You haven't yet told us what it is you think she ought to be doing about it though.

Well said!

All lovely grass fed meat no GM crops for her. no cheap processed food. no stress no worries about how to feed her children and grandchildren We as a nation are getting sicker imo its a lot to do with the food and stress of life today

I have over and over but you just don't listen/read it

I shall make the text larger for you .

SHE COULD SPEAK UP FOR HER PEOPLE, SHE COULD SET A EXAMPLE BY GIVING AND DOING MORE PUBLICLY, SHE COULD LET IT BE KNOWN THAT SHE DISAGREES WITH WHAT THE GOVERNMENT ARE DOING but she doesn't and her loyal subjects surround and protect her at all times.

As an effectively neutral head of state, we don't need or particularly want her to openly engage politically, and it is to her credit that she has resisted doing so for so long.

None so blind! I have not had a newspaper in over 30 years, don't have a TV and yet have seen many many times over my 60 years "Queen breaks royal protocol and speaks out"

Have you really? Because I haven't. Most of the Queen's reported views have come from third parties who blabbed to others and then ultimately the press.

Can you give an example of when she has said publicly that she disagrees with government policy?

Exactly. Spot-on

And who would have retired 30 years ago, unlike the Queen.

But still go out shopping in all weathers sometimes everyday or at least a few times a week.

Who still have to cook and clean themselves.

Who when ill are lucky to see a Doctor and if they do get a appointment have to go to them.

Who In many cases have to choose if to eat or be warm that day as they can't afford both.

Hers is a largely ceremonial role and she plays no part IN government. She is above politics and cannot change or influence the actions of the government.

"The monarch and his or her immediate family undertake various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties. As the monarchy is constitutional, the monarch is limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours and appointing the Prime Minister. The monarch is, by tradition, commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces. Though the ultimate formal executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still by and through the monarch's royal prerogative, these powers may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament and, in practice, within the constraints of convention and precedent."

Something discussed in private and subsequently leaked is, by definition, not offering an opinion "publicly".

She has a meeting with the Prime MInister every week but the nature and content of the discussion which takes place is not divulged. She can and does offer opinions and asks questions but nobody other than the PM hears them.

She is as entitled to hold opinions as you or me... the difference is that she cannot be seen to be either publicly criticising or endorsing the policies or individuals of the government, which is why she does not do so.

"Leaks" are hardly a reliable source of anything as they invariably come from un-named and unverifiable sources. On that basis, anyone could make any sort of spurious statement and claim that it originated with the Queen. Why would any rational person believe that?

You are in the twilight zone - because if you want the "war on the vulnerable" to stop, that has to come from government policy and not from the Queen.

Banging on about the Queen not doing anything is an exercise in futility, as she cannot influence government policy. This is basic, basic stuff and you really need to read up on the constitutional arrangements of the UK and the role of the Monarchy within it, if you hope your opinions to be taken seriously.

I bet she's done plenty of this - IN PRIVATE.

I think the point being made was that she sits atop a system that perpetuates the idea of class, privilege, ideas of inherited positions demanding deference based on birthrights etc.

One mightn't think there is anything wrong with that of course.

David Cameron revealed that she "purred" when he told her the result of the Scottish independence referendum vote

That was a pretty tacky disclosure made by a tacky berk of a prime minister, who has, incidentally, ruined our country with his ill-conceived referendum.

"Shall one be.......the cat?"

One minor indiscretion by a great PM, and a wonderful warm hearted guy.


Rubbish. The referendum was democracy in action. The people spoke.

I bet she purred longer and louder when the clown was forced to resign after the EU referendum...and I say that as someone who voted FOR Scottish Independence.

Serves him right for being a complete clown and being so utterly clueless and indiscreet. Wasn't fit to clean out the cat's litter tray, let alone run the country.

Those are my thoughts - not necessarily those of the Queen, by the way!

It's actually very interesting reading how the Queen got on personally with the various Prime Ministers who have served on her watch - link

I don't envy her either. Abolishing the monarchy would mean we never had to inflict that life on anyone ever again.

I agree let someone do the job who wants it rather than forced into it.

Bloody hell, I could have sworn she was at least 110 when she came to open my school in 1966.

That may have been when I became a Republican: 600 girls were forced to waste 2 hours learning to curtsey and how to a address a royal. Even hockey would have been preferable.

I suspect there is a real posibility that longevity could be the death of the Monarchy. Odds are with increased life expectancy and in particular the life expectancy of people as well cared for as Monarchs that we may never again (accidents etc apart) see a Monarch under seventy. We could well regularly have Monarchs over 100.
Perhaps they will have the good sense to start retiring at a reasonable age. Even Popes retire.