Queen Elizabeth set to become longest reigning British monarch

The Toronto Sun ^ | Sept 6 2015 | CHRISTINA BLIZZARD

[onyx]

Queen Elizabeth II is most popular monarch: Poll



Britain's Queen Elizabeth receives a posy at the annual Braemar Highland Gathering in Braemar, Scotland, Britain September 5, 2015.
Queen Elizabeth will become Britain's longest-ever serving monarch on September 9.



Britain's Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip watch the sack race at the annual Braemar Highland Gathering in Braemar, Scotland, Britain September 5, 201.



Britain's Queen Elizabeth (2nd L), Prince Philip (L), Prince Charles (2nd R) and Autumn Phillips (R) watch the sack race at the annual Braemar Highland Gathering in Braemar, Scotland, Britain September 5, 201

5

Britain's Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles watch the sack race at the annual Braemar Highland Gathering in Braemar, Scotland, Britain September 5, 2015.



Britain's Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip (L) and Prince Charles watch the sack race at the annual Braemar Highland Gathering in Braemar, Scotland, Britain September 5, 2015

[naturalman1975]

Why haven’t the monarchy lost their heads? Do they really need these in-breds sitting around high on the hog and doing absolutely nothing?

A serious answer for you - the way the British constitution has developed, the existence of the Monarchy is the most fundamental break on a Prime Minister or Parliament becoming tyrannical. If the Monarchy was abolished, there would be no clear constitutional power to stop a Prime Minister from refusing to go to an election, or to resign if he or she lost the confidence of the House, for example.

Because of the existence of the Monarchy and the knowledge that the Monarch would step in, if a government ever exceeded its authority, no British government has actually done so, so it can easily look like the Monarchy serves no purpose. But it's very existence and the power to step in keeps things stable.

You can actually see this if you look at the Commonwealth countries - because while it hasn't happened in the UK, it has actually happened in reasonably recent history in some of the Commonwealth Realms, where governments have tried to exceed their authority and powers, and only been stopped because the Crown (in the form of the King or Queen's representative in those countries, the Governor General or a Governor) stepped in. The best example of this occurred in Australia in 1975 - not that long ago at all, really. A socialist Prime Minister (Gough Whitlam) and his Labor government wound up unable to effectively govern the country because of a series of fairly complicated events I won't go into, leaving him with no real constitutional choice but to ask for Parliament to be dissolved and for a new election to be called - something Whitlam did not want to do, because he knew he would lose (due to massive economic incompetence and corrupt behaviour on the parts of some of his Cabinet, even though he himself was probably not corrupt). The crisis actually reached the stage on 11th November 1975 that Sir John Kerr, the Governor General, the Queen's appointed representative in Australia - did have to intervene, and dismiss the entire Whitlam government from office appointing the Leader of the Opposition as temporary Prime Minister (having already established that he would immediately ask for an election). This is just one example - there are others - about how the powers of the Crown are essential to preventing a government or Prime Minister from exceeding their authority. They are the final brake.

They haven't had to have been as obviously used in the UK (although the Queen has actually used her powers on a handful of occasions - perhaps most notably when she used her powers as Queen to appoint Sir Alec Douglas-Holme Prime Minister in 1963, after the Conservative Party realised they didn't actually have an official method to choose a new leader and Prime Minister when Harold MacMillan became too ill to continue in office - the Queen agreed to use her reserve powers, but told them to come up with a process so this wouldn't happen again - an example of how the Monarch can use her influence to make a process more democratic), but the still exist and they still matter. After the 2010 election, when the Labor government under Gordon Brown lost their majority, Brown initially remained as Prime Minister while David Cameron (Conservative) tried to negotiate a coalition deal with Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrats). What Brown said to Nick Clegg in a phone call just before he resigned is telling:

"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."

We do not know if the Queen had actually spoken to Gordon Brown, because such a conversation, by convention, would be kept private - but even if she hadn't, he was quite rightly describing the constitutional situation. He did the right thing, so she did not have to intervene - and hopefully, most British Prime Ministers would do the same. But if they ever don't...

(It works the other way as well - the British Parliament can remove the Monarch, or, in fact, dissolve the entire Monarchy, by a simple vote - so a Monarch also cannot act as a tyrant - it is a genuine balance of powers.)

This probably isn't a system anybody would design from scratch if they were trying to design a new system of government. It's one that has developed over quite literally a thousand years into one that currently gives the United Kingdom an extremely stable government - you don't mess with that lightly. It would not be impossible to change it, but it would not be easy and nobody is sure that what would emerge would work better. The US has made a republican system work very well, but it was designed by genius patriots - can you see any James Madisons or Thomas Jeffersons among those in charge of the UK today?

[Jimmy Valentine]

Thanks for this. Interesting and informative. A side note is that the Monarchy bring huge tourist dollars the the country much more thN it costs

[bmwcyle]

Went to England three times. I did not go to any waste of time of any royal crap. It did not have any attraction for me. It is only women who what to be a princess.

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

He won’t defend himself. He probably wouldn’t like me doing it.

* * *

Very interesting! Thank you for that closer look. I hope you’ll post more accurate articles about him here from time to time, as you find them.

[odawg]

“In 1933, it wasn’t known as “the Nazi salute”. It goes back to the Roman era, the Nazis just tainted it.”

Up until WWII, that was the way Americans saluted the flag while saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

[Jimmy Valentine]

Hope you did not go for the cuisine! :/

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

"But if a combat situation had developed, his job was to deliver Royal Marine commandos to and from battle. And even in peacetime, men doing that job lost their lives in training accidents."

LOL, you know as well as I do that there isn't a chance in hell the heir to the throne would have been allowed to do anything so dangerous during wartime. The risk of him being captured and held hostage by a foreign enemy would have been completely unacceptable.

[naturalman1975]

LOL, you know as well as I do that there isn't a chance in hell the heir to the throne would have been allowed to do anything so dangerous during wartime. The risk of him being captured and held hostage by a foreign enemy would have been completely unacceptable.

I simply don't agree. There is a long standing policy (whether it is official or unofficial is debated) that the 'heir and the spare' both can't be allowed to serve in a situation of particular danger, in order to preserve the succession, and this policy has been followed recently with regards to Princes William and Harry, where Prince William was not allowed to serve in a combat situation because Prince Harry was - but that was really only because Prince Harry joined the services before Prince William did, as he chose not to to to university like his older brother did and so he got himself towards a combat situation first. If Prince William had gone to Sandhurst straight out of school, it's quite possible he would have been the one in combat while Prince Harry was denied.

In the 1970s, when the Prince of Wales was serving actively, the 'spare' was Prince Andrew. They would not have let both of them risk their lives in combat, but as Andrew was still a schoolboy at that stage, that wasn't of concern. By the time Prince Andrew became a Naval officer and served in the Falklands, the Prince of Wales had left active service - but again, the heir and the spare rule would have applied.

Preserving the succession is important - but that's not the same as preserving any particular individual within it. If a war situation had developed that required HMS Hermes to deploy while the Prince of Wales was flying with 845 Squadron, he would have gone with it and served. Besides anything else pulling him out in such a situation would have been a PR disaster. If they wanted to protect him that much, he never would have been assigned to that role in the first place - they could have easily found him a safe desk job somewhere.

The concern about the Prince being held hostage is also irrelevant. It is clearly understood as a matter of absolute policy that no negotiation will ever occur over an adult member of the Royal family. They understand that and accept that. Somebody might get somewhere if they took a child - but not an adult.

The only exception might be if the presence of the Prince exposed his comrades to additional dangers. There are circumstances where that might be true. In that case, they might pull someone out, but that's the only situation.

I served alongside the Duke of York for a reasonably long period. I never really served alongside the Prince of Wales (although we did have some contact when we were both serving, mainly because my CO wheeled me out when he realised that I'd been to school with the Prince and seemed to think it was a good idea) but I know people who did in both junior and senior roles. It was very clearly understood by everybody that they were to be treated exactly the same as anybody else. I think that's one reason why they seem to enjoy the service - it's one of the only places they can have a normal life.

[EvilCapitalist]

Mary I (Bloody Mary) died of cancer of the womb. The Mary you’re thinking about is Mary Queen of Scots. She was forced to abdicate the Scottish throne in favor of her son James VI of Scotland, who would later become James I England. Mary Queen of Scots was later executed via an ax to the neck.

[EvilCapitalist]

Long may Elizabeth II reign. Queen of Englandistan.

[Campion]

which she did until they threw her off the throne for executing Protestants.

Queen Mary died in her bed, she wasn't "thrown off the throne". That wouldn't happen until Charles I.

[Buttons12]

I’ve been rereading “Dreadnought” by Robert K. Massie, the past week or so. Just finished the chapter covering the death of Victoria.
Strange to say it’s a page-turner, precisely because you know how it will turn out. All hell would soon break loose, not only on account of royals like the Kaiser and the Czar, but also due to the stupefying incompetence of politicians.
The world stumbles into wars, time and again. The present queen will be very fortunate if she doesn’t live to see the next war, but the pace is picking up.

[bert]

MINO

[xp38]

LOL now there is an acronym I haven’t seen before. I suppose we could go by immortal words of Johnny Rotton...

our figurehead is not what she seems

[MD Expat in PA]

Many people confuse Mary I (Mary Tudor or “Bloody Mary”, the daughter of Henry VIII and half sister of Elizebeth I) with Mary Queen of Scots (“Mary Stuart”).

http://scotlandsmary.com/mary-tudor/

[bmwcyle]

No work and the beer.

[Dartman]

Thank you for your enlightening commentary on the Prince of Wales. I knew we were only hearing one side of the story regarding him. The media has become quite expert at shaping news and opinion. A good comparison would be what they did to Governor Palin.

[Dartman]

Elizabeth is a grand old lady. God save the Queen.

[oldvirginian]

Thank you for a very interesting post.

I had been under the impression the Royals were merely very expensive china kept in a very elaborate cabinet.
Great to look at, but with no practical use.

I have learned something new today, so it will be a *very* good day.