Just a thought. The Queen is also the monarch in:
- Jersey
- Guernsey
- The Isle of Man
- Bermuda
- Cayman
- The British Virgin Islands
- Anguilla
- Gibraltar
- Montserrat
- Turks & Caicos Islands
- The City of London
That means she is the non-executive head of the dodgiest financial corporation in the world.
Worth remembering.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Trying to link a benign old lady, who has done far more for the country than you ever have or will, to a dodgy financial corporation, is pretty desperate isn’t it?
Tell you what, Richard, why not, just for today, get out into your village, have a party, drink a glass or two, try to smile, chat with some people, and stop being such a bloody misery? You can resume normal service on Wednesday if you want. Or you might even enjoy it…
Chris, to some extent I take your point – benign old lady, who’s done sterling (deliberate choice of adjective) service for the UK, and maybe criticising her personally might not be in the best of taste. Regrettably, however, such an argument betrays the all too common confusion between the personal and the institutional: personally, there is indeed a great deal to commend Queen Elizabeth; insitutionally, however, there is, alas, a great deal to criticize.
For constitutionally the Crown and the person of the monarch are very distinct: as a person, Queen Elizabeth has very little power (though I’m sure she has a great deal of influence, as is only to be expected in the case of someone with so omany years of experience and accumulated knowledge).
Institutionally and constitutionally, however, the mediaeval powers of the Crown are still very real – the right to declare war, to conclude treaties, to issue (without recourse to any scrutiny beyond a formal reading and assent in the presence of at least 5 Privy Councilllors) Order in Council which have the force of law, and other such powers, ALL without the need to refer to Parliament, are very considerable powers.
And what is worse, whereas in the Middle Ages the monarch was subject to the checks and balances of his powerful tenants – his Lords Temporal and Spiritual – as well as his money-lenders and sources of revenue (as both Edward ll and Charles l found to their personal cost), a modern HMG can hide behind the fig-leaf of an electoral mandate and pretty much do as they like, and nowhere more so than in the “Crown Dependencies”, where the monarch’s personal lack of power is able to be translated into almost unlimited sovereignty through the exercise of Royal Prerogative powers vested in her Ministers.
It is exactly this to which Richard is actually referring – not the Queen herself, but what is done in her name, through powers still not brought under democratic oversight and control. This is the real “democratic deficit” in our constitution, and needs redress, for preference by a written constitution and a Supreme Court with powers on a par with the American Supreme Court
Such a Court would surely have struck down Lansley’s atrocious NHS Bill as ultra vires the powers and scope of a German style “fundamental law” as I would wish to see the UK adopt, while such a constitution would ensure that Parliament and ONLY Parliament could decided on such weighty matters as recourse to war and assent to treaties.
Spot on Andrew
As usual
We don’t detect any “desperation” in Richard’s observation; only factual realism.
Pity that our Queen’s “non-executive” role does not come with a voting right, then she could issue the pronouncement “off with their heads”. And the world would be a better place for billions of people.
Don’t be discouraged by heads-in-the-sand Richard.
As we are all well aware, Richard has no need to have anyone come to his aid on this blog, but I cant let your swipe, and rudeness, go without comment.
You have completely missed the point sir. You have been unnecessarily prissy. Many of the population hold her maj in the highest regard personally and I certainly didnt read Richard’s blog as having a pop at HM personally – nor I suspect would many others.
However none of the respect one holds for a woman who has devoted 60 years of her life to public service has any relation to the fact that the OFFICE she holds presides over tax avoidance and secrecry jurisdictions. Whether one is a republican or monarchist this is a self evident truth. My only sorrow considering how badly democracy has now let us down and the succession of self servers we have had for a political establishment over the last 2 -3 decades is that HM doesnt have some sort of power of superveto as a NED. We sure could do with it.
No one is above the need for encouragement and reassurance; even Jesus understood the extent of his own doubt and hesitation.
Hardly a day had passed following his baptism and the beginning of his public ministry, particularly in the wilderness of Judea, did Jesus not wrestled with doubt.
And as he made his sacrifice upon the cross, Jesus was swept up in his own sense of God’s absence and faced by his suffering he cried: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
The battle with iniquity is really a battle with the hesitant and doubting forces in all our personalities.
Typical of right wingers who resort to character assassination rather than engage in reasoned argument. This is a similar comment to a response I received from someone when I argued the case against the monarchy who called me a fenian bastard and said I was Irish not British.
By what stretch of the imagination does anyone who believes they have the divine right to rule without consent and contemptuously refers to the population as subjects done to benefit the country?
Please try and answer without resorting to insults.
What a poor response.
You have no idea whether I am of the left or the right. Plenty of left wingers support the monarchy; a smaller number of right wingers do not.
There is also no evidence at all that the Queen believes she has a divine right to rule and I don’t think any monarchy since Charles II has actually believed that.
As to what she has done to benefit the country, if you seriously can’t see what, you must be wilfully blind . But I’ll give you a clue: it’s almost certainly a damn sight more than what you’ve done.
Oh we know you’re from the right
And a troll at that
We need only read you to identify that
Condescending. Patronising. Rude. Gratuitous. Obsequious at the same time. And you really think we can’t tell?
Wow: you need a few lessons in the game of life, don’t you?
The louche Lord Rochester “celebrated” the first constitutional monarch, Charles II with the lines
“Here is a great & noble king, whose word no man relies on,
he never said a foolish thing, nor ever did a wise one”
Charles’ response was “of course, my words are mine, but my actions are my ministers'”
I’m sure both the queen & the future Charles III are only too aware of the damage done to the commonwealth’s poorest nations by the baleful influence of the tax havens & the City of London that Richard refers to. Regrettably, I can’t imagine there is much they can do about it.
It might be worth adding that one Commonwealth country with a significant republican movement – Australia – is the same country that’s working as hard as anyone to crack down on tax cheats…
Ernst & Young have given the Isle of Man a clean bill of health in a recent report and the “Isle of Man is not a parasite” Allan Bell Chief Minister – listen to the clip
http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=59922
That’s like the Kray twins saying someone wasn’t a criminal
Get real
We know at least 350 pensioners who would vehemently disagree with both Earnst and Young and Mr A. Bell. MHK.
Make no mistake the Isle of Man government is deliberately incomprehensible, highly secretive and not to trusted one inch.
We know; along with millions of other people.
Well, there you go, the Isle of Man says its not a parasite, the nation of China says its not totalitarian, the republic of Greece says its not corrupt, the Ukraine has said its not full of racist bigots. What is problem ? Lets go home guys, nothing to see here….
I am not a great Royalist by any means. But this blog was Cheap at this particular time, and not worthy of you.
Far from it
It observed power relationships accurately
And the fact that, as today’s events demonstrated, she is the agend of the City and so finance
And that was the point I was making
Stephen Griffiths
a pointless, stupid, hasty comment from
a pointless, stupid, hasty commentator.
If you have nothing worth saying, why not STFU ?
If anyone wants to understand why republicanism is a minority pursuit in this country, and why republicans are often regarded as miseries, just read R Murphy’s blogs about the Queen.
You can regard me however youy luke!
The joke will still be on you
“You can regard me however youy luke!”
Richard, I know you live in Norfolk but trying to adopt local idiom is almost never a good idea & trying to reflect that in writing, never is. (Look at the horrible examples in the works of Dorothy L Sayers if you don’t believe me.)
Stick to plain English, lad.
I mean, I’m from Brum but “does oi roight loike that ? no I durn’t”
That wasn’t intentional
That comes from commenting from an iphone!
Hi Richard,
I read your blog on a daily basis and agree with most of what you say and, to be honest, it’s continuing to be a real education for someone who hasn’t a background in economics or finance, so thank you for that.
However, on this occasion, it does seem that you’re taking a rather cheap shot. You could’ve mentioned The Queen at any point over the last goodness-knows-how-long you’ve been gnawing at The City – you chose the weekend of the Jubilee to make your point, which seems to be contention for contentions sake.
BTW, this all came to my attention as part of a tweet with a plug for your book attached:
“Just a thought. The Queen is also the monarch in: That means she is the non-executive head of the dodgiest financial corporation in the world. My new book, out now Order it ”
Hmmmm….contentious, moi??
Is it worth pointing out that many things are done in the name of a person without actually being authorised or approved by the person in whose name it’s done? In theory, we the people democratically elected Cameron and his crew…however, I can’t think of one thing they’ve done for which I actually voted (and I didn’t vote for them anyway).
One last point, perhaps it’s an unpopular point of view, but I would rather have a person who has been trained to rule and serve the people, and who regards the job as one for life, as head of the country, rather than some career politician who is only interested in creating a soft bed for themselves when their political career is over, or some ideologue who would sacrifice all to promote their political agenda.
All the best,
Jon
Contentious? Moi?
Surely not?
Alternatively – come on! If you didn’t think that this was not a celebration of the power of the City you were seriously mistaken.
And you may have noticed I have taken a pop or two there over time
For very good reason: their aim is to suppress most people in this country
So shall we recognise that anyone who wants to change things has to upset the accepted order, at least a little? And maybe that’s what you don’t like. That’s your right, but it’s my right to point it out, and equally to cause a little upset.
“…I would rather have a person who has been trained to rule and serve the people, and who regards the job as one for life, as head of the country, rather than some career politician who is only interested in creating a soft bed for themselves when their political career is over, or some ideologue who would sacrifice all to promote their political agenda.”
I suggest you take a look at the character of Michael Higgins, Ireland’s President. There is no need to be stuck in a bowing-and-scraping past.