Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sftig.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!jmg
From: jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal
Subject: British Institutions of Government: Powers of the Sovereign?
Message-ID: <693@sftig.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Feb-86 16:17:03 EST
Article-I.D.: sftig.693
Posted: Mon Feb 24 16:17:03 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Feb-86 20:34:26 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit, NJ
Lines: 49
Xref: linus net.politics:12943 net.legal:2724


Concerning my recent question to a Canadian citizen:

>>> I'm Canadian. The Queen is Canada's sovereign, represented by the
>>> Governor-General.
>>
>>	Would you please expand on this statement? What are the duties, rights
>> and privileges of the "sovereign". What real power does the sovereign or her
>> representative have in making the decisions of government? How do these
>> rights compare with the rights of the average Canadian citizen? When there
>> is a difference of opinion on matters of government, whose will prevails
>> under various scenarios?

Tom Tedrick asks:

> In my ignorance, I was surprised to discover that during WW2 the
> "Sovereign" played a role as a kind of special advisor to secret
> intelligence agencies. Does anyone know about this? Do such things
> still go on?

	Tom, a couple of people have stated that the "sovereign" has no
power or influence in the British government and is a complete figurehead.
I know that the "sovereign" has access to classified information. In the U.S.
there is no access to classified information unless the individual has an
established "need to know". This means that the person receiving the
information must perform a necessary function such as information gathering,
analysis or decision making. These necessary functions imply that the
individual has some power in influencing events. If the person has no influence
on events, then they have no established "need to know".
	A few years ago the story of Sir Anthony Blunt appeared in the New York
Times. It turns out that Sir Anthony had acted as a spy for the U.S.S.R. over
a period of some thirty-five years while also serving as a member of the
British "intelligence" community. Furthermore, Sir Anthony was a personal
friend of the "sovereign" and when the "sovereign" found out about Sir
Anthony's long work for the Soviet Union, she moved him from his "intelligence"
job to a job at the palace as her personal art advisor. This was all done
without any punishment to Sir Anthony for his betrayal of the western alliance
and no adverse publicity since it was all covered up until an inquisitive
researcher uncovered it much later.
	The question that naturally arises is: if the "sovereign" is supposed
to have no power in government, how was she able to so blatantly obstruct
justice and interfere with the British judiciary to prevent Sir Anthony from
being prosecuted for his crimes? And how was she able to prevent the
"intelligence" community from following its own course of action with Sir
Anthony? And how was she allowed to endanger the defense posture of the entire
western alliance by her cover-up of the affair?


						J. M. McGhee