections of the media talked about recent events (headlines like "Queen approves gay marriage") give the impression the Queen personally endorsed this. She did not. She simply did what she is required to do under the constitution - gave Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament that had passed through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and where no constitutional issues were addressed, and where no constitutional principles were violated. I doubt she agrees with the law - but she has signed hundreds of laws she did not agree with over the years as is her duty.

And how will that work for the continuity of the Royal Family if an heir is “gay” so he/she can’t reproduce the old fashioned way?

If that happened, they would not produce a direct heir, so the crown would simply pass to whoever was next in the line of succession. The line of succession is known to a few thousand places at this point (seriously - anybody who is a legitimate non-Catholic descendent of Electress Sophia of Hanover (1630-1714) is in the line of succession to the British crown under the Act of Settlement of 1701 - she was chosen because she was a Granddaughter of King James I, and was Queen Anne's closest heir who was definitely Protestant - Sophia died shortly before Anne, so never became Queen but her son became King George I - and there are people who have worked out her descendants and therefore those in the line of succession to somewhere over 5000 places).

The succession is secure - if somebody can't produce a direct heir, the crown will pass to a sibling, Uncle, Aunt, Nephew, Niece, or cousin as needed - Queen Victoria was the neice of William IV who died without heirs (all his legitimate children predeceased him), Edward VIII was succeeded by his brother George VI when he abdicated without having any children.

Exactly...and rumor (or rumour...ahem) has it the queen and Lady Thatcher did not get along (or “get on”) because HM isn’t very socially conservative.

No, they didn't get along at first, but it had nothing to do with politics. The Queen is, actually, from what I have seen a social conservative, but she has to be apolitical constitutionally, and she's generally got on well with Labor Prime Ministers and conservative ones. Something I've noticed in my dealings with the Royal Family is that what they are above all else is patriots - utterly dedicated to their country - and that is so ingrained with them, that they tend to assume other people are the same way unless they prove otherwise. So they will believe that even those who disagree with them, sincerely want what is best for their country, and they respect that. But, anyway, eventually the Queen and Baroness Thatcher actually did become friends - the Queen gave Lady Thatcher two of Britain's highest Honours by making her a Lady Companion of the Garter, and a member of the Order or Merit. While most British honours are now given by the Queen on the advice of her government (that is, while she officially hands them out, the Prime Minister actually decides and 'recommends' people), those two are still entirely the decision of the Monarch - she is the only person who decides who gets them. Giving both of them to Lady Thatcher is a profound act of respect.

HM just endorsed (or sanctified or encapsulated...whatever) “gay marriage” in the UK so she has some sort of “role” in establishing law, albeit, for show, maybe.

As I've said, she didn't endorse it in any way. She gave Royal Assent as required under British constitutional law. She can only refuse Royal Assent if she judges a law raises constitutional concerns, and by a standard laid down by George V in 1914 (the last time a Monarch considered doing it), that it should only be done based on "convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster."

Bless you but doesn’t “gay marriage” fall under those auspices?
I think it does but who am I?
I can fault her for doing this, yes, I can.
Lovely that she honored Lady Thatcher -shows she is a smart woman because Thatcher really honored royalty during her time and, I believe , shored it up when needed.
While HM is a patriot, I agree, and her sense of duty is admirable, her acquiescence to abnormal social developments isn’t what her country and society in the UK need. Quite the contrary...
One of the interesting “fads” it seems the Royal Family have embraced is that of giving Islamists a pass when it comes to holding hostage British society. Even after the horrific beheading of a serving British soldier and Islamic protests in the small town that honors the British war dead with parades ( I forget the name of this town).
Where is the “patriotic” royal family as an antidote to this hate???
Don’t get me wrong, I am a student of British history and literature, both good and bad, but I hate hypocrisy and snobbery and feel you can’t have it both ways.
Sorry about the rant but you touched a nerve! Nevertheless, enjoy the moment of the birth of an heir to your throne...

Bless you but doesn’t “gay marriage” fall under those auspices?

No, it's got no constitutional implications whatsoever. Constitutional implications relate to the structure of the government - in 1914, the Bill that George V considered refusing Royal Assent to, was one giving 'Home Rule' to Ireland. To be a constitutional issue, a bill has to relate to how the Parliament is structured, or how the courts are structured, how long a government can stay in office without an election, who controls the budget, etc.

While HM is a patriot, I agree, and her sense of duty is admirable, her acquiescence to abnormal social developments isn’t what her country and society in the UK need.

Maybe not, but she has no power to intervene. No right to intervene.

Her only rights in this case are ones she may have exercised - the way it is normally expressed that she has the right to be kept informed, to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn her Prime Minister in private of her concerns - and only in private. They have a weekly meeting which is totally private, where if she felt these laws were damaging to Britain, she would have told him that (she would have 'warned'). But if he decides to proceed, she must not make any public intervention. That is the way it works. The Monarch is apolitical, and cannot get involved in political controversies.

One of the interesting “fads” it seems the Royal Family have embraced is that of giving Islamists a pass when it comes to holding hostage British society. Even after the horrific beheading of a serving British soldier and Islamic protests in the small town that honors the British war dead with parades ( I forget the name of this town).

Well, actually, that's interesting because the name of that town is actually important in showing why I think you are wrong on this point. Until 2011, the name of that town was Wootton Bassett but in March 2011, it's name was changed by order of the Queen to Royal Wootton Bassett - the first time in over 100 years that the Monarch has bestowed Royal status on a town. This is something the Queen does have the power to do personally and she did it out of recognition as to what that town does.

You are very kind to go to such length to counter some of my statements but as I just stated, unless the Queen is worried about a Republican out break, to stand against a morally questionable statue as the Defender of the Faith might be worth the fight. Regardless of the precedence...maybe I’m too much a Colonialist because I don’t get the “go along to get along” mentality. And because of this acquiescence, how do you KNOW she takes issue with many of the laws she must assent to? And why should we care what she thinks and what difference does it make if she does? As a patriot, she should make her thoughts known, if not publicly, privately to her government. It was revealed recently that Prince Charles has used his influence as much as he can, no?
And while I maybe seeming ridiculous on the issue of “gay marriage”, why would the throne pass to the next in line who may have a “normal” heterosexual relationship and reproduce that way because homosexuality is now considered “normal” with the recognition of “gay marriage”? Why should it be different for the Royal Family? Again, you can’t have it both ways, regardless of your station in life.
I read this post of yours after the more recent one so forgive the reverse response...
Finally, thanks for the review of British Royal history from the Regency on...
I know it very well.

Well, first of all, a Republican outbreak is exactly what she would get. If the Queen ever intervened politically on an issue - except during a constitutional crisis where she is supposed to, republicanism would surge. The reason republicanism is only a minor feature in British political life is precisely because the monarch never acts politically. She's not supposed to. Quite frankly, if she refused to sign this Act of Parliament, Parliament would probably wind up forcing her to abdicate - because it's not something she is allowed to do. The last time a King tried to act against Parliament in the way you are describing, he was forced to abdicate (James II) and Parliament appointed William and Mary in his place. The Queen is immensely personally popular - but she would cease to be so if she intervened politically. It doesn't even matter if people agreed with her or disagreed with her - the mere fact she had acted politically would condemn her.

Regardless of the precedence...maybe I’m too much a Colonialist because I don’t get the “go along to get along” mentality.

But that isn't the mentality. The mentality is more like "As a constitutional monarch, my duty is to uphold the constitution."

And because of this acquiescence, how do you KNOW she takes issue with many of the laws she must assent to?

Well, we don't know for certain - but we do know she is a devout Christian, from her behaviours throughout her life. And with hundreds of laws that she gives the Royal Assent to, the odds are she must have disagreed with some of them.

And why should we care what she thinks and what difference does it make if she does?

To a great extent, constitutionally, it should not matter. The Queen is not supposed to have political opinions - at least not ones that become public.

As a patriot, she should make her thoughts known, if not publicly, privately to her government.

She does. She has a private meeting with her Prime Minister once a week expressly for that purpose. She can also have similar meetings with any other Minister, if she chooses to. But these meetings and other communications are private.

It was revealed recently that Prince Charles has used his influence as much as he can, no?

It has been reported that he has, yes - but he's done so constitutionally by communicating in private with them - any public information has been leaked (and may not be true anyway) - they are allowed to do so in private communications. And the Queen does so, just as the Prince of Wales does.

The Prince of Wales is actually slightly less limited than the Queen - constitutionally, the restrictions on him aren't as strong - he has to be very careful though, primarily, because he could become King at any time, and it would be difficult if his views were known to be different from His Majesty's Government. That's one reason why he made so many speeches about the environment - during the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, it was one of the only issues he generally agreed with them on, so it was safe.

And while I maybe seeming ridiculous on the issue of “gay marriage”, why would the throne pass to the next in line who may have a “normal” heterosexual relationship and reproduce that way because homosexuality is now considered “normal” with the recognition of “gay marriage”?

Because of the laws of succession to Royal and Noble Titles. A child is only a legitimate heir to a Royal or Noble title if born in wedlock as the biological heir of the holder of the title and their legal spouse.

A gay couple can't produce a child in that way.

The point is actually quite settled in British law - only biological children count. The issue where it has come up is with adopted children - let's say an Earl adopted a son. The son of an Earl is a Lord and the adopted child would be entitled to be called Lord John Smith (or whatever), but he can't inherit the title - you have to be a legitimate (born to a married father and mother) heir to inherit a title.

That could theoretically be changed by laws in the future, but is not changed by the current legal changes.

Why should it be different for the Royal Family? Again, you can’t have it both ways, regardless of your station in life.

Well, yes, they can, because the Royal succession (and succession to Peerages as well) are governed by specific laws that are different from the laws that govern 'normal' inheritance.

To take the last first, good for her to infer Royal sanction for Wooten Bassett but perhaps a little too late and the beheading of the serviceman remains ignored unless I’ve missed something (which I willacknowledge if wrong).

The Queen had a public engagement where she toured Drummer Rigby's barracks eight days after he was murdered, and met privately with a number of his closest comrades during that tour.

You have to admit the “hijacking” of Britain by the Islamists is pretty astounding...Sharia Law recognized in Britain, really?

No, not really. Sharia law has not been recognised in Britain - that's a misrepresentation by some of the media. This is the current British government position on this issue, most recently restated in Parliament in May:

Sharia law has no jurisdiction under the law of England and Wales and the courts do not recognise it. There is no parallel court system in this country, and we have no intention of changing the position in any part of England and Wales.

I do understand the subtlety of what a Royal Assent involves but again, as a Colonialist, if you are the head of state, why not challenge the status quo? (Could this be the reason we countries are so dissimilar? I smell tea in the harbor!)

Because she's the Head of State of a Constitutional Monarchy, not an absolute monarchy or any other form of monarchy, but a constitutional monarchy. She has to follow the rules.

In 1776, when the American colonies rebelled against the monarchy, it did not have quite the same form it has today - some reform had occurred by that stage (in the late 1600s/early 1700s) but the Great Reform of the 1820s and 1830s, had not yet occurred. You've also set up a Constitution in the United States, which deliberately and explicitly gives your President a right to veto laws - and also sets in place a set of procedures that allows that veto to be overridden. The British constitution does not allow the Monarch to veto, except on express constitutional issues, and has no procedure to oppose a veto if one is made, except to remove the Monarch or abolish the Monarchy.

The Monarchy is the ultimate brake on a government acting illegally. In Britain, this has not happened in a long time - but in Australia, it has. In 1975 - so not that long ago - Gough Whitlam, the Prime Minister of the time, had lost control of the Australian Senate and so could not get a budget passed by Parliament. He was unable to govern, but he refused to do what he was supposed to do in such a situation which was call for a general election. Instead he proposed to continue to govern by forcing the Commonwealth Bank to give him money. The crisis was resolved when the Queen's representative in Australia, the Governor General, Sir John Kerr, used the powers of the Crown to remove him from office, and replace him with the Leader of the Opposition as Prime Minister (who immediately called for an election). Sir John Kerr could only do this because he was apolitical - not personally (he'd been a member of the Australian Labor Party as a younger man) but constitutionally.

Our current Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, is the mother-in-law of a government Minister (Bill Shorten, MP, Minister for Schools Education). When she was appointed, Shorten had not married her daughter, or she probably wouldn't have been appointed, but the point is, because we know and trust she will only act apolitically, the system continues to work.

Britain hasn't had to deal with a Prime Minister doing what he should - but after their last election, when they had a hung Parliament which has lead to the current coalition, initially Gordon Brown was trying to stay on as Prime Minister by forming his own coalition with Nick Clegg.

His final conversation with Nick Clegg as Prime Minister, reportedly included the following statement as to why he was now resigning:

Nick, Nick. I can't hold on any longer. Nick. I've got to go to the palace. The country expects me to do that. I have to go. The Queen expects me to go. I can't hold on any longer.

I do not know if the Queen had told him this or if he, understanding the constitutional situation as he should have, simply realised it, but it illustrates why the Queen's constitutional powers still matter. And why they must be preserved by the Monarch always acting constitutionally, and avoiding getting involved in non-constitutional political matters. When we have a constitutional crisis, we don't want a situation where the Monarch was abolished because it has intervened on other issues.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.