Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    what were her thoughts on it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    She didn't have any, publicly. She's above issues like the war.


    Posted from the TSR app - no updates since 2013!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The monarchy aren't supposed to influence political matters. Queen wouldn't have publicly stated her opinion on the war.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowKiwi)
    The monarchy aren't supposed to influence political matters. Queen wouldn't have publicly stated her opinion on the war.
    So the Head of the Army isn't meant to have any opinion on war?

    Sorry but the Monarchy is meant to have direct influence within the creation of law, not politics. She can't say a party she support, but she can have policy positions which she supports and put all her resources behind. Just she chooses not to do so.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    So the Head of the Army isn't meant to have any opinion on war?

    Sorry but the Monarchy is meant to have direct influence within the creation of law, not politics. She can't say a party she support, but she can have policy positions which she supports and put all her resources behind. Just she chooses not to do so.
    Not in this day and age. She's purely symbolic now.


    Posted from the TSR app - no updates since 2013!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Not in this day and age. She's purely symbolic now.


    Posted from the TSR app - no updates since 2013!
    She maybe. However it doesn't mean the Monarchy as an institutions of the British nation state must always be so. I will once we leave the EU and the Queen dies move to regain some of its power and influence within the affairs of the Nation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Chilcot should be fired & they should hire someone else for finding out went on. Even I would be better, it's very simple, Tony Blair thought he was Charlemagne by trying to unite Europe ( that's why he's dying to be president of the EU) & as a result of his Christian fundamentalism (I like Christianity btw just not this type) wanted a war between Muslims and Christians, let's be real he thinks Islam is Satans own creed. Now he's waiting for Jesus to descend to help him win.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I doubt if Queen Elizabeth had any opinion on Iraq, as it did not exist in the 16th century. The opinion of Queen Elizabeth the second is probably only known to Prince Philip (possibly) and Tony Blair, neither of whom would comment on Her Majesty's views on the matter.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    So the Head of the Army isn't meant to have any opinion on war?

    Sorry but the Monarchy is meant to have direct influence within the creation of law, not politics. She can't say a party she support, but she can have policy positions which she supports and put all her resources behind. Just she chooses not to do so.
    as we would lop off her head if she did.

    That's one of the reasons we still have a monarchy. Ours were smart enough to realize which way the wind was blowing early on. Look at France or Russia to see how not to do it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    as we would lop off her head if she did.

    That's one of the reasons we still have a monarchy. Ours were smart enough to realize which way the wind was blowing early on. Look at France or Russia to see how not to do it.
    No we wouldn't nobody would care or do anything. The same way nobody did anything when the government did things which greatly extend its power. In any case with the act of succession the Monarchy must act in a more pro active and aggressive manner so I can maintain itself through the act of succession and now it has a willing able person to do that in Charles III. Rather than an inexperienced young girl like Elizabeth II or physically feeble like her George VI or the abdicator Edward VIII. So in the last century the nation has had one Monarch worthy and able. Charles III will be the first since George V. So in reality our Monarchy hasn't been smart it has been manipulated by the other institutions within the nation and weakened bad manifestations of its power. The Monarchy isn't a person it isn't an institution the head of which is the Monarch. It is a vital part of the nation state and its weakening means a loss of Freedom, Justice and Liberty within the nation and in the end the destruction of the British nation state itself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, all of that was just rambling noise.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    I doubt if Queen Elizabeth had any opinion on Iraq, as it did not exist in the 16th century. The opinion of Queen Elizabeth the second is probably only known to Prince Philip (possibly) and Tony Blair, neither of whom would comment on Her Majesty's views on the matter.
    the enquiry won't be telling us what she thought about it then? so whats the point of it? a complete waste of time, chilcot is going to make sure he dies before its over
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    A bunch of rich people killing a bunch of dark skinned foreigners?

    She must've hated it.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.