It will only really get interesting after the Queen kicks the bucket. For most non monarchists she isn't a bad sort to be in charge. The rest of them are a shower of shites.
She should really be like a couples therapist for political leaders.
She never did this. She always stayed out of politics.
King George VI publicly praised Chamberlain for appeasing Hitler and apparently preventing another world war. I'd be wary of making _any_ public statement of that sort as a royal with that kind of precedent.
It was 1928.
1928 equalised it to everyone over 21
Like most things, Suffrage was a scale - before 1835 most men didn't have a vote either, working men got it in 1867, 1918 all men over 21 and property holding women over 30 got the vote, in 1928 all women over 21 and in 1969 everyone over 18. In devloved areas like Scotland suffrage is even lower (16).
Unlike in the US I don't think it's ever regressed
Only for certain elections -- local and Scottish parliamentary. You still have to be 18 to vote in elections for Westminster; the same was true of European elections when they were still a thing in the UK.
She didn’t want to have to wear seatbelts on public roads passing through her property. That’s being involved in politics; it’s just the public didn’t know about it.
If this is your idea of a political issue then I strongly recommend the reading of newspapers and engagement with local institutions.
Also, I am of "the public" and I knew, due to reading Private Eye which had reported on all this repeatedly for the last 10 or more years.
Oh and maybe don't attack my character. My ideas can be vilified, but you don't know what I know or don't.
How did she do that?
While the office may have had consecutive local minima, one would be hard pushed to suggest Major, Blair or even Brown - were "downhill" from Callaghan.
Frankly I would rather have this lobbying out in the open where it can be held accountable.
She is also the only person in the world who has the experience of a weekly conversation with the last 14 prime ministers of Britain. She is the embodiment of the state’s institutional memory.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
So when a monarch dies does everyone in the armed forces take a new oath?
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.
I don't think I misrepresented it in any way.
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's written by the Government; she reads it out. She has no part in its preparation.
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.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29200...
No, definitely not 'bring together'. It's 'stay above'.
Even 'mediating' is 'interference'.