God help the Queen. She's been used and abused by Eton schoolboys conniving for political gain

It is little wonder that with the door ajar to such things, there was some vain hope that the Queen might defy convention and reject the request to prorogue parliament

Sean O'Grady
Thursday 19 September 2019 12:28 EDT
Comments
David Cameron explains why he asked Queen to intervene in Scottish independence referendum

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

I’m not quite sure I understand what is going on here. Two – two – Old Etonian prime ministers dragging their sovereign lady the Queen into the muddy morass of politics. Well, we might expect no more of Boris Johnson, who fibs and farts his way through life; but the gentlemanly David Cameron?

I almost as mortified as when I first heard the allegation (since snortingly denied) that Cameron had been fellated by a (dead) pig whilst at university (Cameron, not the pig).

As soon as one stray poll emerged that showed the independence campaigners were ahead during the 2014 Scottish referendum, he was straight onto the palace to see if the Queen could “raise an eyebrow” or make some other such subtle gesture in order to save the union.

Flunkies and spin doctors scurried around, and then, by the magic of monarchy, the Queen “let slip” a remark about hoping people would use their loaf about which way they voted in the referendum.

She told a random Scot on a walkabout: "Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future."

In its way it was a brilliant operation – a line that couldn’t in its literal from be portrayed as biased or “political”, but the import of which was interpreted as being on the side of the Union. It worked too (though Gordon Brown’s late intervention was probably more decisive).

And so the Scots separatists duly lost, and, as Cameron later indiscreetly revealed, the Queen “purred” when he told her the good news that her kingdom was still in one piece.

A happy ending, I suppose, but the end did not justify the means. The notion that any premier should request, however, gently, that the Queen intervene in politics is an abuse of their position and the convention – here we go again – that the Queen can only, and is obliged to, act on the advice of her ministers, including the prime minister.

It wasn’t that Cameron (unlike Johnson is accused of doing) had misled her about his intentions – they were utterly transparent – but that she had even been put in such a position. As it happens, she was more than happy to oblige. Maybe her being half-Scottish had something to do with it.

To be fair she does have form on the Scottish issue. Back in 1977, during the celebrations for her silver jubilee, she said that “I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

Again, an impeccably neutral statement in one sense, but it carried a clear force and meaning, at a moment when the push for devolution and the clamour for Scottish nationhood was in the news (not least because of the exploitation of North Sea oil).

You wonder, by the way, whether the message in her Christmas address last year about us all calming down about Brexit was supposed to help Theresa May get her deal through parliament: "Even with the most deeply held differences, treating the other person with respect and as a fellow human being is always a good first step towards greater understanding”.

Plainly Arlene Foster and Mark Francois were not persuaded.

And so the question now is – did Cameron ask the palace if he could now spill another can of monarchical beans and on another issue of acute political sensitivity?

Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

If he didn’t, then he simply adds to the growing image of his generation of Etonians as a bunch of cads. If he did, and the palace have given the nod to this loaded bit of tittle-tattle, then they have only themselves to blame if they are criticised for getting stuck into politics, and if the monarchy loses some of its popularity in Scotland.

It is little wonder then that with the door ajar to such things, there was some vain hope that the Queen’s might defy convention and reject the request to prorogue parliament, an act that was, at best, controversial in the current circumstances.

It’s been rumoured that the Queen “blew a gasket” and told Boris Johnson off for turning his visit to Balmoral into a series of electioneering photo ops, including one with him tugging a bull around. She needs to have a word with him and Cameron about leaving her out of the political stuff, for her good as much as theirs. With prime ministers such as these, God help the Queen.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in