British PM to apologise to queen over purring gaffe

Of course the queen was delighted that the Scots decided to vote no ( she does have a gaff up there after all and her family seems to take pleasure in blasting holes in the wildlife which lives there ). If she'd have said something along the lines of 'I wish those blasted Scots would have naffed orf', this could have been interesting, The whole pantomime of neutrality has been exposed for the nonsense it is with Charles attempting to influence MPs and spouting off about topics he knows just enough about to get into trouble. These causes, as you'd expect, are those dear to the heart of rich Tories. This bizarre protocol and belief that the deeply conservative institution of the monarchy is somehow neutral is an insulting farce.

"Purr" is inappropriate but cute. I think her majesty will forgive Cameron, whose family has strong connections with Scotland so I bet they were purring together.

I think it's actually quite funny, and as timtak said, it is quite cute using 'purr'.

I'm a Royalist, Jimizo but even I find some of the gaffs a bit cringe worthy at times.

Once more the Queeen greatly misunderstands her subjects if she thinks with everything else going on there that people have to deal with, that anyone gives a monkeys whether she purred on the phone or not.

@Thunderbird The fact that this is seen as a gaffe is itself ridiculous. The queen is a grown adult with opinions and as you'd expect of a woman of her generation and status, those opinions are traditional. Charles is at least more upfront views suited to right wing Tories or kippers. This idea of a deeply conservative institution surrounded by lackeys with similar views being neutral is absurd. Everybody knows the queen favours the union. Why we persist in these silly games is beyond me.

I think the gaffe was more about showing that the Queen actually HAS an opinion even though by law she has to remain neutral. I don't see the big deal. People can remain officially "neutral" while personally having an opinion one way or another.

Methinks the republican Scotts are laughing their asses off right now....

Silliness. Elizabeth is eighty eight now and entitled to be perfectly human and blithly sentimental for all things from her past. Purr away dear if you like.

'Methinks the republican Scotts are laughing their asses off right now....'

I doubt it. They will have to put up with this kind of idiocy for a generation. I doubt the idea of the despised Tory Cameron having to grovel to a Tory without the ability to vote will offer enough consolation for a laugh.

The vote was not political anyway. Most of the floating voters had never voted before and probably never will again.

This was an emotional referendum on a subject that lies deeper than politics and was cleverly tapped by Mr Salmond, providing a smokescreen for years which covered up or took the focus off Scotland's more serious and more complicated problems.

After the vote his face looked more like Alex Trout, but he will be replaced at the SNP with an intelligent, persuasive and able leader, Nicola Sturgeon.

Personally I feel that the Queen could have been more open with her thoughts. Many things which needed to be said never were, by anyone. People are generally intelligent enough to listen to every viewpoint and then make up their own minds, and the Queen's thoughts should surely have been worth something on such an important occasion.

even though by law she has to remain neutral.

I believe this is incorrect. By custom, the Windsors have been silent, while they sit on the thrown.

Charles has said many times he wouldn't shy from getting involved.

JTDanMan. Sitting or standing! For a second I was thrown by your remark about the throne... ;-)

I think the "purr" Cameron is talking about is the dial tone he heard once the Queen hung up after realising it was Cameron on the phone.

So, let me get this straight. The queen, a person who is mainly paid and lives off of public money, cannot be quoted?

What makes her so special?

Slumdog, the queen is a monarch in a constitutional democracy, she isn't allowed an opinion. And that's how it should be.

SwissToni,

Is that what the controversy is about? Is it about her expressing an opinion that she shouldn't have? I thought it was about the word (purr) the PM used to describe her reaction and that fact that he described her reaction publically that was the controversy, not that she actually had an opinion that she expressed.

No Slumdog the controversy is that PM Cameron revealed the content of a private conversation with the Queen in a public place and should have known better. The Queen has quite clearly been quoted in the media on many occasions but the policy is for the Royal Family to stay out of politics as they can sway public opinion.

Cameron is a moron, who has no manners. He should not have been discussing this with anyone, his conversations with the Queen are supposed to be private.

No Slumdog the controversy is that PM Cameron revealed the content of a private conversation with the Queen in a public place and should have known better.

No? Your answer was part of my question above your post almost word for word. Clearly the queen is involved in politics because the PM called her to tell her about political news. If Britain really does not want the royal family involved in politics, then surely it is the phone call from the PM announcing the results that is the problem and not the fact that the PM quoted the Queen's reaction publically.

@slumdog. The PM has a weekly meeting with the Queen as she's the head of state. Are you saying the PM and the head of state shouldn't talk?

SD, think about the way the UK constitution works, think about what you said and think about what the report reports said Cameron did. There's no fight, no points to win, what happened, happened.

Are you saying the PM and the head of state shouldn't talk?

No. I am trying to understand the Queen's actual role in British politics. If she is not allowed to get involved in or have an opinion about politics, why the need to inform the Queen about political events? If she is allowed to be informed, what is wrong with the PM describing the head of state's reaction to an important political event?

Too much sensitivity surrounds this subject, that much is certain.

You don't understand the monarch's role in UK politics? The UK is a constitutional monarchy. Wiki has a pretty good summation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

The UK is a constitutional monarchy. Wiki has a pretty good summation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

Thank you for that. In looking at the link, I continue not to be able to find the part where the Queen is not allowed to have an opinion about politics. I understand she cannot make policy. But, I am still confused as to the real problem with the Queen supposedly 'purring' and the PM supposedly quoting it. What is the big deal, after all?

Cameron was fawning over Bloomberg in the most pathetic way when he let slip the purring comment. You can tell by the body language in the video that ingratiating himself somehow was an irrepressible urge. Like a cad name dropping to impress a date. Thoroughly undignified behavior for a sitting Prime Minister. Why with Bloomberg was what stunned me. After all Bloomberg is not simply a multi billionaire former mayor of NYC and proprietor of the dominant financial data service in the world, he is also a major mass media tycoon and an avid news (gossip) hound. Absolutely the wrong person with whom to be indiscrete. (Clearly the act of a moron as Elizabeth Heath notes). Perhaps Bloomberg is a shadow Tory campaign financier. That seems more than likely.

@slumdog. The monarch is supposed to be politically neutral (although some have indiscreetly allowed their opinions to be publicised, Queen Victoria did this a lot). It goes back to the English Civil war and the subsequent Restoration.

slumdog wrote: ||I continue not to be able to find the part where the Queen is not allowed to have an opinion about politics. I understand she cannot make policy. But, I am still confused as to the real problem with the Queen supposedly 'purring' and the PM supposedly quoting it. What is the big deal, after all?||

For an American the reasons why the Monarch in a constitutional monarchy cannot express views on political matters naturally seem opaque. It is understandably hard to get a solid bearing on a problem without proper knowledge of the basics. This is similar to problems with explaining British sport to the uninitiated in a cogent and succinct way. For instance: ||You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game||