QUEEN ELIZABETH II views British politics under a rather gloomy light, a former member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council has revealed.
The Queen must remain strictly neutral when it comes to politics and is expected not to favour any politician or party either in her speeches or by casting a vote. But this doesn’t mean the monarch doesn’t have a precise opinion on Britain’s politics in general.
According to the former Clerk of the Privy Council, Sir Godfrey Agnew, the Queen sees very little difference between parties and politicians.
As reported in Karen Dolby’s book, Queen Elizabeth II’s Guide to Life, Sir Godfrey once said: “The Queen doesn’t make distinctions between politicians of different parties.
“They all roughly belong to the same social category in her view.”
The Privy Council is the formal body of advisers to the Sovereign.
British voters will cast their ballots tomorrow.
Members of the Royal Family are allowed to vote by law – but those in the line of succession, by convention are expected to refrain from doing so in order to maintain The Crown politically neutral.
The Queen has a key ceremonial and formal roles in relation to the Government of the UK and its Parliament.
Among her duties, the Queen open each session of Parliament, grant royal assent to legislation and approves orders and proclamations through the Privy Council.
Her Majesty also gives weekly audiences to the Prime Minister and meets ministers of the Cabinet in order to consult, warn or encourage them.
The royals’ neutrality in politics hasn’t spared the monarch from criticism in the past months.
In August, the Queen prorogued Parliament under the advice of Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
However, this decision was unanimously considered “unlawful” by the 11 judges on the Supreme Court.
This sparked the furore of Republic, an organisation calling for the abolition of the monarchy in the UK and the election of a head of state.
In a stark statement, the CEO of the organisation, Graham Smith, lashed out at the Queen, saying the Court’s decision “exposes the monarchy as a pointless and ineffective institution”.
Mr Smith then argued an elected head of state would be more keen on stopping Parliament or the Government from making certain mistakes as the position would not be granted for life.
He said: “If Parliament had been prorogued by an elected head of state, on the advice of the Prime Minister, that head of state would now have to resign.
“The Queen was given instruction to do an unlawful thing, and she did it.
“We’re always told she has the benefit of decades of experience and yet she couldn’t see what was obvious to everyone else, that the Prime Minister’s motives were not honest.
“It cannot be the case that a head of state is constitutionally bound to do an unconstitutional thing.
“And ‘I was doing what I was told’ is no defence.”
Politics also impact the Queen’s working schedule.
The beginning of the monarch’s Christmas holidays is tightly linked to the outcome of the General Election.
A Downing Street spokesperson announced last month the Queen will be asked to deliver her speech in the House of Lords on December 19 if Mr Johnson remains the Prime Minister.
This means the Queen will have to wait until that date to travel to Sandringham, where she will join Prince Philip and officially start her winter break.
A change of Government may, on the other hand, mean the Queen will have to interrupt her break in early January, when a new Government would be expected to start its parliamentary work.
The Queen usually leaves for Sandringham between December 16 and 20 and remains in Norfolk until February.