How Many Armies does the Queen have?

Historic power of the Monarchy Henry the VIII wants to marry someone he marries them and damn what anyone thinks .

Actually he did have to manoeuvre a fair amount to provide some kind of legal cover, whether claiming his first marriage was not valid as Catherine was his brother’s widow, Anne had committed adultery, etc. So not even Henry had absolute power.

The only bit you have wrong is the extent to which she is able to veto a policy decided on by an elected Government.. The answer is in theory, yes. In reality, no.
Proof please…

I dunno. You know how sometimes on the news, you see a picture of a whole load of people debating in a large room. Then they have a vote to enact a law, or maybe go to war etc.how often have you noticed this happening and then it being announced that this isn’t going to happen after all because the Queen says so. There’s your proof.

In fifty years of enthronement, she hasn’t.

Maybe, maybe not, secrecy kinda prevents us reaching any definitive progress on that issue, one way or another, she certainly holds influence:

“When the Queen meets the Prime Minister, no one else is present – not even the Queen’s Private Secretary.

😀

Maybe, maybe not,

Wrong. The answer you are looking for is Yes
What you seem to have difficulty grasping, can’t think why, is the notion that an entity which delegates authority to act retains no ability to act in an executive manner. Have a look at the wiki entry for what the German President does. This is pretty much what the Queen does. Are you suggesting that the German Chancellor doesn’t run the country?

You know how sometimes on the news, you see a picture of a whole load of people debating in a large room. Then they have a vote to enact a law, or maybe go to war etc.how often have you noticed this happening and then it being announced that this isn’t going to happen after all because the Queen says so. There’s your proof.

I hate having to agree with JHJ, but he’s got a point here: the Queen certainly could attempt to influence the PM to avoid legislation getting to the Commons. Once it’s there and it’s been voted on there’s nothing she can do, but there’s no denying that having a private weekly audience with one of the most powerful men in the land definitely gives her power.

Not that it means she has any armies, though. And if the PM and his party decide to do something she doesn’t like there’s nothing she can do to stop it.

I hate having to agree with JHJ, but he’s got a point here: the Queen certainly could attempt to influence the PM to avoid legislation getting to the Commons

It’s also entirely possible that it works the other way too… just as a lobbyist can influence what is debated, during the Queen’s discussion with the Prime Minister, she could make a ‘non political’ suggestion, whereby the Prime Minister could then take that suggestion to the Cabinet (the Executive Committee of the Privy Council) and devise proposals for public debate which then meet the criteria politely suggested by the Queen.

could attempt to influence the PM to avoid legislation getting to the Commons

So, not a “veto” then. And (though I hate having to repeat it) – if the crown has the influence you claim, why does Prince Crank complain that it doesn’t?

It’s also entirely possible that the Queen is a closet Chelsea supporter and has decided that this year Chelsea are going to win the Premiership. Obviously she has arranged this in secret. There is no proof that she hasn’t and you can’t deny the link between Chelsea FC and the Kings Road. Makes you think eh?

… and I’m impressed with the way that “the Queen runs everything” has journeyed (albeit tortuously) to “the Queen tries to influence the Prime Minister”.

Carry on.

… and I’m impressed with the way that “the Queen runs everything” has journeyed (albeit tortuously) to “the Queen tries to influence the Prime Minister”.

Since the Queen has been on the throne:

How many Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?

How many Monarchs of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?

😀

I think you’re onto something

😀

2

jivehoneyjive – Member
… and I’m impressed with the way that “the Queen runs everything” has journeyed (albeit tortuously) to “the Queen tries to influence the Prime Minister”.
How many Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies since the Queen has been on the throne?

How many Monarchs of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?

Do your own research.

and how is that a response to my point that you quote, exactly?

… and I’m impressed with the way that “the Queen runs everything” has journeyed (albeit tortuously) to “the Queen tries to influence the Prime Minister”.

I’m not sure it has – I suspect JHJ is still in the former camp…

Personally I was always in the second group, I don’t doubt the Queen has influence, even if it’s not as much as Charles would like. What is it about the name Charles and absolutist monarchs?

“Since the Queen has been on the throne:

How many Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?

How many Monarchs of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?”

Good question but without any point that supports your argument one way or another no matter what the answer .

What I’m trying to ascertain with those questions is who has held power throughout, whilst Prime Ministers in the UK and further afield come and go?

I’m not saying the Queen runs every last detail, however:

The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. However, a treaty cannot alter the domestic laws of the United Kingdom; an Act of Parliament is necessary in such cases. The monarch is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces (the Royal Navy, the British Army, and the Royal Air Force), accredits British High Commissioners and ambassadors, and receives diplomats from foreign states.

Which then begs the question, if the Queen doesn’t like a ministers advice, will she dismiss them?

Furthermore, getting back to my original point about the 5 Eyes Alliance and the mass surveillance network, which requires a degree of co-ordination and international agreement, it would seem that falls under the Monarch’s remit…

The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to …….. issue passports

She’s a very busy lady, no one can deny that.

Which then begs the question, if a Queen doesn’t like a ministers advice, will she dismiss them?

No, because she can’t. Whatever powers the “Royal Perogative” might in theory give her, she doesn’t actually have that power. She might try and persuade the PM to do it for her, of course.

She’s a very busy lady, no one can deny that.

Would also explain the backlogs before christmas, the time taken out recording her message must have put a big spanner in the works.

No, because she can’t. Whatever powers the “Royal Perogative” might in theory give her, she doesn’t actually have that power. She might try and persuade the PM to do it for her, of course.

Therein lies the quandry… from what we can ascertain, it seems that is the procedure; however, to all intents and purposes, the Queen will have achieved her bidding, directly or indirectly, which exhibits a level of power and control…

So all the people who are attempting to persuade you that you are talking bollocks are in fact exhibiting ‘a level of power and control’ over you? Interesting.

jive this is the bit you are wilfully blind to.
“The prerogative appears to be historically and as a matter of fact nothing else than the residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the crown. The prerogative is the name of the remaining portion of the Crown’s original authority … Every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an Act of Parliament is done in virtue of the prerogative.”
a bit of a dicey quote I know but you get the gyst the “Crown” is the “state” not Liz .

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Victoria-Thirlaway-Constitutional-Administrative-Questions/dp/B00I60QQ22
Jive buy and read this . If having done so you still have any cogent questions I’ll ask the author for you (on proof of purchase.)

I get what you’re saying crankboy, but none of it is designed to be easily defined and we all know that practice often differs from theory.

That seems to be part of the problem in conveying things, as people think I’m being wilfully awkward, but I’m really just trying to point out it’s open to interpretation and none of us really know, including MPs themselves it seems

The Crown extends far beyond Busy Lizzy as an individual, however, she is the acknowledged head of that institution, in whose name all sorts of dodgy business goes on.

A recent example I already provided is the Crown’s overruling of a court to prevent publication of letters between Prince Charles and ministers

I guess what I’m really trying to achieve is to get everyone to ask questions of the system for themselves, as some things just don’t add up, like my old faithful fallback position of who has authority over both the UK Home Office and Jersey in relation to detainment of this journalist

You questions are a tad out of date.
The Case of Proclamations [1610] EWHC KB J22
“The King has no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”.Chief Justice Coke.

That seems to be part of the problem in conveying things

I thought your post where you said that the Queen is only able to try and influence the Prime Minister in weekly meetings was quite an improvement.

You finally acknowledged that she has no actual power and is only a figurehead who can at best, try and persuade.

Then for some strange reason, forgot you’d said that and started yourself back on the same tiresome little circular argument you’ve been using since you started the thread.

Do you have an attention deficit disorder?

I think JHJ is right, and will be stocking up on foil post haste…

I thought your post where you said that the Queen is only able to try and influence the Prime Minister in weekly meetings was quite an improvement.

You finally acknowledged that she has no actual power and is only a figurehead who can at best, try and persuade.

Therein lies the problem, there is a degree of paradox:

Since the Queen has been on the throne:

How many Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?

How many Monarchs of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?”

Not to mention of course:

The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. However, a treaty cannot alter the domestic laws of the United Kingdom; an Act of Parliament is necessary in such cases. The monarch is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces (the Royal Navy, the British Army, and the Royal Air Force), accredits British High Commissioners and ambassadors, and receives diplomats from foreign states.

Yes, I think you do.

I recommend:

Jive if you cut and paste your own quote into google you get the wiki page that actually answers all your questions including The Dicey quote I used above and this gem.
“The monarchy has a significant constitutional presence in these and other areas, but very limited power, because the prerogative is in the hands of the prime minister and other ministers or other government officials.”
So no paradox just a bit of redundancy of concept.

I wasn’t joking, we genuinely have a situation of paradox:

Is that the Prime Minister she meets weekly, or the Government Officials who swear an oath to the Queen and work on her behalf?

What about the several other governments which come under her authority adhering to the Westminster System?

What I’m trying to ascertain with those questions is who has held power throughout, whilst Prime Ministers in the UK and further afield come and go?

WE the people. Not the hardest question to answer . There is never a time when an elected person is not in power.

Which then begs the question, if the Queen doesn’t like a ministers advice, will she dismiss them?

How many ministers have there been ? How many has she sacked? Lots and none isnt it.

the Crown’s overruling of a court to prevent publication of letters between Prince Charles and ministers

FFS I have said this twice now it was a minister it was not the crown.

Your own link

They will argue on Monday morning that the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve, acted lawfully when he overrode a court two years ago to veto the publication of the letters written by the prince to influence official policies.

If you are not trying to be obtuse then WTF are you doing?

I’m demonstrating the system in all it’s warped glory:

the Crown’s overruling of a court to prevent publication of letters between Prince Charles and ministers

FFS I have said this twice now it was a minister it was not the crown.

Your own link

They will argue on Monday morning that the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve, acted lawfully when he overrode a court two years ago to veto the publication of the letters written by the prince to influence official policies.

And what is the role of the Attorney general:

Like I’ve said, obfuscation and delegation is rife:

Attorney General:

Her Majesty’s Attorney General for England and Wales, usually known simply as the Attorney General, is one of the Law Officers of the Crown. Along with the subordinate Solicitor General for England and Wales, the Attorney General serves as the chief legal adviser of the Crown and its government in England and Wales.

Yes every part of the govt “serves the crown” as its their govt.
TYhey are however an elected MP and answerable to parliament which is also on wiki and you ignored as you like to cherry pick

As a government minister, the Attorney General is directly answerable to Parliament.[11]

So the govt did it not the crown

Junky, you’re funny…

Read what you’ve pasted and written above:

the Crown’s overruling of a court to prevent publication of letters between Prince Charles and ministers

FFS I have said this twice now it was a minister it was not the crown.

the bold bit is me quoting what you said and its your bold….have you forgotten what you said

It was not the crown it was the attorney general

Ok follows ernies advice

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Victoria-Thirlaway-Constitutional-Administrative-Questions/dp/B00I60QQ22
Jive buy and read this . If having done so you still have any cogent questions I’ll ask the author for you (on proof of purchase.)

Seems like a generous offer.

Jive, why not take him up on the offer ?

Possibly because you aren’t interested in actual answers.

Obviously having actual answers would ruin it for you, as you are more interested in being able to make assumptions and insinuations based on guesswork.

It was not the crown it was the attorney general

^Basically what that demonstrates is that once again, the paradox of our constitution is coming into play…

What I’m trying to ascertain with those questions is who has held power throughout, whilst Prime Ministers in the UK and further afield come and go?

WE the people. Not the hardest question to answer . There is never a time when an elected person is not in power.

So if WE the people wanted to speak to the Prime Minister every week, or to regulate the offshore tax avoidance system, or to have a warship named in our honour, how would we go about it?

What about if we the people weren’t too happy with an undisclosed surveillance system?

Which then begs the question, if the Queen doesn’t like a ministers advice, will she dismiss them?

How many ministers have there been ? How many has she sacked? Lots and none isnt it.

Aside from the debatable case of the Whitlam coup, there is a number of notable recent cases of high ranking members of government apparently choosing to leave of their own will, though what has gone on behind closed doors we can only guess.

William Hague, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw (who was set to retire anyway before the recent scandal led to his premature departure) and a number of other less prominent figures such as John Vine and Norman Baker are all potentially implicated in scandals surrounding the cover up of child abuse, for which it is very unlikely the Queen would want to draw attention to by publicly dismissing ministers.

I appreciate this last point is conjecture, but it does fit in with the extensive research I’ve done on the child abuse scandal and the descriptions of the means by which ministers are offered the choice to resign

And there’s more:

However, the complete extent of the Royal Prerogative powers, many of them originating in ancient custom and the period of absolute monarchy, or modified by later constitutional practice, has never been fully described.

Seems like a generous offer.

Jive, why not take him up on the offer ?

Though I appreciate crankboy’s offer, that is a book designed to get you to answer questions that examiners want… examiners don’t want to be challenged, they want easy, clearly defined answers, which the constitution itself lacks…

Possibly because you aren’t interested in actual answers.

It could be that, or it could be, as in much of the legal system which relies on past precedent and interpretation, that there is no absolute answers.

Paradox in effect…

I did actually give you the full answer as others have . I also know the author of that book and the examiners contrary to your assumption constitutional lawyers relish and encourage the type of debate you aspire to . However they do get tired and drained by the desperate attempt to misread and selectively quote to try and fit the material to a preconceived conclusion that is based on nothing.