#AbolishTheMonarchy – backlash against Queen for meekly rubber-stamping Johnson’s Parliamentary shutdown

The Queen: By backing Dictator Johnson against the people, she may have signed up for the abolition of the monarchy.

The Queen is back-pedalling hard over her agreement to prorogue Parliament for Boris Johnson.

According to the BBC’s royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell, she has never refused to accept the advice of her ministers and always acted on precedent.

So when Jacob Rees-Mogg, for Dictator Johnson, demanded that she prorogue Parliament during a Privy Council meeting yesterday, he said she would have felt “boxed in”.

He added: “She and her advisors, I have little doubt, will be frankly resentful of the way this has been done and will be concerned at the headlines which say ‘Queen suspends Parliament.”

Rightly so – because, as current slang has it, the optics are terrible.

People are saying democracy has been denied by an unelected monarch acting on the wish of an unelected prime minister.

And they know she could have stopped him:

And it has focused the anger of the people on the monarchy:

That’s the nub of the matter, isn’t it?

And when this crisis is all over, with Dictator Johnson and his cronies banished to the waste-bin of history, it seems likely the people will want to seek assurances that this can never happen again.

We will need checks and balances to ensure that no unelected head of state can ever again deny us our right to representation.

It seems that, with a few penstrokes, the Queen may have put an end to the British Royalty.

Source: Queen and her advisers ‘resentful’ over how Boris Johnson handled prorogation – Mirror Online

20 thoughts on “#AbolishTheMonarchy – backlash against Queen for meekly rubber-stamping Johnson’s Parliamentary shutdown

  1. John MacPherson

    Tax payers of this country cannot afford to keep the royals in their privileged life style it is obvious that she does not care for her subjects .

  2. J Edington

    All this really highlights the difference between sovereignty in English and Scottish law. In preunion Scotland, the people were sovereign, lending that sovereignty to a monarch, who they could get rid of if they felt the role was not being done to their satisfaction. (This sovereignty still exists, as accepted in parliament a couple of years ago). In England, the Queen is sovereign, lending her sovereignty to Parliament. If she really cared about the people she rules over, she should have temporarily taken back that sovereignty and told Boris to stuff it.

  3. Mike Powers

    What’s the point in having a monarch as head of the country of all she does is cut ribbons and launch ships. We are a constitutional monarchy.

  4. MR R R BEILEY

    She should get better advisers for sure! Given away the Royal Family with the squiggle “R” on the prorogue document. The country will be unforgiven

  5. Jenny Hambidge

    Were any others of the Privy Council even consulted? Or did JRM and BJ just cook it up between themselves? BJ didn’t even attend -only two other members. Who or what gave them the authority to do this?

  6. Zippi

    I’m sorry but this is hysteria. We don’t know what the Queen was thinking, what she was told, what took place in that room. It is an assumption, on the part of Mr. Witchell. We must not jump to conclusions. I am aware that people are worried about the possible consequences of leaving the European Union without a deal but what Opposition Parties were planning, would destroy our negotiating position, just like it did with Theresa May’s. All that I heard from them was “stop no deal” knowing full well that the E.U. has said, repeatedly, that the only deal on offer is that of Theresa May; the same deal that Parliament rejected THRICE; the same deal that lost by the biggest majority in HISTORY! All that Parliament has shown, over the last 3+ years, is what it DOESN’T want and I, for one, am fed up with it. Remember, we shouldn’t even BE in the European Union, now. What would an extension be FOR? This is a negotiation and the E.U. doesn’t care about what WE want so, unless we can force their hand, our European adversaries will only move the lines closer to them.
    I am not happy about the decision to prorogue and I am suspicious about the timing but it may well have been to protect the negotiating strategy. Do we know what is happening in the E.U.? No but the world knows what is happening here. All of our plans are on public display, which is NO way to negotiate so, I wonder, if much of what Mr. Johnson is doing is for appearances. Mr. Johnson doesn’t have the luxury of 2 years and the deadline of 31st of October was set by the E.U. and is the current legal position. Parliament has been debating this issue for YEARS. I’m sure that Her Majesty the Queen would have had a lengthy conversation and discussed the merits and pitfalls of prorogation. Is what Mr. Johnson has done illegal? This, I think, is the most important point.
    I’m not Mr. Johnson’s biggest fan, by any stretch of the imagination but I have to try to see the bigger picture and all that I see are people jockeying for power, on ALL sides, putting what they want, based on their own fears and ambitions ahead of what we voted for. Had half of Parliament [that still doesn’t] accepted the result, instead of, for the last 3+ years, seeking to overturn it, we would not be here. Everybody is fed up with this. We were told that Emmanuel Macron wants shot of us and who can blame him? This has been going on for far too long. People talk about democracy yet, when it comes to those who have been doing their level best to subvert it, little is said. How dare the likes of Anna Soubry, Jo Swinson and Caroline £ucas lecture us about democracy. Our politicians said that they would listen to us yet have continued to ignore us, telling us why we voted. I said, in 2016, that we would not leave and that it were possible to engineer a situation whereby we could not leave. Only time will tell.
    I’m not at all happy about the situation but I cannot blame a single M.P.; they are ALL to blame. I say, again, a plague o’ BOTH Houses; Commons and £ords!

  7. Tony

    People with power will usually only be swayed by considerations of cost.
    By raising questions about the role of the monarchy, the Queen may well have blundered badly.

  8. Carol Fraser

    We need a written constitution. One that does not include the Queen. Abolish her or not to be decided. However one thing the people should do is take back control the huge estates owned by the monarch and those which some old king gave to his supporter of the day. Start with the one owned by the Greasey Smogg clan. Then the country would not be full up

  9. trev

    The whole point of having a Monarch as a figurehead is to prevent abuse of power by either the Monarch or a Dictator. This latest matter has revealed a loophole that needs plugging.

  10. Growing Flame

    Being a bit wary of “public opinion” (as outlined by the Daily Mail, Express, Sun etc), I suggest that we do not “abolish the Monarchy” but insist that we retain the Monarchy but without all this tiresome, embarrassing “Constitutional role”. Just let her and her relatives call themselves “The Royal Family” and do the same ourselves. After all, can’t we call ourselves what we like?

    That way, the fearful monarchists, terrified of a world without someone to rule over them, could still feel secure that there is someone kind and understanding to care for them. Our politicians could regularly refer to them as “the Royal Family” with a patronising look, and the news readers on TV could still adopt that smug look of approval when announcing another Royal story about the murder of a Princess, or Royal mistresses, or a Prince abusing children in America etc. The usual stuff.

    And then we could all call ourselves whatever we like.
    Signed,
    The Marquis of Chipping Sodbury

  11. Barry Davies

    She was asked by the Privy council, to have refused would have ignited a constitutional crisis

  12. Gary

    The system is at fault. Either we live in a democracy where monarchs are irrelevant and have no power OR she IS a monarch, DOES have power and wields it.

    Does ANYONE know what her powers REALLY are? what if she DID say no? What if she refused to sign something into law? What does the government of the day do then?

    We should NEVER find ourselves in this position but of course, it ONLY comes to light when she agrees to do something YOU don’t like, doesn’t it. All the Brexiteers will be happy with the status quo, at the moment, but can you imagine what they’d be saying if Corbyn had done the same?

    We need a proper written constitution, proper rights too. We should NEVER have to refer to an unelected old lady in her 90s who gets the position because of who her dad was!

    But, if we serious about democracy we’d have done something about that by now, wouldn’t we?

    1. Zippi

      You may recall that, because of who her dad was, she was never supposed to be Queen. Also, Winston Churchill’s government stripped her of powers; she has fewer powers, now, than she did when she ascended the throne. In fairness to her, she didn’t choose to be Queen. Uneasy lies the head that wears the Crown. I wouldn’t want to do it. Aye, I am a member of a royal family; that, in itself is no fun.

Comments are closed.