« government: dietician or chef? | Main | the faustian pact of reality television »

July 13, 2007



"Queen's status is such that she is incapable of living under rules even if she wanted to"

Weren't those arguments closed off in the 17th century? France had lettres de cachet, but in the UK the bars on the Royal Prerogative relating to the rule of law have been extremely clear for rther a long time.

The areas of uncertainty in our constitution relate mainly to the things that the monarch could do in theory, but probably can't in reality (sacking Prime Ministers, for example). There's no uncertainty at all about the things the monarch defintely can't do, and censoring the press has been on that list since before the typewriter was around, never mind Final Cut Pro.

Will Davies

bge - fair enough. I'm probably being unduly flippant or polemical, and my knowledge of constitutional history is not brilliant. I just smelled something a little fishy at the time the story broke. After all, it's hardly censoring the press if she offered the BBC unprecedented access on the condition that the Palace retained certain editorial controls over the results.


The comments to this entry are closed.