Should the Queen get involved in politics?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.newsofthew...rchill-hijacking.html

[Lonnie]

All depends exactly what you mean, because she is, insofar as the PM has to report to her, if you mean to publicly express her thoughts, then as Steve.5 says, NO.

[Prudentia]

definitely yes, she should cite tony blair for as a war criminal, gordon brown for high treason for selling off the countries gold reserves at car boot prices and, jack straw for being a useless public embarrassment, remember the sickening encounter of his welcoming visit to condloleeza rice!!!

[Gromit]

But she hasn't.

She has made no pubic comment on the BNP or Churchill. Obviously as a human being, the Queen has a personal view on things, and this report is based on heresay.

The Queen is widely travelled (at our expense) so she does not have the xenophobia of Griffin and AOG.

[AndThenSome]

Well seeing it is her land why the hell shouldn't she? Id want to have a say in my country's upkeep, wouldn't you?

[jno]

the Crown owns rather too much of the land, DixieGal. However, as Gromit points out, she hasn\'t said anything to anyone. The newspaper has probably bribed a third underassistant parlourmaid to pass on second-hand gossip she\'s heard in the kitchens.

It might be worth pointing out that she knew Churchill and seems to have liked him. But his triumphs came as a non-party politician during the war, and for all I know she doesn\'t like to see him hijacked as party propaganda. But she hasn\'t said so tot he News of the World, as if.

[jake-the-peg]

Steve - Monarch's have been involved in politics a lot until relatively recently.

Charles lost his head because he attempted to raise taxes without parliament and effect personal rule.

But this is not a matter of politics - this is a matter of philospohy

Griffin holds and expresses derogatory views about non-whites (As doy you AOG).

The Queen of course is very attached to the commonwealth (I guess someone has to be) and will obviously therefore be very unsympathetic to the sort of racism preeched by him and his supporters.

I guess you'll have to choose whether you're more loyal to the Queen or to the BNP

[Gromit]

My post above should have read...

She has made no public comment on the BNP or Churchill.

[rov1200]

I think she is getting a bit past it now. But when she dies and Charles takes over I think we will definately see an intefering monarchy. He has already got his hands on a few projects and ruffled many feathers. With the added responsibllity I don't think we have seen all there is to his character.

[sp1814]

The queen ain't dying any time soon.

Remember her mum lived until 101 years old.

[jake-the-peg]

I don't think the Royal familly have ever voted but that's not the way it works.

The most notable case was the passing of the parliament act.

This was the act that meant that the elected house of commons can over-rule the house of Lords - how do you get something like that passed through a parliament where a house of Lords has a veto?

Well if you're Llyod George you get the King to promise to create hundreds of New Lords - then you go and black mail the existing Lords.

Then more recently there was the Australian Crisis of 1975 when the Queen's representative the Governer General removed the Prime Minister
http://en.wikipedia.o...onstitutional_crisis.

Why does one have to be loyal; to the BNP or the Queen?

Because the Queen is head of the Commonwealth including Jamaica, Barbados, Papua New Guinea and Grenada and has a well reported great love for the role (As she never ceases to go on about in Christmas Broadcasts)

She is unlikely to take kindly to those who maintain the inferiority of half her subjects based on what colour their skin is!

[anotheoldgit]

jake-the-peg

///// "Griffin holds and expresses derogatory views about non-whites (As doy you AOG)."//////

///// "She is unlikely to take kindly to those who maintain the inferiority of half her subjects based on what colour their skin is! "//////

Me thinks you have an unhealthy fixation regarding the colour of a person's skin.

When on the occasions I have expressed derogatory views about non-whites, it is because I feel at that time some deserve it, just as I do against any other person no matter what their skin colour.

I don't know what skin colour you have, but if I think I need to express derogative remarks against you I will, and sometimes do.

I won't have anyone telling me that I cannot criticize them, simply because of their skin colour, or for any other reason they may think somehow protects them from justified criticism.

[jake-the-peg]

Oh there was a lot to it wasn't there?

Religion was a big bit too - ship tax and personal rule were the big justifications as deviations from the long established rights and priviledges of Parliament.

AOG - who the heck do you think you're trying to kid?

Any time I point out how many ex-squaddies you immediately come back with the breakdown by ethnicity

Black or Black British 15% of the jail population. (What is their excuse)?
http://www.theanswerb...s/Question812112.html

So tell me again who has the unhealthy obsession with skin colour?

[jake-the-peg]

should read

Any time I point out how many ex-squaddies are behind bars you immediately come back with the breakdown by ethnicity