THe Queen attenda a cabinet meeting. Dangerous precedent?

Today, Tuesday the 18th of December 2012, The Queen attended a cabinet meting in Downing Street and spoke twice, the first time a monarch has done so for 300 years.

 

I see this as a very dangerous precedent, given that Prince Charles will be inheriting the throne in the near future. Charles has a long record of interfering in government and other matters in which he should have no power, and his reputation for harrassing and bullying in this connection is well known. Nor has this been ineffective, in at least three major instances he has got his own way and caused permanent substantial harm in the opinion of many, myself included.

 

Do we really want royalty to return to any form of power over our governance? I certainly don't.

Spoke twice about what .... ?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do we really want royalty to return to any form of power over our governance? I certainly don't.

 

I think it was more a PR exercise trying to bolster what they already have and typically done behind closed doors.

I expect the first thing she will say to David Cameron will be "and what do you do". A question we all would like to know.

 

 

ps As far as a Royal Coup d'état I think we need not worry just yet

Edited December 18, 201213 yr by jazper53

Probably said 'Two lumps ,please' and 'Yes I'd love a choccy biccie with that' , allegedly!!

Maybe in these times of hardship for everyone, her majesty is discussing the 'royal purse' .... Now I don't know about Charles interfering but maybe Phillip should have a bit of input, as he isn't afraid of dishing out a few home truths

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spoke twice about what .... ?

 

Nothing important Dave, but that's not the point. The precedent set, Charles will not be reluctant to interfere in more important matters, given his record.

Thanks flecc, I now see what you mean

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing important Dave, but that's not the point. The precedent set, Charles will not be reluctant to interfere in more important matters, given his record.

 

Well been as it was part of celebrating 60 years on the throne I doubt we need to worry as there is no way Charles will be there that long and even if he is the rest of us will most likely be dead and burried .

I think she should attens all Cabinet meetings to keep an eye on what they're up to, and maybe get them to do things for the good of the country instead of themselves.

 

Early in my career I once had a boss, who would gate-crash my meetings, and every time we decided on an action, he would but in with, "How much extra profit does that make for the company?"

 

If the Queen was in the Cabinet meetings, she could ask, "How much does that improve the lot of my subjects?" Yes, that would sort them out.

The precedent of being involved is the major issue, one that Charles will not have missed. It's a possibility to be alert about in preference to just sleep walking into the possible outcomes. Remember, the monarch has a weekly private meeting with the prime minister of the day, which would be a regular opportunity for Charles to attempt to gain access to cabinet meetings via an acquiescent prime minister like Cameron.

The precedent of being involved is the major issue, one that Charles will not have missed. It's a possibility to be alert about in preference to just sleep walking into the possible outcomes. Remember, the monarch has a weekly private meeting with the prime minister of the day, which would be a regular opportunity for Charles to attempt to gain access to cabinet meetings via an acquiescent prime minister like Cameron.

 

I would not write the Queen off just yet, I expect her to reign, to outlast Cameron, and maybe his successor, and when she does pass, I expect there will be serious disscusions about the relevence of the monarchy in a modern democracy, I do not know which way I would vote on that subject to be honest.

Edited December 18, 201213 yr by jazper53

I expect there will be serious disscusions about the relevence of the monarchy in a modern democracy, I do not know which way I would vote on that subject to be honest.

 

Hopefully yes. Paradoxically it's been the threat of Charles on the throne which has already triggered some discussion of this subject.

I would not write the Queen off just yet, I expect her to reign, to outlast Cameron,

I'd prefer it if she outlasted Charles.

I agree with all flecc's posts wrt to Charles and his interferences in government (aka "black spider letters")

( I hope my agreeing with flecc doesnt damage his reputation too much ;) hehee )

 

-if- this was not blatant party political ensnaring of the monarchy -then- HM Loyal Opposition should have been present as well. (aka Balance)

The excuse of a "personal gift by members of the cabinet" is thin, but Cameron obviously enjoyed it and no doubt expects some publicity 'rub-off'

 

I am surprised that She fell for it

Edited December 19, 201213 yr by Ptarmigan

I'd prefer it if she outlasted Charles.

Hmmm, on reflection I think I should amplify that ! :-

 

I bear him no ill will, nor early demise, on a personal humanitarian level;.

If he abdicated and became an 'ordinary' person I'd wish him a long and fruitfull life.

However, as he is a potential monarch I have a political view of his usefulness _in succession_

Edited December 19, 201213 yr by Ptarmigan

Hmmm, on reflection I think I should amplify that ! :-

 

I bear him no ill will, nor early demise, on a personal humanitarian level;.

If he abdicated and became an 'ordinary' person I'd wish him a long and fruitfull life.

However, as he is a potential monarch I have a political view of his usefulness _in succession_

 

There is the possibility that he could become Prince Regent at some point in time, before becoming King.

There is the possibility that he could become Prince Regent at some point in time, before becoming King.

How right you are !

But being of somewhat advanced years myself I'd rather not dwell on that/those aspect(s) of life

 

Would he have to sell his mother's house(s) to pay the care bills ? ?????

as my offspring may have to do,,,

Edited December 19, 201213 yr by Ptarmigan

Would he have to sell his mother's house(s) to pay the care bills ? ?????

as my offspring may have to do,,,

 

He could sell Cornwall first, that should fetch enough to see him out.

 

Do we really want royalty to return to any form of power over our governance? I certainly don't.

Having suffered the results of our "elected" governments of the last 63 years of my life I would think that the Royals could not do any harm compared to that caused by politicians.

Having suffered the results of our "elected" governments of the last 63 years of my life I would think that the Royals could not do any harm compared to that caused by politicians.

 

It's not in lieu that though, any such interference would be in addition.

 

And of course we cannot throw out a royal after five years. The total of damage that a future royal could cause over a 60 year reign might well outweigh that of any five year government. Have a look at Europe's comparatively recent history to see what I mean.

It's not in lieu that though, any such interference would be in addition.

 

And of course we cannot throw out a royal after five years. The total of damage that a future royal could cause over a 60 year reign might well outweigh that of any five year government. Have a look at Europe's comparatively recent history to see what I mean.

 

I question the word damage, as the monarchy is a symbolic seal on our present politcal set up and has no politcal power or legislative influence. I would be interested in your alternative to our present regime ?

It's not in lieu that though, any such interference would be in addition.

 

And of course we cannot throw out a royal after five years. The total of damage that a future royal could cause over a 60 year reign might well outweigh that of any five year government. Have a look at Europe's comparatively recent history to see what I mean.

Yes !

 

Technically, though, they can only do damage to those things that are the responsibility of our parliament if our politicians (in particular the cabinet) allow themselves to be so influenced. However we know that our politicians are upstanding principled people that would not suck up to any dangerous royal,,, dont we ?

 

But the problem isnt just limited to our parliamentarians. If we are to believe the press (!?) he tweaks the ears of business worthies and foreign administrations (eg. Saudi and Quatar we are told ) as well.

I question the word damage,

 

alternative to our present regime ?

Any such 'damage' would be limited (possibly even neutered) if we required all royal correspondence to be published, then they would only have the constitutional role.

 

I think we have a QI moment here I can already hear the klaxon sounding if I were to say "Republic" ! I guess that is what you expect me to say and then we can have a right ol dingdong about electing presidents etc.

But we dont need a President in the American or French or whatever style.

We already have a Speaker (and his officials) who do most of the functions of the crown to ensure continuity, fair play, arbitration etc.

All we have to do is transfer the authority of the Crown to that office.

 

Ok, I know, we will now have to have a dingdong about how we elect the Speaker and from what constituency ,,,

runs for cover ,,,

I question the word damage, as the monarchy is a symbolic seal on our present politcal set up and has no politcal power or legislative influence. I would be interested in your alternative to our present regime ?

 

I'm not asking for an alternative, just protesting about the reintroduction of a royal into a government political function where they have no place.

I'm not asking for an alternative, just protesting about the reintroduction of a royal into a government political function where they have no place.

 

Once in 60 years is not a revolution

 

ps, what concerns me more are the BANKERS and MEDIA-MOGULS who use the back door to 10 downing street.

Edited December 19, 201213 yr by jazper53