Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
as the parliment is acting on behalf on the queen then it is all about protocol and respect.
he showed disrespect and so was punished.
he showed disrespect and so was punished.
Posted: 12:38 Dec 06 2004
God save the Queen/ And her fascist regime
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4060043.stm
A member of the Welsh Assembly, Leanne Wood, has been kicked out the chamber for a day for saying this: "We are more at risk now than we have ever, ever been before and the measures outlined in Mrs Windsor's speech will not address this risk." Her crime?
Addressing the Queen as "Mrs Windsor".
World. Gone. Bonkers.
A member of the Welsh Assembly, Leanne Wood, has been kicked out the chamber for a day for saying this: "We are more at risk now than we have ever, ever been before and the measures outlined in Mrs Windsor's speech will not address this risk." Her crime?
Addressing the Queen as "Mrs Windsor".
World. Gone. Bonkers.
11 Replies and 1480 Views in Total.
Posted: 12:38 Dec 06 2004 
And there was I thinking parliaments were there for the people!
It was a breach of protocol. Like Leanne Wood, I find this protocol offensive. Any questioning of the monarchy is off-limits to our parliaments. Whether calling someone by their name is disrespectful is beside the point: since when has disrespect been reasonable grounds to silence someone? By calling the Queen Mrs Windsor Leanne Wood was making an important point: she refused to use the title because she doesn't acknowledge the Queen's right to rule her. I find silencing her far more offensive than calling the Queen by her actual name.
It was a breach of protocol. Like Leanne Wood, I find this protocol offensive. Any questioning of the monarchy is off-limits to our parliaments. Whether calling someone by their name is disrespectful is beside the point: since when has disrespect been reasonable grounds to silence someone? By calling the Queen Mrs Windsor Leanne Wood was making an important point: she refused to use the title because she doesn't acknowledge the Queen's right to rule her. I find silencing her far more offensive than calling the Queen by her actual name.
Posted: 13:58 Dec 06 2004
I personally don't see the problem with calling someone by their name, that's what we have them for. Just cos she's the queen (and she's only there cos she was born into it, she didn't earn it) doesn't mean she should be treated any dofferently to anyone else. It's an issue for me.
Posted: 16:31 Dec 06 2004
Trouble is, the speech they were referring to was presumably the speech at the opening of Parliament. Calling it "Mrs Windsor's speech" is not a matter of disprespect, but actually one of inaccuracy. That address is officially known as The Queen (or King)'s Speech.
Silly moo - people amuse me when they try to come over as unconventional or whatever, like this - cos they just end up sounding stupid
Silly moo - people amuse me when they try to come over as unconventional or whatever, like this - cos they just end up sounding stupid
Posted: 17:07 Dec 06 2004 Thats quite polite compared to what i call the Royal family.
by Vinnie
as the parliment is acting on behalf on the queen then it is all about protocol and respect.
he showed disrespect and so was punished.
You shouldnt have to show people respect just becuse they were born in the right place and right time. Respect is earnt not given.
Posted: 17:53 Dec 06 2004 I totally agree.
by JtB
You shouldnt have to show people respect just becuse they were born in the right place and right time. Respect is earnt not given.
Posted: 19:20 Dec 06 2004 
Here's a question:
If there was a serious issue with the Royal family - such as it emerged they were spending billions of pounds of our money each year on boats, planes and trains so they can travel in style - how could this be questioned by people if procedure and protocol wouldn't allow this?
I've actually used a bad example there, because they do waste billions on, frankly, crap. They even have PR advisers and spinsters, hired after Di died, to stop a popular uprising.
Seriously, though - the only people in the UK with any power who can (And do) investigate anything to do with the Royal Family are the press. Even they have to fight to get anywhere.
The Royal Family isn't transparent. They get 'a lot' of _OUR_ money. What, exactly, is it sent on? Or approximately? Is it being misused? Can _we_, or MPs, legally ask these questions?
If there was a serious issue with the Royal family - such as it emerged they were spending billions of pounds of our money each year on boats, planes and trains so they can travel in style - how could this be questioned by people if procedure and protocol wouldn't allow this?
I've actually used a bad example there, because they do waste billions on, frankly, crap. They even have PR advisers and spinsters, hired after Di died, to stop a popular uprising.
Seriously, though - the only people in the UK with any power who can (And do) investigate anything to do with the Royal Family are the press. Even they have to fight to get anywhere.
The Royal Family isn't transparent. They get 'a lot' of _OUR_ money. What, exactly, is it sent on? Or approximately? Is it being misused? Can _we_, or MPs, legally ask these questions?
Posted: 19:28 Dec 06 2004
Legally MPs could pass a bill abolishing Queenie. (Although Queenie might have a thing to say about signing it.) The rules are internal procedure, if you could persuade the Speaker to ignore them off ya go. As they stand they can ask questions about the royals, but they have to eqivocate big time.
Technically it's illegal for Joe Pleblic to call for a republic under the Treason Felony Act 1848 (brought in to keep those pesky Irish in line), but the Law Lords said it was "plain as a pikestaff" (good to see the judiciary getting down with the 17th century, that's actually progress for them) that it couldn't be enforced these days in 2003.
If you do get yourself convicted, the sentance is transportation to Australia. I've decided I'm overcome with guilt for my heretical republcian leanings and must accept my punishment at the first opportunity.
Technically it's illegal for Joe Pleblic to call for a republic under the Treason Felony Act 1848 (brought in to keep those pesky Irish in line), but the Law Lords said it was "plain as a pikestaff" (good to see the judiciary getting down with the 17th century, that's actually progress for them) that it couldn't be enforced these days in 2003.
If you do get yourself convicted, the sentance is transportation to Australia. I've decided I'm overcome with guilt for my heretical republcian leanings and must accept my punishment at the first opportunity.
Posted: 20:14 Dec 06 2004 Exactly what I was going to write.
by JtB
(quotes)
Thats quite polite compared to what i call the Royal family.
You shouldnt have to show people respect just becuse they were born in the right place and right time. Respect is earnt not given.
Posted: 20:55 Dec 06 2004 Intresting would save all those emigration costs.
by Byron
If you do get yourself convicted, the sentance is transportation to Australia. I've decided I'm overcome with guilt for my heretical republcian leanings and must accept my punishment at the first opportunity.
Posted: 21:17 Dec 06 2004 
I've had this argument a lot this past few weeks. I must say I have a huge issue with the notion that the Assembly we were so condescendingly granted by the Bliar (note, not a Parliament, oh no, my fellow countrypeople can't be trusted with a Parliament such as was given to the Scots, oh no. Gah!) is given by permission of the Queen. Even if that's the official terminology, the way you have to put it, I rather doubt the monarchy these days personally grant this sort of thing. The government sorts it, gets the bill passed, Brenda just rubber-stamps it.
I would have gone with calling her "The Queen of England", which to me is what she is. That would have been less pointed than calling her "Mrs Windsor", even though that's what she is. Interestingly, here is a transcript of the relevant bit of proceedings:
Leighton Andrews: I regret having to raise the issue but, during the course of the previous debate, Leanne Wood referred to the Queen as ‘Mrs Windsor’. Will you take advice as to whether this is in order? I am sure that in a week when the Queen has been in Cardiff to open the Wales Millennium Centre, my constituents, and others, will consider the remark to be childish and offensive.
The Presiding Officer: I was pleased to welcome Her Majesty the Queen to the Wales Millennium Centre, as I have been pleased to welcome her to the National Assembly. I did not hear the remark, but I have consulted the record and taken further advice, and I would be grateful if Leanne Wood could withdraw the remark, on grounds of discourtesy.
Leanne Wood: I dispute the fact that it is discourteous, Presiding Officer.
The Presiding Officer: You cannot dispute it, because it is my ruling.
Leanne Wood: I am not minded to withdraw the remark, Presiding Officer.
The Presiding Officer: In which case, I must ask you to withdraw from proceedings for the remainder of the day, in accordance with Standing Order No. 7.8.
Ymneilltuodd Leanne Wood oÂ’r trafodion.
Leanne Wood withdrew from proceedings.
Dafydd Ellis Thomas (Presiding Officer) is a brown-nosing *&^"£*& anyway, but saying "you can't dispute it, because it is my ruling" really beggars belief.
Frankly, there are more important issues to be worrying about, "lord" Thomas...
I would have gone with calling her "The Queen of England", which to me is what she is. That would have been less pointed than calling her "Mrs Windsor", even though that's what she is. Interestingly, here is a transcript of the relevant bit of proceedings:
Leighton Andrews: I regret having to raise the issue but, during the course of the previous debate, Leanne Wood referred to the Queen as ‘Mrs Windsor’. Will you take advice as to whether this is in order? I am sure that in a week when the Queen has been in Cardiff to open the Wales Millennium Centre, my constituents, and others, will consider the remark to be childish and offensive.
The Presiding Officer: I was pleased to welcome Her Majesty the Queen to the Wales Millennium Centre, as I have been pleased to welcome her to the National Assembly. I did not hear the remark, but I have consulted the record and taken further advice, and I would be grateful if Leanne Wood could withdraw the remark, on grounds of discourtesy.
Leanne Wood: I dispute the fact that it is discourteous, Presiding Officer.
The Presiding Officer: You cannot dispute it, because it is my ruling.
Leanne Wood: I am not minded to withdraw the remark, Presiding Officer.
The Presiding Officer: In which case, I must ask you to withdraw from proceedings for the remainder of the day, in accordance with Standing Order No. 7.8.
Ymneilltuodd Leanne Wood oÂ’r trafodion.
Leanne Wood withdrew from proceedings.
Dafydd Ellis Thomas (Presiding Officer) is a brown-nosing *&^"£*& anyway, but saying "you can't dispute it, because it is my ruling" really beggars belief.
Frankly, there are more important issues to be worrying about, "lord" Thomas...
Posted: 14:23 Dec 08 2004