During the War...

 

It has come to my notice recently that Prince Philip has died.  This is a great disappointment to me personally as I’ve been doing the same 60 seconds about his immortality for the past ten years and the unfortunate fact that nobody is immortal has forced me to start thinking about turning over material.

When I was a new young comedian full of enthusiasm and vigour I used to make time in my week for writing jokes but as I got older I have got lazier and lazier …or perhaps I have come to realise what hard work writing jokes is and not spent so much time scribbling down things that are unfunny only to have my suspicions about their unfunnyness fully confirmed by real people …should there ever be any live audiences again which I suppose there will be eventually…

Anyway, over on “my twitter” – a remarkable invention which keeps me regularly updated about how wrong my opinions of yesterday were sometimes years after I expressed then – the re-emergence of the Royal Family onto the headlines has re-sparked a conversation I had ages ago about whether or not Prince Harry should still have Royal Protection at UK tax payers’ expense.

I ventured the opinion that since senior Ministers and Prime Ministers continue to have government protection – in some cases for the rest of their natural lives – then why shouldn’t senior Royals.  Although Harry has moved gradually down the succession from 3^rd to 6^th one has to consider that since his mother died almost as soon as her protection was switched off switching it off completely might not be a good idea.  Of course they can afford their own minders but then if they are in place of elected officials shouldn’t they have the same protections as them…?

This started a long discussion about whether the Royal Family actually have any power.  I purport that they do and their power is real.  A lot of people told me their position is just as constitutional figureheads.  That doesn’t stack up to me but these people were adamant.  The Queen just does as she is told by the Prime Minister and Parliament.  Or does she?

If the Queen isn’t exerting any power why does she sit down with Prime Minister for a cup of tea once a week?  Looking at, for example, the Greensill scandal and many before it we can see the large amounts of money that people are willing to pay for access to senior ministers and the PM and the problems this can create.  The Queen however gets this access completely for free.   Now no doubt there are technical protocol and engagement issues the Queen and the Prime Minister have to discuss but why do these need to take an hour a week?  If the Queen really was just symbolic couldn’t most of these arrangements be hammered out by Civil Servants?

But it doesn’t end there.  The Queen takes the Prime Minister to Balmoral whenever she can for shooting and whatever else.  Why does anyone want to spend their precious holidays on a farm in Scotland if it isn’t about power?  Even SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon who seemingly hates the Royals has been to stay at Balmoral according to the odiously crawly statement she gave to the Scottish Parliament during one of the days all parliamentary business was suspended for everyone to waffle on about the passing of the nation’s grandpapa.

Asked when the Queen has actually exerted her “power” I pointed to two of the clearest occasions.  

The appointment of Sir Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister in 1963 when he was neither a member of the Commons nor the Lords having renounced his peerage using Tony Benn’s Peerage Act 1963 (Benn was an MP when in 1950 he inherited a hereditary peerage then had to campaign for years to disavow his peerage).   But never mind about Tony Benn right (that's another story) concentrate on Alec below...

 

 

It is widely believed that it was  unconstitutional to have a Prime Minister who is not in Parliament as the Prime Minister is supposed to be the MP that Members of Parliament have most confidence in.  That said the Cabinet is still technically still just a sub-committee of the Privy Council.  There was a minor scandal in 2015 when Jeremy Corbyn (a lifelong Republican) became Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition as this meant he would have to join the Privy Council which involes “kneeling” to the Queen and the following crawly oath…

“You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty, as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God.”

… as well as saying the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition can’t speak against the Queen it also states that any conversation between the Queen and Privy Councillors should (as the name privy suggests) be kept secret.  What are they talking about that needs to be kept secret if her job is just opening things?

The second occasion the Queen clearly exercised and exceeded her power was the illegal prorogation of Parliament in 2019.  At this point in time Boris Johnson had lost his working majority in the house but (due to David Cameron’s Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011) parliament could not be dissolved by the Prime Minister asking the Queen for a General Election.  

 This resulted in the government attempting to prevent the passing of opposition MP Hilary Benn (yes, Tony Benn's son)’s European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 by bringing forward a prorogation.   

At this point David Cameron’s also arguably unconstitutional Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 had come to create a situation whereby the government had lost control of legislative procedure and the opposition was actually running a sub-government within the Commons because Parliament could not legally be dissolved.

The Queen, of course, should sort out this muddle but she can’t because she has “no constitutional power” so she did what the Prime Minister said and prorogued parliament.  Except, or course, sovereignty doesn’t lie with the Prime Minister but with Parliament so the decision was overturned by the Supreme Court. 

At this point defenders of the Queen began to argue that the Queen had no choice but to obey Boris Johnson but what is the Queen for if not to hold up the Constitution?  What is her Privy Council for?  Her defenders argued that the Supreme Court had not condemned the Queen but just the Prime Minister but the Supreme Court cannot condemn the Queen because it sits in the name of the Queen and, of course, it is staffed by Privy Councillors who have promised not to slag off the Queen.

The real reason that the Queen didn’t tell Boris to get stuffed when he wanted to prorogue parliament is far simpler – she’s a Tory.  If she had objected to the monarchy being used in this way she could have told Boris where to get off.  But she just don’t care.  Moreover, however, the whole prorogation farce is entirely down to us not having a written constitution in the first place or wouldn’t someone have asked the question “Wont the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 result in legislature and the executive which is supposed to be appointed by the legislature becoming fundamentally estranged?”  That could have saved us the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (Repeal) Bill

All this, of course, doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the Queen’s power.  She’s Head of the Church of England which has 26 Lords Spiritual with the right to sit in the House of Lords and there are still 92 hereditary peers in the ever expanding House of Lords who will have to be pulled out of there kicking and screaming.

 

But say this on twitter and what you’ll get is people telling you it’s a “conspiracy theory”.  “You’ll be bringing the Masons into it next”.  Well, why not? Wasn’t Prince Philip a Grand Master of the 3^rd Degree according to the Mason’s own website.  After saying this I was informed by a Mason how open they are and how you can download all their ceremonies off the internet.  Yes, but only because they’ve been dragged kicking and screaming into the daylight by the fact people stopped wanting to join the “society with secrets” after Roberto Calvi was spotted hanging from Blackfriar’s Bridge. 

I wonder how it worked with the Queen being head of the CofE and the Duke a Head Mason giving the synod of the CofE is split on the subject.  Still it could be worse – if she’d been a Catholic there’d be the threat on excommunication hanging over them… The Pope don’t like people nicking his punters…

And then “What about the Rothschilds?” shouted the same person in an attempt to drag the argument into the arena of anti-Semitism ….Well, you’ll have to ask the Rothschilds about the Rothschilds but according to their website some of the dead ones were Masons…

As to Prince Philip he certainly did a lot for this Country During the War … now he’s gone lovers of under-the-wire casual racists gags will just have to make do with Jeremy Clarkson.