26 BACK PAGE LAW STORIES 4 October 2019 | www.newlawjournal.co.uk

The & the minister

A word of advice to : the special relationship between the prime minister & the queen should not be taken for granted,

says Athelstane Aamodt Facundo© Arrizabalaga/EPA/Shutterstock

avid Cameron’s decision to reveal and restrained to become ‘the Queen in The royal biographer Hugo Vickers details of his private conversations Parliament’: politically neutral and largely commented: ‘When the prime minister tells with the queen in both his recently ceremonial. her, “We have a big problem,” she can say, Dpublished autobiography, and Despite these changes, the monarch’s “Oh yes, we had something similar in 1958 also in a Red Box podcast with The Times, relationship with the prime minister remains and this is what we did.” once has caused to express special. It is the queen who asks an MP to form came to her about another head of state its ‘displeasure and annoyance’ with the a government (although peers have also been saying, “I’m really struggling to get on with former prime minister. The mention of a prime ministers, the last one being the 3rd him.” She could say, “Try cricket, that’s his conversation that they both had about the Marquess of Salisbury in 1902). She therefore subject.”’ Scottish referendum on independence has essentially has the function of formally Despite leading a socialist party, the been the principal source of the monarch’s appointing him or her to the office. Labour prime minister was ire, as well his disclosure that the queen had The historian Andrew Roberts says of the extremely proud of his relaxed relationship driven at ‘breakneck speed’ at Balmoral and weekly meetings between prime minister with the queen. He kept a photograph of that she had also told Mr Cameron that she and monarch that: ‘It is a vital part of the himself with her in his wallet until it almost was the only woman to have ever driven in British constitution. Without it, since we are fell apart. Sir John Colville, Sir Winston Saudi Arabia. a constitutional monarchy, the politicians Churchill’s private secretary, once asked The monarch usually has a weekly meeting don’t have genuine legitimacy, and the royals him what he and the queen discussed at with the prime minister (although it is have less understanding. And wouldn’t it be their weekly meetings. ‘Racing, mostly,’ technically an ‘audience’). These meetings, completely weird if the person representing came the classically Churchillian response. that are listed in the court circular, are usually what Bagehot called the “efficient” side of the What makes these meetings so interesting held on a Wednesday afternoon, but they constitution didn’t meet regularly with the from a legal point of view is that there is no are occasionally held on the telephone. The person representing the “magic”?’ obligation whatsoever for them to occur. existence and function of these audiences, Adam Lusher’s article, ‘Borrowed wellies By way of contrast, Art II, s 3 of the US and the reason for the queen’s muted anger, and racing talk: the Queen and her prime Constitution requires that the president ‘... provide a useful aperçu when it comes to the ministers’, published in The Telegraph shall from time to time give to Congress functions of our constitutional monarch; online on 8 April 2012 charts the monarch’s information of the State of the Union and functions which are assembled and held relationship with her prime ministers and recommend to their Consideration such together by those most British of things—the includes many of the intriguing nuggets measures as he shall judge necessary and conventions of an uncodified constitution. mentioned in this article. expedient.’ These meetings only happen because both parties want them to happen. Magic & efficiency Friends, colleagues & countrymen Rather like the office of prime minister, As most schoolchildren know, the first Regular meetings between monarchs and which does not derive from and is not prime minister (although he did not have prime ministers are hardly new. But during defined in any statute, the meetings exist that title) was Sir (1676- the reign of the current queen, these meetings because they always have. 1745), who was appointed by King George seemed to have achieved a new significance. The mordant response of Buckingham I in 1721. He was not selected by a party Harold Wilson described the meetings as Palace to Mr Cameron’s indiscretion or parliament and became ‘The First Lord the only times when he could have a serious perhaps derives partly from the clear of the Treasury’. It is a title that the prime conversation, which would not be leaked, breach of confidence, but also from the minister holds to this day and which with somebody who wasn’t after his job. John queen’s intense dislike of being dragged appears engraved on the letterbox of 10 Major admitted: ‘One can say to the queen into anything remotely political—a dislike Downing Street. absolutely anything. Even thoughts you that has no doubt intensified following the The powers and role of the prime minister perhaps don’t want to share with your cabinet recent arguments before the Supreme Court have changed over the years. It would be at a particular time you can say to the queen, about the legality of ’s request very difficult indeed to imagine the queen and I did.’ for the prorogation of Parliament. One simply dismissing a prime minister, as ‘They unburden themselves,’ the queen wonders if this comes up in their weekly George III did with the MP George Grenville once told the BBC. ‘They know one can be meetings. Presumably not. NLJ in 1765. The unbridled royal absolutism impartial. It’s rather nice to feel that one’s a that ended in Charles I’s downfall, has, sort of sponge and everybody can come and Athelstane Aamodt, barrister, 4 King’s Bench by various means, been ameliorated tell one things.’ Walk (www.4kbw.co.uk)