He had talked to the Queen’s private secretary, a senior and influential palace official, “not asking for something that would be in any way improper or unconstitutional but just a raising of the eyebrow even you know, a quarter of an inch, we believed would make a difference”.

Quickly following, just days ahead of the referendum vote, the Queen was overheard producing a comment to a properly-wisher outdoors church close to her Balmoral estate in Aberdeenshire.

The properly-wisher joked that they have been not going to mention the referendum and the Queen replied: “Effectively, I hope individuals will consider quite cautiously about the future.”

There was instant speculation it had been a stage-managed hint made to convey her need for the union to remain with each other.

Cameron stated the Queen’s words on the problem have been “quite restricted but helped to place a slightly diverse perception on items”.

Nevertheless the palace had a week earlier issued a statement, following reports of her concern more than the vote, insisting “Any suggestion that the Queen would want to influence the outcome of the present referendum campaign is categorically incorrect. Her Majesty is basically of the view this is a matter for the individuals of Scotland”.

In impact, by implying this week the Queen had followed his request with the intention and impact of influencing voters, Cameron was either providing the lie to her prior claim to impartiality, or revealing he had forced her to go back on her claim to be impartial.

Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Celebration Initially Minister who resigned following the independence referendum was lost, stated he had viewed the Queen’s remark at the time as “pretty innocent” but Cameron “was clearly attempting to mobilise the Queen to aid his political interest and that is not just absolutely improper, it is pretty extraordinary that he ought to reveal it and boast about it”.

A royal supply told the BBC “it serves no-one’s interests” for conversations in between the PM and the Queen to be created public, as “it tends to make it quite difficult for the connection to thrive”.

BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond stated it was “difficult to envision something other than horror in the palace” at Cameron’s revelations, “not just due to the fact he has broken the [privacy] rule, but due to the fact he has created it painfully clear that in 2014 he applied the Queen for his personal political purposes, and that she and her advisers believed that was ok”.

The Queen receives then British PM David Cameron at a Commonwealth Heads of State banquet in 2011.

The Queen receives then British PM David Cameron at a Commonwealth Heads of State banquet in 2011.Credit:Andrew Meares

The Instances newspaper stated the palace had created clear its “displeasure and annoyance” with Cameron in an “unprecedented rebuke” in unusually clear terms.

And veteran royal reporter Robert Johnson stated the monarch was “rightly unhappy” about Cameron’s comment. Prime ministers’ audiences with the Queen have been “entirely private so that she remains politically neutral on all matters”, he stated.

Her original comment outdoors the church was “not political in itself”, Johnson said, but had “become partisan and divisive when Cameron revealed he urged Her Majesty to intervene”.


“Maybe she was going to make her remarks anyway,” he stated. “Only she knows. But this way Cameron – by means of his indiscretion – tends to make it appear like the head of state dances to his tune.

“It is a breach of trust. That will absolutely irritate Her Majesty.”

The connection in between Queen and PM is constitutionally intricate. Even though the monarch is supposedly the supply of executive energy, she have to nearly normally stick to the suggestions of her ministers when she workout routines it. Her function was summarised by the authoritative 19th century specialist Walter Bagehot as “the correct to be consulted, the correct to encourage, the correct to warn”.

But constitutional specialists have lengthy suspected that, behind the scenes, the royals are far more politically active than they publicly admit.

On radio on Thursday Cameron once more insisted he had not asked for “anything improper”.

But it is not the initially time Cameron has annoyed the Palace.

He admitted he had created a “terrible mistake” with a prior royal misstep: he was caught on camera in 2014 telling former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg the Queen had “purred down the line” when he phoned her to inform her Scotland had voted “no” to independence.

And he risked far more displeasure on Thursday evening, revealing new facts of other conversations with the Queen in a podcast with The Instances.

There, Cameron stated the Queen was offered to driving at “break-neck speed” at Balmoral and that she had told him she was “the only lady to have driven the King of Saudi Arabia”.

Most Viewed in Globe