Queen Elizabeth Becomes The First British Monarch To Celebrate Her Sapphire Jubilee

[BSR]

In reply to BSR:

 

The Prime Minister goes to visit the Queen almost every week for about an hour. PM briefs Queen of the affairs of the nation - PMs are said to welcome the chance to discuss matters with the Queen, as in 65 years she is yet to repeat anything that she has been told. The Queen can question and advise the PM, but not tell them what to do.

 

The Queen's role is to stay above Politics - she does not offer an opinion on anything political. There are occasional news stories about her views - but they fall into the anonymous report category and cannot be proved. Prince Charles has taken public positions on a few things - climate change for example, as is known to have lobbied Ministers on many issues.

 

You are correct that the Queen has little actual power, but given her popularity and longevity I think it is fair to say that she would have a lot of influence if she chose to use it. She gets to see any Government paper she wants - and no one knows what she says weekly to the PM - none of us will know what she may or may not have changed.

 

As to day to day duties - yes she opens things, supports charities, good causes and the armed services, and makes public appearances. One thing that only she can do, is to host a State Visit - this is in the news at the moment with the invitation to the US President. For a very small country, we have a long list of world leaders who want the horse drawn carriage ride up the Mall, the State Banquet and the night in Buckingham Palace.

Thanks, UKtop and @TruthBTold! I found the list of the Queen's powers very interesting. While most are just ceremonial, it's interesting that she could technically veto legislation or take command of the military if she wanted to. Now that you mention it, I do remember Prince Charles speaking out on climate change, an interesting breach of "remain above politics" protocol.

 

My only friend from the U.K. is super pro-royal. I was sort of wondering out loud one day about the issue of eliminating the monarchy. After all, what difference would it make? They have no real power. She vehemently insisted that the monarchy was vital to Britain. When I asked her to explain why, my super-smart and otherwise amazingly articulate friend couldn't really say, but she clearly had very strong feelings on the subject.

[escortrod]

Also, even with no official power, by sheer virtue of their title and position, Queen Elizabeth (or Prince Charles, Prince William) has a powerful public voice. Does the monarch or other members of the royal family ever take a public position on issues of the day? For example, did any of the royals express an opinion on Brexit?

The royals certainly didn't publically express an opinion regarding Brexit. That's the sort of action that could cause a constitutional crisis, especially if done by the monarch or her consort.

 

Many, myself included, are quite unhappy that Charles has not only taken public positions of many things, but has privately lobbied ministers on matters he is interested in. He wrote to Tony Blair on multiple occasions asking him to intervene to limit new EU regulations affecting alternative/homeopathic remedies, for example. It seems that he intends not to take these actions as monarch, but it will be difficult to monitor this since the privacy of royal correspondence with ministers is now protected by law.

[escortrod]

Thanks, UKtop and @TruthBTold! I found the list of the Queen's powers very interesting. While most are just ceremonial, it's interesting that she could technically veto legislation or take command of the military if she wanted to. Now that you mention it, I do remember Prince Charles speaking out on climate change, an interesting breach of "remain above politics" protocol.

 

My only friend from the U.K. is super pro-royal. I was sort of wondering out loud one day about the issue of eliminating the monarchy. After all, what difference would it make? They have no real power. She vehemently insisted that the monarchy was vital to Britain. When I asked her to explain why, my super-smart and otherwise amazingly articulate friend couldn't really say, but she clearly had very strong feelings on the subject.

If the monarch did exercise those powers it would almost certainly be the end of the monarchy. In her entire reign the Queen has exercised her prerogative without consulting government once, when she instated as PM the man the ruling party didn't want. That very nearly caused a constitutional crisis. Therefore interfering with the will of Parliament or attempting to control the military would be seen as 'beyond the pale'.

 

Charles speaks on issues of importance to him at present, but won't be able to do so as monarch.

[escortrod]

Just thinking about it, it's worth making the distinction between the monarch and 'the Crown'. Royal prerogative is vested in the Crown, and most of the powers of the crown are exercised by government ministers in the name of the Crown. So while historically those powers are attributed to the monarch, in reality they vest in government ministers today.

[BSR]

If the monarch did exercise those powers it would almost certainly be the end of the monarchy. In her entire reign the Queen has exercised her prerogative without consulting government once, when she instated as PM the man the ruling party didn't want. That very nearly caused a constitutional crisis. Therefore interfering with the will of Parliament or attempting to control the military would be seen as 'beyond the pale'.

 

Charles speaks on issues of importance to him at present, but won't be able to do so as monarch.

Thanks for the insights, escortrod. You can imagine that to Americans, the concept of a monarchy is quite alien to us. It's one thing to read about the royals in People magazine. It's quite another to live in a country with a reigning monarch. I didn't think the Queen or any other royal spoke out on the two biggest votes recently, Scottish independence and Brexit, because even I, someone who pays little attention to the royal family, probably would have read about it, but I wasn't 100% sure.

 

So, any idea if Prince Harry is planning another trip to Las Vegas any time soon? Or did her majesty put her royal foot down on that issue??

[escortrod]

Thanks for the insights, escortrod. You can imagine that to Americans, the concept of a monarchy is quite alien to us. It's one thing to read about the royals in People magazine. It's quite another to live in a country with a reigning monarch. I didn't think the Queen or any other royal spoke out on the two biggest votes recently, Scottish independence and Brexit, because even I, someone who pays little attention to the royal family, probably would have read about it, but I wasn't 100% sure.

 

So, any idea if Prince Harry is planning another trip to Las Vegas any time soon? Or did her majesty put her royal foot down on that issue??

There were unfortunate potential leaks regarding the Queen's opinion on both. David Cameron said she 'purred down the phone' at him when he informed her of the Scottish independence referendum result, and another minister (I think Michael Gove) said that she didn't see why leaving the EU should be problematic. But there were no public statements on her behalf.

 

Harry still seems to have a lot of freedom, but it may be the case that he's growing up. Or his security are better at confiscating phones.

[mike carey]

If the monarch did exercise those powers it would almost certainly be the end of the monarchy.

This has happened in Australia, when in 1975 the governor-general dismissed the prime minister and appointed the leader of the opposition as PM. This was a constitutional crisis but it was seen as the actions of one man who held the role of the queen's representative temporarily so it was never going to be fatal to the institution. The roles of the governors-general in Australia, New Zealand and Canada are essentially the same as that of the Queen in the UK.

 

One situation that played out here that could be relevant in the UK was in Tasmania when the previous government lost an election and neither major party had a majority. The out-going premier wanted to walk away from the office and the governor (who like the GG at the national level has the same roles as the Queen does in the UK) refused to accept his resignation and forced him to test his position in parliament. As it happened his Labor party and the Greens voted for him and he remained as premier. In the 2010 election in the UK, the Tories and the Lib Dems agreed to form a coalition, but if no coalition agreement had been reached, the Queen could have been in the position of telling PM Brown that he was still PM and had to seek a vote of confidence in the Commons, or just govern as a minority until Parliament decided otherwise.

[UKtop]

Just a little confusion above I think. Twice during her reign a sitting PM has resigned when the Governing Party has had no formal mechanism to elect a new leader. On both occasions the senior members of that party have recommended to the Queen who to ask to form a new Government. Whilst it may look as though she took a role, in fact she had no part in the decision at all.

 

In 2010, as with all UK General Elections, there is no change in Government until the sitting Prime Minister informs the Queen that he can no longer govern and at that point he recommends to her who she should ask to form the new administration. Both Brown (Labour) and Cameron (Conservatives) were in negotiations with the Lib Dems. If no deal had been done, Brown could have informed the Queen he intended to continue or told her he could not, and recommended who she should call to form the new government.

 

At no stage in the above two scenarios did the Queen make the decision - it was done by the politicians and she acted on their advice.

 

Also, there are many countries in the world who have elected Ceremonial Head of States, usually called Presidents. Germany, Ireland, Italy for example. Their roles are much the same, although perhaps they do lack the certain style of Elizabeth II

[+ Charlie]

Most of the public interest in the Queen is sort of equivalent to interest in "The Real Housewives of New Jersey." She has little political power, and what she has is mostly behind the scenes. Her real power is within the royal family dynamic, since she has a great deal of legal power over things like whom they can marry, whether they can divorce, etc. So the public cares much more about who is sleeping with whom, who is feuding with whom, etc., than what the Queen thinks about taxation policy. Interest always peaks when there are a lot of attractive younger royals who behave in colorful ways.

[mike carey]

At no stage in the above two scenarios did the Queen make the decision - it was done by the politicians and she acted on their advice.

Quite so, and in the absence of full public disclosure of the conversations between the governor and the premier, that may also have been the case in Tasmania. Rather than tell the premier what to do, the governor may well have decided that in the absence of any advice as to who could form a government he could not act so the premier's commission remained. The Queen would be more careful than a governor or a governor-general to ensure that she acted only on advice, and if necessary to elicit such advice if politicians hesitated to provide it. Of course, no one but the monarch and the prime minister would ever be aware of how the discussion played out.

[+ José Soplanucas]

This has happened in Australia, when in 1975 the governor-general dismissed the prime minister and appointed the leader of the opposition as PM. This was a constitutional crisis but it was seen as the actions of one man who held the role of the queen's representative temporarily so it was never going to be fatal to the institution. The roles of the governors-general in Australia, New Zealand and Canada are essentially the same as that of the Queen in the UK.

 

One situation that played out here that could be relevant in the UK was in Tasmania when the previous government lost an election and neither major party had a majority. The out-going premier wanted to walk away from the office and the governor (who like the GG at the national level has the same roles as the Queen does in the UK) refused to accept his resignation and forced him to test his position in parliament. As it happened his Labor party and the Greens voted for him and he remained as premier. In the 2010 election in the UK, the Tories and the Lib Dems agreed to form a coalition, but if no coalition agreement had been reached, the Queen could have been in the position of telling PM Brown that he was still PM and had to seek a vote of confidence in the Commons, or just govern as a minority until Parliament decided otherwise.

 

 

That's new for me. I didn't know that Canada, Australia and New Zealand have a general governor, some kind of viceroy. Are they designated by the British monarch? Who pays for the budget?

[mike carey]

That's new for me. I didn't know that Canada, Australia and New Zealand have a general governor, some kind of viceroy. Are they designated by the British monarch? Who pays for the budget?

They are there to 'represent' the monarch. Now, they are chosen by the government of the day (in Australia it's the decision of the prime minister) and formally appointed by the Queen. The budget is entirely funded by the Australian government. To all intents and purposes, although not as a point of law, the governor-general is the head of state. Each state has a governor appointed in the same manner.

[+ José Soplanucas]

What a bunch of parasites.

[TruHart1]

Here's a fascinating Royal Family pictorial from House Beautiful magazine with an emphasis on Princess Margaret, (1930 - 2002) Queen Elizabeth's younger sister.

 

http://www.housebeautiful.com/lifestyle/g4135/princess-margaret-life-pictures/?src=arb_fb_d&mag=hbl&dom=fb

 

TruHart1

[marylander1940]

Let's remember why she became queen.

 

[liubit]

Thanks for sharing the documentary, @marylander1940.

[marylander1940]

Thanks for sharing the documentary, @marylander1940.

 

a pleasure, please don't bring it up to any British friends of yours, they might get mad with you...

[marylander1940]

Well a Jubilee is traditionally 50th Anniversary so it would be Sapphire Anniversary or Sapphire Coronation Commemoration.

Congratulations to her.

 

What comes after sapphire?

 

How high up this list will she be in history?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France

72 years, 110 days

[TruHart1]

What comes after sapphire?

 

How high up this list will she be in history?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France

72 years, 110 days

Well, the Queen's mother lived to 102 years old, so Elizabeth has another 12 years if she continues as long as her mother lived!

 

TruHart1

[marylander1940]

Well, the Queen's mother lived to 102 years old, so Elizabeth has another 12 years if she continues as long as her mother lived!

 

TruHart1

 

and by 102 she'll hit the 75th year as a monarch, what kind of jubilees come after sapphire (65).

 

double sapphire at 70, triple sapphire at 75?

[nycguy]

Queen Elizabeth is the longest reining British monarch in history which will make Prince Charles (now 68 y/o) a short reining monarch.

[TruHart1]

Queen Elizabeth is the longest reining British monarch in history which will make Prince Charles (now 68 y/o) a short reining monarch.

That is, if it doesn't skip right over to Prince William without even passing to Charles. I have seen discussions about that but I don't know how that might occur without an edict from Parliament, if Charles were to be unable or not want to reign, or, which I read somewhere, if the Queen were to name William as her successor for whatever reason.

 

TruHart1

[TruHart1]

and by 102 she'll hit the 75th year as a monarch, what kind of jubilees come after sapphire (65).

 

double sapphire at 70, triple sapphire at 75?

If she makes it to her 75th reigning year, she will be celebrating her Diamond Jubilee!!!

[marylander1940]

If she makes it to her 75th reigning year, she will be celebrating her Diamond Jubilee!!!

 

She already had her diamond jubilee, it was her 60th anniversary.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Jubilee_of_Elizabeth_II

[marylander1940]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssh8NEltCac