Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheOtherHobbes | Hacker News Reader

The Queen holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. It's unlikely they make chitchat about the weather.

The monarch also vets laws while they're being drafted and can make suggestions for changes if they affect their interests.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

The Queen isn't just the head of the armed forces - they swear an oath of loyalty directly to the Monarch, not to the people or the country as a whole - she's also one of the richest people in the world, running an organisation with centuries of experience in internal diplomacy, impression management, and PR.

So it's a complete myth that the monarchy is apolitical. The monarchy is the centre around which the (antiquated) British political system revolves.

View on HN

The Queen is the disabled root user of the constitution. The government are the sudoers.

She doesn’t get to ‘vet’ laws in any meaningful way. She rubber-stamps them. The fact that the armed forces swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen is simply because she is head of state.

Nothing in your comment actually demonstrates politicality.

If you had read the article the parent comment linked you would know she does actually get some say in how some laws are drafted. She doesn’t, practically, have a veto once both houses of parliament have approved the law but she is sometimes consulted by the government on laws it is drafting to submit to parliament and she does make suggestions that are sometimes incorporated

The link OP posted is talking about a different process ("Queen's Consent") from the publicly known rubber stamping process ("royal assent").

Queen's Consent happens before parliament votes, and details on what actions occurred (other than the number that were screened) are not known. The lack of knowledge, combined with the pattern of laws she has screened provide the space for making the inference that the Queen may have actively lobbied or modified laws for some purpose. What the purpose is (actively politically, or merely "self-serving") is unknown.

The crown is just a rubber stamp, until it’s not, like in the Australian constitutional crisis

Link for the lazy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

but she can't actually use her root privileges too much, like start/stop too many processes (or say anything about brexit)

The Queen isn't just the head of the armed forces - they swear an oath of loyalty directly to the Monarch...

Interestingly (to me, anyways) is the oath is made directly to Queen Elizabeth by name, not to the crown in general. And isn't made by officers in the Royal Navy, because the navy wasn't created by act of Parliament, but by royal prerogative, so their fealty is assumed.

That's very the definition of a regent: no institution is above it. The current Queen of England _is_ the crown. They are one and the same.

Liz isn't the Crown. This principle was established long ago when one of her predecessors was tried, found guilty, and executed, for treason. It would obviously be impossible for the Crown to commit treason, but the monarch is just a person, and people do crimes.

Also far from no institution being "above" it the Parliament is sovereign and so it can, and has, dissolved the monarchy entirely if it wants to. The reason the UK has a monarchy today is that parliament decided it didn't like it better without one (puritans suck, basically they hate fun, if you're American you may have noticed this already)

> [T]he oath is made directly to Queen Elizabeth by name, not to the crown in general.

So when a monarch dies does everyone in the armed forces take a new oath?

The actual oath is something like "I swear ... to Queen Elizabeth, and her heirs, ..."

I ASSuMEd the oath would more like "I swear ... to the Crown ..."

But, if the Queen is in fact the Crown (as stated by a different response), then I suppose it's a distinction without a difference.

Not sure why the downvotes, the actual oath is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kin...

I don't think I misrepresented it in any way.

You are getting down-voted, most likely, because of your "ASSuMEd" comment. It doesn't add to the conversation and detracts from what you were saying.

I certainly never gave any such oath when I joined (navy), but I've got a feeling the new joiners these days do declare some kind of oath. Might have signed the official secrets act but I bet they've long since lost it; the paperwork was all over the place at that time.

Not that the oath is needed, obviously. If BoJo (or any other such government apparatchik) told me to do something I'd tell him to shove it; if HRH issued a lawful order, well, fair enough your Majesty, I'll see what I can do. Had lunch with her back in 2003 or thereabouts, and a free lunch is always welcome.

It is worth noting that when the Queen passes, parliament will be called back in to session, if it is not already, and each minister will retake their oath swearing allegiance to the new King.

You don't even need to go into secret meetings. In her public speeches at parliament she interferes and sets a direction for her government (it's hers, not ours). Like calling for more and continued austerity amid the crisis, I don't call that being apolitical (also the irony of calling for austerity from a golden throne shouldn't be lost oje anyone).

You know that particular speech is written for her by the government, don't you?

The only speech the Queen makes in Parliament is "The Queen's Speech" at teh State Opening of Parliament. In it she set's out the Government's Agenda for the next session of Parliament.

It's written by the Government; she reads it out. She has no part in its preparation.

The monarch can certainly make suggestions regarding laws but so can any of the 600+ members of parliament and indeed countless other people in power while Prime Ministers have strong personalities and minds of their own.

As to her riches, we might note that unlike some of the very richest people on the planet the Queen has no power and seemingly no inclination to use her wealth as a powerful tool to censor publicly expressed views. It's certainly arguable that in an ideal society, a monarchy is an anachronism but that's hardly the situation we're in. Presidential systems are not without their critics.

Seems to be an open question as to whether the 'centuries of experience in internal diplomacy, impression management, and PR' (of the monarchy) are working to their advantage. The word antiquated is perjorative but it can also refer to a protocol that prevails via adaptation. The Brits will see and decide for themselves if it does.

The stories the Queen could tell, if only she could, from fourteen prime ministers and countless heads of state …

Reply on news.ycombinator.com