Where was the Queen


If I remember my timeline correctly, this occurred during the period after the death of George VI and before Elizabeth II was coronated but no matter.

She had the absolute right and duty not to allow this obvous miscarriage of justice occur. And if this clown of a Home Secretary Fyfe refused to do the right and proper thing, then the onus was on her to make her displeasure with the execution of an obviously mentally retarded and innocent young man to occur.

That makes her a murderer period.

reply

As far as I can recall the Queen did request clemency which the home secretary at the time denied.

reply

It's interesting in the Book, Pierpoint a family of executioners, Steve Fielding the author lays the blame at the Judge Goddard, for his behavious at the trial and the subsuquent behaviour of David Maxwell-Fyfe, however the bahvaiour of both is questionable, as Goddard was critiscised in the late 90's findings, he himself said in an interview it was always his belief that Bentley should not hang and he believed he would not hang, and therefore the whole blame should lie with Maxwell-Fyfe, this doesn't square entirely though with the jury' plea for mercy when they had been given little option but to find Bentley guilty due to the judge's handling of affairs.

I didn't know however the Queen asked for Mercy, my view was if she wanted something it was her right as absolute monarch for it to be granted, therefore I am surprised her request was not ensured.

Anyone know more about the Queens request and why it was not acted upon, if it did happen?

reply

The queen can only grant clemency on the advice of (in this case) the home secretary, and Maxwell-Fyfe refused to request it of her. Even if she'd wanted to she couldn't have simply granted a pardon or clemency, she's bound by procedure.

We've got lumps of it round the back

reply

While I sure don't doubt anything being said here about legalities, I believe this was the period after the death of her father and before she was formally coronated.

Having said that, I really find it hard to believe that if she was truly against the execution and she had spoken to the PM and said something to the effect look this doesn't reflect well on us as a country, pressure would have been brought on Fyfe to grant a reprieve. One would more likely have to feel she was either talked into supporting the execution or just didn't want to stake out a position on it.

reply

The queen has just about no powers at all. She gives assent to bills passed by parliament but it would be almost unprecedented for her not to give assent, so it becomes a formality. Similarly, she would never get involved in political decisions, this is what the government is there for. Both the government and the courts act in her name. If you think about it, Craig and Bentley would have been prosecuted by her, with the courts acting on her behalf (hence on court papers it's usually Regina vs [fill in name here]). It's possible she has a personal opinion about legal or political matters but it's unlikely she would or could stick her neck out and try to overturn decisions made legally and by due process. She could express a personal wish but her advisors would probably argue against getting involved, particularly since she was new in the job and not even crowned yet.

We've got lumps of it round the back

reply

The other posters got it one: There were absolutely no responsibilities placed before her when it came to hanging; the Home Office handled it all. Years later for example, during the period of Rhodesian UDI when Ian Smith's government resumed hanging terrorists, Royal Pardons were granted to all of the men, but these were made by the Home Secretary without even the slightest involvement from the Queen.

reply

Does that mean they didn't hang?

reply

The condemned Rhodesians? Or?

reply

Yes the Rhodesians.

reply

The three who were initially pardoned eventually had their sentences commuted to life, as far as I remember. Executions were halted on a basis of constitutionality, and for a period Rhodesia ended up executing less criminals than any other African country, contrary to what the left in the UK preached in the press at the time. They resumed hanging terrorists at Salisbury Central again in the 70s, in somewhat alarming numbers, but Africa and the world as a whole is better off without their kind. If only Mugabe had maybe shared the same fate rather than the 10 years' imprisonment, Zimbabwe might actually resemble something of a state today...

reply

THE WORD IS CROWNED YOU MORON!!!

George... don't do that!

reply

Where on earth did you get that awful word "coronated"???? "Crowned" is the word.

reply

YOu people, you make me sick - please stop spouting about things of which you are obviously totally ignorant. I am no monarchist, bu the fact is that the British sovereign has not been an ABSOLUTE monarch for about 500 years, the British monarch is constitutional and rules at the pleasure of and with the consensus of the people of GB. Whether or not a very very new Queen Elizabeth did in fact appeal to the Home Office for clemency for Bentley, they were under no obligation to listen to her - she cannot make demands, only requests, and if she made oen on this occasion it was ignored - as you should be. Don't post unless you know whereof you speak, it just wastes space.
Absolute monarch, indeed, you ignorant little shyte, you!!

George... don't do that!

reply

YOu people, you make me sick

Oh, is that so? I thought you were such since your birth. Anyways, thanks for the clarification.

the British monarch is constitutional and rules at the pleasure of and with the consensus of the people of GB

No, really? Up to this point, I thought it was the consensus of most of the people of GB, in this particular case, to not to hang Derek. Thanks again for sharing the info & making me realize the truth.

Don't post unless you know whereof you speak, it just wastes space.

I suppose you were mentioning this regarding yourself (taking into consideration the fact that you commented thrice while you could have done it with one comment. A large portion of 2 of your comments conveyed almost the same thing. You just repeated most of your thoughts by rewriting the sentences in a different way, yet retaining the same meaning in the other post).

Finally, hope you won't either waste any more space nor compel me to do so.

reply

Jeffjaguar: The word is crowned, NOT coronated - and an appeal has to be made directly to the monarch before she can become involved, and as far as can be ascertained, the family of the accused contacted HM only at the very last moment. Certainly, the onus was on the Home Secretary to act, and he did not.

But as for the Queen being a murderer - don't be so utterly ridiculous, childish and ignorant. And its a good job for you that there is no DP in the UK now, or you might find yourself on the end of a rope with those wild and lunatic allegations - you sound just the type to be involved in a capital crime.Now do everyone a favor and top yourslef before you get into some serious trouble.

CORONATED - you stupid little a*rsehole!!!

George... don't do that!

reply

Have you looked up the word 'coronated'? It is a real word you know. It may not be in common usage, most people would say 'crowned' but it's still not wrong. But otherwise you're right, the queen wouldn't and couldn't request clemency, she could only give assent to it if it had passed due process i.e. through parliament.

We've got lumps of it round the back

reply

There is no such word as "coronated".

This is a manifestation of a tendency (which originated in America but is spreading horribly across the English speaking world) to take a noun which is derived from a verb, and then derive a new, more complex, and entirely incorrect verb from that noun, then maybe even a new and even more horrible noun from that incorrect verb.

Example - the verb "to burgle". The noun for the person who does this is "burglar". The incorrect verb derived from that noun is "to burglarize", which is horrible. And then we get "burglarizer" as a whole new noun. I'm waiting to hear "burglarizerize" as a whole new verb!

In this case the active verb is to crown. In passive tense to be crowned, not to be coronated. A coronation is the event at which a monarch is crowned, not coronated.

reply

Sorry, but yes there is. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coronate.

We've got lumps of it round the back

reply


@ nick suess: You are precisely wrong.



What's this week's obsession? Provided that it doesn't involve green ears or ra*e? Who cares?

reply

<Jeffjaguar: The word is crowned, NOT coronated - and an appeal has to be made directly to the monarch before she can become involved, and as far as can be ascertained, the family of the accused contacted HM only at the very last moment. Certainly, the onus was on the Home Secretary to act, and he did not.

But as for the Queen being a murderer - don't be so utterly ridiculous, childish and ignorant. And its a good job for you that there is no DP in the UK now, or you might find yourself on the end of a rope with those wild and lunatic allegations - you sound just the type to be involved in a capital crime.Now do everyone a favor and top yourslef before you get into some serious trouble.

CORONATED - you stupid little a*rsehole!!!
>

Don't hold back now: tell us how you really feel!!

FWIW, I think that Maxwell-Fyfe should have commuted the sentence.

A question for the posters from the UK, if I might: After the death of her father, but prior to her coronation, was Elizabeth the Queen? Or was she technically still a princess? I am just curious.
Also, my understanding is like one or two others have said, that Her Majesty had no power to act unless she was requested to by the Home Secretary. IOW, the Home Secretary was the one who made the actual decision on commuting a death sentence, and the Crown's involvement was a formality. Is this correct?

reply

She would be queen within a split second of her father's death. Being crowned is a formality, she was already queen. And she'd have had no say in judicial sentencing. She might have had her own feelings about it and made these known to relevant people, but she couldn't have ordered the sentence to be commuted, it's not within her power.

We've got lumps of it round the back

reply

<She would be queen within a split second of her father's death. Being crowned is a formality, she was already queen.>

I did not know that. I was under the impression that she was not formally the Queen until the coronation.

<And she'd have had no say in judicial sentencing. She might have had her own feelings about it and made these known to relevant people, but she couldn't have ordered the sentence to be commuted, it's not within her power.>

This is what I thought. Up until George IV in the 1830's I believe, the Crown could act on its' own in such matters, but the King was commuting too many death sentences, so Parliament vested this power in the Home Secretary instead, and made the Crown's involvement a mere formality.
At least that is what I read in a history of the death penalty in the UK
Anyway, thank you for the answers.

reply

We have a constitutional monarchy. The Queen can advise but has little actual power.

Its that man again!!

reply

It's funny how people pretend they know something without checking. All the people bleating about 'Coronated' not being a word, for example. I mean, anyone who bothered to check (as I see a couple of people did) would know that it is a word and it also means exactly what the people using it here were using it to mean.

My final point has also been covered here, but it is true that the Queen is nothing more than a very expensive ornament around the neck of this country. Her powers are so minimal, there's very little point in her being there to be honest.

Great movie, though :)

reply

This same queen supported Augusto Pinochet and all tyrants of South America, this is her nature.

reply

Mind reader are you?

reply