Seems like taking back control also includes not letting the Queen know what is going on

So the HoL, the Courts and the head of state are less important that Brexit.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/qu...recy-kxv3wwkj7

[i][The Queen was left “disappointed” with Theresa May after the prime minister declined to share plans for Brexit during her first stay at Balmoral, The Times has learnt.

Mrs May stuck to her “Brexit means Brexit” line during the visit to Scotland in September rather than giving a private briefing on how she intended to negotiate Britain’s way out of the European Union, according to a source close to the monarch. The prime minister’s failure to go beyond her public remarks during the stay meant that the Queen’s relationship with her 13th prime minister did not get off to an ideal start, the account suggests
/I]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-38411847

She probably thought that the Queen would leak all her cunning plans to the EU or press. Either that or she simply didn't have any and thought an air of mystery looked better.

She didn't know or have any plans at the time she met the Queen, so there was no details to give.
It's still being planned against tough delaying tactics from Senior Civil Servants, and the remain MP's who all use the words "we accept the will of the British people, but...."

'She didn't know'. Synonymous with Queen Mays reign...

It's one of the longest 'there was nothing to say' articles I've read in a while, presumably the older the lack of information, the more is has a chance to grow. Three months, in this case.

It is said that the fact that this 'information' emerged as HRH was travelling to Sandringham by helicopter is of course completely relevant because when unrelated things happen at the same time, the interesting one makes the uninteresting one really important and converts the inherent speculationality into genuine factualness, the Times has learnt.


Careful now, I am sure they are all being totally professional and even-handed in their approach, because there have absolutely never been any incidents of institutional foot-dragging or wilful obstruction in government or administration ever and to suggest such a thing would be tantamount to full-on conspiracy thinking complete with an expectation of a fully coordinated barrage of typos, missing paperclips, remarks of 'yes it is true... that there is a rumour' and lots of 'I reckon' in the right place for papers to 'learn'.

[ continued on p.5, col.1 ]

'The Times has learnt', 'a source suggests'...
Yep, 100% cast iron reliable source there. If this was the Sun or Mail I wonder how many would think 'oh yeah, guesses or gossip from some nosy flunkey or made up.'
Even if true, the Queen's audiences with the PM are confidential so it's not like one of them are blabbing about it and they're the only ones who know exactly what was said. If indeed they even had a meeting at all rather than a 'how are things going?' 'Oh, still working out the details' sort of conversation.

I the Queen too thick to understand the detail of a red, white and blue Brexit?

In all fairness I always point out the use of such phrases when most of the many fake news articles about Corbyn or Labour are published using the lousy journalistic practice of making stuff up because they know that the keen to believe will swallow it hook line and sinker without question because it's telling them what they want to believe.

So, as much as I dislike May and her cronies and would like this to be true, I am calling it BS, and would recommend taking a skip full of salt with it.
Just as I would with every piece of fake news which makes claims of 'fact' but doesn't name a single source, if they can't back it up by naming their 'source' then they shouldn't print it, and their 'source' should be told this from the outset.

It's not rocket surgery.

What a load of old rubbish, audiences between Monarch and Prime Minister are private and are never publicised. So no one knows that they did or did not discuss.

I must have missed May's coronation, no wonder HM isn't pleased.

The queen is German so May doesn't want her leaking Brexit plans to Merkel.

They are. So either someone leaked or someone's making mischief about something that can neither be denied or confirmed.

Either way the important question is in whose interest is this story? The disgruntled Bremainer political establishment comes to mind who are seeking to frustrate, water down and if possible overturn Brexit,

When I read the thread title, I thought it was referring to Queen Mary, whose true name was May.

Well, when I read the thread title I was wondering what Brian May had done!

Although the Times story is highly suspect, there really is no 'plan'. The only thing we know for sure is A50 will be triggered. After that, it's anyone's guess.

How could anything be leaked if only the Monarch and he PM are present?

It's a load of made up rubbish.

Two people present = two sources of a leak. If people are choosing to believe it is rubbish or a lie then I can only assume that loyalty to Brexit is more important than loyalty to the Queen?

Even the Mail and Express are carrying the story now.

As is the majority of stuff about Corbyn which claims "a spokesman said" or "sources close to" or "it has been reported" etc etc etc which it claims are their sources,

something I have been saying for years and not ONLY when it's about Labour, I don't believe anything about any politician from any party which uses any of those "we are making stuff up" phrases.

Some people seem to think that if it's about Labour/Corbyn then it's true, if it's about the Tories it's made up.

Totally agree. It amazes me what clap trap is written in newspapers. Some journalists would be better spending their time writing children stories.

I don't feel any loyalty to either, but it sounds like bullshit to me.

what do you mean? Do you know the current royal family came here over 300 years ago? The Queen and her ancestors going back to the early-mid 1700s were born in England, lived in England and they spoke English as their first language since about 1750. Some of them had German husbands or wives, so what? I thought we accepted long-established immigrants, or are you just trying to be amusing?

Odd that some many people disbelieve it, when people jumped on the leak about the Queen being anti-EU.

It's rubbish and insulting those who voted leave to back up your point is risible.

Mail and Express are full of unsubstantiated tittle tattle. That's their stock in trade.

The Queen never speaks publicly on political matters nor does her office,, EVER. If there is a grain of truth to this story, then it means there is a serious leak in either the Queen's staff or at Downing Street. Neither of those are palatable given such discussions between the PM and Monarch almost certainly cover issues of high national security and defense.

It is of course a brilliant ruse, because the Queen by constitutional convention cannot deny or confirm the story without howls of protest about her interfering in the political process and May cannot either because the Remain hoarde still desperately clinging to the belief that Brexit will go away quietly will simply chose not to believe her.

Post truth politics indeed.

Amazing that Remnants ever claim May didn't/doesn't have a plan for Brexit, yet here we have a Remnant's thread complaining that she didn't tell the Queen about the plans she doesn't have. Laughable.