Royal Family considers Brexit intervention

[Thanas]

Guardian

Exclusive: royal family considering dramatic Brexit intervention

Royals are believed to be willing to risk a potential constitutional crisis to express their anger over the leave campaign


The royal family is seriously considering making a dramatic intervention in the referendum debate with an announcement that it supports Britain remaining inside the European Union.

That the royals are prepared to risk provoking a potential constitutional crisis shows just how deep their anger is at parts of the British press and senior politicians.

According to a senior source close to official figures, there was particular resentment at the Sun’s depiction of the Queen as a Brexit supporter.

But the anger runs through the generations at Buckingham Palace: there was fury at the claims about “workshy” Prince William, a campaign mounted by two papers with an anti-EU stance, the Daily Mail and the Sun. And there was a feeling last week that rock bottom had been hit with a story in the Mail that Kate was now posher than the other royals.

Using outside experts who advised that the intervention would need to be presented by a figure with impeccable European credentials, a strong affinity with the continent and the character to speak out, the family has decided that the move should fronted by Prince Philip.

“He has been hugely impressed by the way the EU stepped in, not just once but several times, to save Greece,” said one official with knowledge of events. “He admires what Tsipras and Varoufakis achieved – in fact he told friends he sees something of his younger self in the charismatic, motorbike-riding, eye-for-the-ladies Varoufakis. Mind you,” added the source, “he also thinks the Greeks would never have got into this mess if the colonels had still been in power.”

Another well-connected source explained that the royals now see a tightening conspiracy between the pro-exit papers, notably the Sun, Telegraph and Mail, and certain politicians. “The leader of Vote Leave is Michael Gove – that awful little leaker who put it about that the Queen wanted out. They can’t stand him. And as for Boris, the other main outer – he’s a cycling maniac from Islington. All he has done for the royal family is make it difficult to get around London in a decent-sized Daimler. And the third of the trio – Farage – what another awful little man.”

Part of the reason for stepping into the debate in such an unprecedented way is huge disappointment in the prime minister, David Cameron.

“The feeling is that we can’t leave it to him. Look what happened at the last referendum we had, on Scotland. We nearly lost Balmoral and the shoots. Nicola Sturgeon could be sat in that castle now – we know she had her eye on it – it was a damn close-run thing.”

Royal circles found particularly offensive Cameron’s portrayal of the Queen as having “purred down the line” when he telephoned her to tell her Scotland had voted against independence. “The cheek of the man. There was real fury about that comment. And the irony of it – coming from a fat cat,” said a source.

Remaining questions of strategy are being resolved by an inner circle at the palace. On timing, the date picked for Philip to make a nationwide address is 10 June, crucially just two weeks before the referendum on 23 June. Courtiers have noted the added poignancy of 10 June – it is Philip’s 95th birthday.

On which platform to use, the source said: “We want to avoid that ‘bloody little man’, as Charles called BBC royal reporter Nicholas Witchell.”

Kensington Palace sources say the choice is a tight one between ITV’s news anchor Tom Bradby, who is preferred by Prince William, and Prince Harry’s strong favourites Ant and Dec. Harry argues that the Saturday Night Takeaway presenters would reach a different demographic and be particularly appealing to “people in the north with accents”.

“William says that chap at ITV, Bradby, sees things like us. And there is a strong feeling that we should do over the Bleating Broadcasting Corporation. Serve them right for cocking up the Queen’s water pageant with those disc jockeys instead of using a Dimbleby.”

Another insider said early proposals to do a live broadcast have been rejected in favour of a pre-recorded session because of Philip’s propensity for swearing. “The words have to be perfect,” she said, “but we’ve got time to iron things out between today – 1 April – and June.”

Muahahahaha.

[Elheru Aran]

How is it exactly a Constitutional crisis for the royal family to say "hey guys we think the nation should stay in the EU"? It's not like they're issuing an actual proclamation from the throne or some such, are they? Or are there nuances of the English law that come into play here like "the royal family cannot attempt to influence public opinion" or whatever?

EDIT: Or is this a parody article? I'm not quite sure...

[mr friendly guy]

If a newspaper can depict the royals as supporting one side, why can't the roayls call them out and say "Uh uh."

[Eternal_Freedom]

It's a parody, but the Sovereign is supposed to be completely impartial and IIRC the rest of the Royal Family follows suit.

I'll give it credit, it was quite a convincing article until about the midway point.

[Dominus Atheos]

See, I can get Elheru Aran not getting that it's an April Fools article, but Australians like mr friendly guy really should have got it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Parody or not, I'm sincerely torn between my dislike of royalty and my dislike of the fucking Brexit (the crown jewel, so to speak, of Pigfucker Cameron's regime of bankrupt, incompetent leadership).

I was going to say bad form for publishing an April Fool's article on March 31st., but then I realized it must already be the first in Britain. Tricky Brits, fooling us Americans/Canadians in our different time zones.

[Thanas]

EDIT: Or is this a parody article? I'm not quite sure...

There is a reason why I bolded a few parts of the last line....

[mr friendly guy]

See, I can get Elheru Aran not getting that it's an April Fools article, but Australians like mr friendly guy really should have got it.

I must admit I stopped reading it partway.

[Alyrium Denryle]

EDIT: Or is this a parody article? I'm not quite sure...

There is a reason why I bolded a few parts of the last line....

Depending on what board layout one uses, bolding can be hard to detect.

[Simon_Jester]

I believe the monarch actually does have some kind of veto or intervention power that was never formally removed, but which hasn't been used since Victoria* decided not to exercise it. If I'm not wrong...

On one level it would be 'legal' or 'constitutional' for them to say 'no' to an act of Parliament on that basis, but on another level this is a holdover from the days of King George the Somethingth and very few modern Britons actually want the monarchs exercising that kind of authority. Such a thing would be an almost textbook case of 'constitutional crisis.'
_________________

*Again based on how I understand it, the British constitution as we now know it is largely a consequence of Queen-Empress Victoria deciding to take a hands-off approach to government and letting Parliament handle things while she reigned as a benign, beloved figurehead. This went on for so long (she reigned for sixty years, after all) that by the time she died, it amounted to a firm precedent for the 20th century British monarchy. As a result whereas most European countries had to go through one or more rounds of violent unrest to get power transferred from the monarch to a democratic legislature, Britain was able to just... relax... through the transition by virtue of having a monarch who didn't see fit to exercise the power she theoretically had.

[Tribble]

Parody or not, I'm sincerely torn between my dislike of royalty and my dislike of the fucking Brexit (the crown jewel, so to speak, of Pigfucker Cameron's regime of bankrupt, incompetent leadership).

I was going to say bad form for publishing an April Fool's article on March 31st., but then I realized it must already be the first in Britain. Tricky Brits, fooling us Americans/Canadians in our different time zones.

YMMV of course, but I would much rather have a ceremonial monarch as a symbolic head of state than an elected president.

I'm also a supporter of the UK having a referndum on whether or not to join the EU since the last time they had one was over whether or not to join the EEC, and the previous government flat out lied to the public over having a referendum on the LIsbon Treaty. Whether or not leaving the EU isa good idea, the referendum itself was long overdue.

I believe the monarch actually does have some kind of veto or intervention power that was never formally removed, but which hasn't been used since Victoria* decided not to exercise it. If I'm not wrong...

In Canada the Monarch's powers are techncially quite substanial (veto power via the requirement to have leigslation given "royal assent", calling / dismissing parliament, appointing judges, selecting Prime Minsiter / Premiers etc) though in practice those powers are executed by elected officals (and IIRC the veto has not been used since Confederation). I imagine that it would be similar in the UK seeing as the Canadian government was based off the UKs (so is the US in many respects actually).

[Eternal_Freedom]

I believe the monarch actually does have some kind of veto or intervention power that was never formally removed, but which hasn't been used since Victoria* decided not to exercise it. If I'm not wrong...

On one level it would be 'legal' or 'constitutional' for them to say 'no' to an act of Parliament on that basis, but on another level this is a holdover from the days of King George the Somethingth and very few modern Britons actually want the monarchs exercising that kind of authority. Such a thing would be an almost textbook case of 'constitutional crisis.'
_________________

*Again based on how I understand it, the British constitution as we now know it is largely a consequence of Queen-Empress Victoria deciding to take a hands-off approach to government and letting Parliament handle things while she reigned as a benign, beloved figurehead. This went on for so long (she reigned for sixty years, after all) that by the time she died, it amounted to a firm precedent for the 20th century British monarchy. As a result whereas most European countries had to go through one or more rounds of violent unrest to get power transferred from the monarch to a democratic legislature, Britain was able to just... relax... through the transition by virtue of having a monarch who didn't see fit to exercise the power she theoretically had.

Actually the Royal Veto (that is, refusing to grant Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament) was last used by Queen Anne in 1713 or 1714 I think. And even that was apparently done on the advice of her ministers. The Monarch not being involved in politics goes back to George the First, who since he was also ruling Hannover and didn't speak English, basically went "ah sod it, you guys sort it out."

It has created some quite odd quirks of the government. For instance, technically the status/residence/importance of the Prime Minister actually comes from his role as First Lord of the Treasury, since "Prime Minister" wasn't a role that historically existed until Horace Walpole came along (as best I can recall).

[Lord Revan]

I suspect that in modern day any real use of power by the monarchy in UK would result in swift removal of the monarchy, unless the monarch at the time was so charismatic that people would ignore/support said use of power.

[Crazedwraith]

I remembered the date right when I got to the bit about Prince Philip being their respected representative.

[Simon_Jester]

I suspect that in modern day any real use of power by the monarchy in UK would result in swift removal of the monarchy, unless the monarch at the time was so charismatic that people would ignore/support said use of power.

Revan, are you British? I forget...

[Zaune]

I suspect that in modern day any real use of power by the monarchy in UK would result in swift removal of the monarchy, unless the monarch at the time was so charismatic that people would ignore/support said use of power.

At the risk of sounding melodramatic, if Her Majesty (or His Majesty if it ends up being Charles who forces the issue) declined to go quietly then it'd come down to who the Army sided with, and I wouldn't bet too much on that being a Parliament who'd screwed up big enough to make the monarch say, "You bloody idiots have gone too far this time. ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL."

[Lord Revan]

I suspect that in modern day any real use of power by the monarchy in UK would result in swift removal of the monarchy, unless the monarch at the time was so charismatic that people would ignore/support said use of power.

Revan, are you British? I forget...

I'm finnish, though I have british relatives.

[Lord Revan]

I suspect that in modern day any real use of power by the monarchy in UK would result in swift removal of the monarchy, unless the monarch at the time was so charismatic that people would ignore/support said use of power.

At the risk of sounding melodramatic, if Her Majesty (or His Majesty if it ends up being Charles who forces the issue) declined to go quietly then it'd come down to who the Army sided with, and I wouldn't bet too much on that being a Parliament who'd screwed up big enough to make the monarch say, "You bloody idiots have gone too far this time. ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL."

I suppose so, but I was thinking more of Elizabeth II or Charles (or what ever he choses for his regal name) using the powers for example to block UK from leaving EU because they thought it wasn't wise to do so. basically something major has to happen for the british monarchy to be able to "assume direct control" as you put it (or at least that's the impression I got from my relatives last time I spoke to them).

[Edi]

Obvious April Fool article when you consider all the different quotations. Even if some of the things would be said in private, they would never be repeated to a reporter in the manner portrayed in the article.

[Crown]

Guardian

Exclusive: royal family considering dramatic Brexit intervention

Royals are believed to be willing to risk a potential constitutional crisis to express their anger over the leave campaign


The royal family is seriously considering making a dramatic intervention in the referendum debate with an announcement that it supports Britain remaining inside the European Union.

That the royals are prepared to risk provoking a potential constitutional crisis shows just how deep their anger is at parts of the British press and senior politicians.

According to a senior source close to official figures, there was particular resentment at the Sun’s depiction of the Queen as a Brexit supporter.

But the anger runs through the generations at Buckingham Palace: there was fury at the claims about “workshy” Prince William, a campaign mounted by two papers with an anti-EU stance, the Daily Mail and the Sun. And there was a feeling last week that rock bottom had been hit with a story in the Mail that Kate was now posher than the other royals.

Using outside experts who advised that the intervention would need to be presented by a figure with impeccable European credentials, a strong affinity with the continent and the character to speak out, the family has decided that the move should fronted by Prince Philip.<snip>

They had me until that point, well played Guardian. Well played.

[Kingmaker]

it'd come down to who the Army sided with, and I wouldn't bet too much on that being a Parliament who'd screwed up big enough to make the monarch say, "You bloody idiots have gone too far this time. ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL."

Even the most staunch royalist soldier might balk when they realize the Queen was actually a giant, superintelligent alien robot.

Or maybe not.

[Crown]

it'd come down to who the Army sided with, and I wouldn't bet too much on that being a Parliament who'd screwed up big enough to make the monarch say, "You bloody idiots have gone too far this time. ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL."

Even the most staunch royalist soldier might balk when they realize the Queen was actually a giant, superintelligent alien robot.

Or maybe not.

I thought we were going with a space alien lizard origin for Liz II and her family?

[Zaune]

I'd pick either of those options over Cameron's lot.

[The_Saint]

I find it amusing every time I see something saying how an intervention by the Queen into British government affairs would lead to swift removal of the monarchy. There are laws specifying exactly what and how that can happen, it doesn't matter if it hasn't happened in 300 years in England, it happened 40 years ago in Australia.

[Simon_Jester]

As a non-Briton, I am curious; could you expand on that?