16th January 2022
The Prime Minister Boris Johnson last week apologised to the Queen for the Downing Street partying on the eve of funeral of the Prince Philip.
This partying was, of course, in contrast to the Queen having to mourn alone
*
Last week the Queen was not told that she had to wait for the result of the Sue Gray investigation.
Oh no – the Prime Minister did not think that even he could get away with that deflection to that audience.
Although it less clear what the Prime Minister is actually apologising for.
he said it was deeply regrettable that "this" took place during a period of mourning, but then couldn't clarify what "this" was
— Jim Pickard (@PickardJE) January 14, 2022
The apology of the Prime Minister to the Queen has great significance.
Not least as it shows the actual sentiments of a government that promotes performative patriotism with numerous flags behind ministers and wants the national anthem played on the television each day.
But then again, this was the government who provided unlawful advice to the Queen on prorogation – and it seems that, like lockdown regulations, genuine regard for the Queen is for other people.
It also indicates the high public esteem with which the Queen is held and that the government knows that it will not get away without any admission of fault.
*
It reminded me of the early history of the telephone hacking scandal.
This was when there was a general cosy complicity between some of the media and the Metropolitan Police.
Then it appeared that telephones in the Royal Household were being hacked – and something had to be done.
And because this involved a different part of Scotland Yard to that which had the close contacts with the press, a prosecution was brought and two convictions were obtained.
This showed that – regardless of constitutional theory – the Crown had a special place within our constitutional arrangements.
There was a limit to what others with political and media power can get away with when the Crown is involved.
The Crown matters.
*
In constitutional theory, the Crown has a complex and pervasive quality.
It has many modes.
It is an organising principle of a great deal of our constitution: the royal prerogative, acts of parliament (ie bills with royal assent), the high court, and much else, all derive their existence and legitimacy from the Crown.
But it is also the position of the monarch, who has special rights and privileges in respect of the executive, parliament and the courts.
And it is about Elizabeth herself, whose first Prime Minister was Winston Churchill and now is coming up to her platinum jubilee.
The extent of the power and the influence of the Crown varies with which mode is at play.
But, regardless of theory, there is every so often in practical political affairs a new situation where the involvement of the Crown makes a difference.
And last week we happened to see another one.
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
Has the Prime Minister apologised to the Queen? A deputy spokesman has said in a press briefing that 10 Downing Street has apologised, which is not quite the same as the PM doing so. When I go on the 10 Downing Street website, I find no record of even the deputy spokesman’s statement – though perhaps I didn’t look hard enough. For the PM to make a public apology, should he not make the statement himself, either in a letter or a public interview?
What are the constitutional means (petition? humble address?) by which the Queen’s subjects can petition for the First Lord of the Treasury to be dismissed from his Crown office?
It would be regrettable to ask the Crown to act against the democratic institutions of the country even where those institutions appear to be failing.
They have failed.
Parliament has been operating in breach of the Human Rights Act and the Convention on Human Rights since 2016.
It has no legitimate claim to being a democratic institution.
You can write her a letter.
Possibly such a letter might carry more weight if it came from one of her knights?
I’ve written a few times, but never had an answer, not even the standard disclaimer that she doesn’t get involved in politics.
Or you could hold a petition in the normal way, and send it in to her.
There’s been at least a few on Change.org, including this one, which had no effect other than to ensure that she cannot say that she wasn’t warned.
https://www.change.org/p/her-majesty-queen-vote-of-no-confidence-in-the-administration-of-the-uk
Irrespective of our views on Constitutional Monarchy, The Queen has sort to uphold her life long commitment to serve our beautiful country.
She has kept a key part of that promise. She has kept her mouth shut. She has maintained political neutrality. There are barely more than half a dozen occasions when it could be said that she made a contemporary political comment (the Sunday before the Scottish Independence Referendum may have been one).
There is much value in a politically neutral constitutional Head of State.
Johnson’s Nationalist Government has compromised the political neutrality and integrity of the Sovereign. And Little English Nationalists have sort to weaponize the Monarchy.
Johnson lied to the Sovereign in the illegal closure of Parliament. He will be forgiven: for English Nationalists do not have a monopoly on patriotism nor Constitutional Monarchy (which could well be a victim of its thuggery).
PS: apologies that should read: “he will not be forgiven”!
Well said!
One odd thing about the terms of reference is that they mention “guidance”, rather than laws. Unfortunately the distinction between the two has been blurred during Covid, but it’s fundamental. Advice about eating five portions of fruit and veg. a day, or avoiding unnecessary (whatever that means) social contact is very different from the strictures of legislation. You can’t be arrested for not eating fruit, but you can be for stealing it.
Hello
Re the use of the word ‘implicitly’. I hope this doesn’t sound presumptuous (I have far too much respect for your intellect and knowledge) but I was once a magistrate (until I resigned due to the Barnard Castle/Attorney General episode) and an oft used defence was that there was no ‘intent’. It was very often impossible to prove the existence of intent as it was impossible to get in to the mind of the defendant. Is this possibly why it is being repeated so often re Johnson?
Well while on the topic of this government’s attitude that it can ignore or override constitutional laws and norms it does not like we have the news today of the plan for the Commons to pass an amendment allowing Northern Ireland MP’s to simultaneously hold a seat in the NI Assembly …but supposedly this will only be allowed until 2024.
This is designed specifically to help the DUP, and in particular the party leader Sir Jeffery Donaldson, by allowing for the 8 DUP Westminster MP’s to stand in the May 5th NI Assembly elections and sit in both bodies and keep their Westminster seats. It also clears up a minor mystery as to why the DUP had not yet registered its candidates for the NI Assembly elections when the official election campaign starts Feb 5th.
All other parties in the NI Assembly are completely opposed, even the other two hardline Ulster Unionist parties, the UUP and TUV, with the UUP leader saying that ‘its a move that would make Putin blush’. Both the UUP and TUV understand the damage this move will do to the Unionist cause in NI.
Its clearly been cooked up in a backroom deal with the Tories led by NI SoS (Brandon Lewis MP) and NI Minister of State (Connor Burns MP who are both members of the ERG as a way to try and manipulate the upcoming NI Assembly elections – which is what a former leader of the UUP Mike Nesbitt has said in a guest opinion in the Belfast Telegraph today entitled ‘Political Ploy: The DUP is once again bending democratic rules to the limit’.
Sorry, too late but according to Raab today, PM did not deliberately lie ….
Whats the difference between a lie and a deliberate lie?
Words, words, they mean what ai want them to mean perhaps.