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.