[7% Cocaine]

Long time no see, dear HNers. Sorry for my long-time abscence. My mom has been seriously ill and we've been busy taking care of her. For some time, with all these family crisises coming at the same time, my sherlockian passion had cooled down quite a bit. But today my holmesian circle is waxing again. I'll browse around and enjoy a HN evening.

Earlier this year I had thought of writing a Holmes story. (Have had some of the plot worked out already ) And need help from you Victorian historians.


In my story(or novel), Holmes is going to travel to a foreign country on secret government mission. And I'm wondering , is it possible that he was sent by foreign minister(or some other high officials, like a spymaster, or viceroy of India?) and even the Queen didn't know anything about the mission?

I don't want to involve Holmes in nasty political affairs. But I got a good material on hand and Holmes is so ideal for the hero.

[Shangas]

You should keep in mind that Queen Victoria's position, by the late 19th century, was largely ceremonial, as it continues to be, with the current British monarch. I doubt she would have concerned herself with daily activities of government.

But what exactly, is your question? It's not very well worded and I'm having trouble understanding what you want to know.

If you're asking if Queen Victoria would have known about such activities...I think it very unlikely.

[lymelight]

You can bet Mycroft would have been involved.

[TKR9]

He would have been sent by the Admiralty. It was in charge of 19th Century foreign espionage, and it was home to 'C' - the 'M' of James Bond adventures.(not sure how late the name 'C' appeared, but it was quite early on, but it might have been a 20th Century name). Most 'spies' were amateurs and not official career-spies, with the large majority of spying done by ambassadors or Embassy/Governors' Attaches, so sending someone like Holmes would be in keeping with their philosophy. Badon-Powell was one of the most famous. He once sketched the plans of a foreign fort into sketches of the patterns on Butterfly wings to cover his tracks in case he was stopped and searched. I wish I still had my Intelligence Studies Module reading list, there was a fabulous book with a great chapter on 19th Century espionage in it. The current bodies, MI5 & MI6, didn't appear until the 20th Century (Section 5, Military Intelligence, hence MI5). Home security was shared between the police, CID (started 1879 - not to be confused with the founding of the metropolitan police) and Special Branch (which often cooperated to take on the Fenian threat).

The Admiralty was fiercely independent and didn't like sharing its plots with anyone, least of all the Queen, and it only grudgingly let in other government departments on its secrets. It would have been hesitant even to let someone as establishment as Mycroft in on the game.

The French had nothing but contempt for British spies, and we were terrible at it. In the early 19th Century France was inundated with British amateur spies who went round the coast asking for their mothers! "Excuse moi? Ou est la mere?" as opposed to "Excuse moi, ou est la mer?"

[7% Cocaine]

But what exactly, is your question? It's not very well worded and I'm having trouble understanding what you want to know.

Sorry, I dunno how to better word it without giving away my plot.

You should keep in mind that Queen Victoria's position, by the late 19th century, was largely ceremonial,...

I always thought Queen Victoria had had more power than today's Elizebeth II.

You can bet Mycroft would have been involved.

Hey, do not give away my plot . Great minds think alike.

He would have been sent by the Admiralty. ..........

The Admiralty was fiercely independent and didn't like sharing its plots with anyone, least of all the Queen, and it only grudgingly let in other government departments on its secrets. It would have been hesitant even to let someone as establishment as Mycroft in on the game.

Thanks for the detailed explanation, TKR9. I'm going to send Holmes to Asia. He's going to travel to several countries, but definitely not as a spy. He's going to be involved in some big political events......that's the most I can say about my novel.

[Shangas]

How is Holmes travelling? By ship, it would take a least a month's solid sailing to get from Southampton to Shanghai, even with the latest, steam-powered ocean-liners of the day. Or perhaps he goes overland, via the Orient Express?

[Limited-Fantasy]

No, Queen Victoria never had any real political power. English monarchs had lost their power over government entirely before she was even crowned. The Parliament is the real deal when it came to power.


Correct me if I'm wrong in the next paragraph, it's early and my brain is muddled with languages for exams.

The reason you might think that she had more power than Elizabeth II is probably because her era is the most well-known for its prosperity (due to Imperialism and the Industrial Revolution) and how far the British Empire stretched. That and the fact that everything was said to be done for the Queen. She is, after all, a figurehead, meaning that she is there to awe people without any real power. In short, the more powerful Britain looks, the more powerful the Crown looks to the public, so clearly she would look more powerful than the present Queen.

As for travelling, I would think he'd take the quickest route to his destination, which probably would be Orient Express, getting off around Istanbul, and then ship...or really, just the same route he took to get to Tibet.

[7% Cocaine]

How is Holmes travelling? By ship, it would take a least a month's solid sailing to get from Southampton to Shanghai, even with the latest, steam-powered ocean-liners of the day. Or perhaps he goes overland, via the Orient Express?

I'm going to omit the transportation detail. Who cares by what specific transportation tool did Holmes travel to Asia?? And remember that Phileas Fogg only spent 80 days traveling around the world. With Holmes' efficiency, he might of traveled faster.

The reason you might think that she had more power than Elizabeth II is probably because her era is the most well-known for its prosperity (due to Imperialism and the Industrial Revolution) and how far the British Empire stretched.

Thanks, Fantasy. My first question was actually Chinese thinking. Our emperors all had great power and before 1912 we never had a parliament. Our late19th century highest ruler was Dowager Empress Ci Xi. She was a tough iron lady and for 40 years, she was the only decision maker of state affairs. It's impossible to withhold any secret from her.

Just browsed some encyclopaedia entries of Queen Victoria. The Chinese version clearly said that Queen Victoria actively involved herself in political affairs. The power shifted to the parliament and ministers after she chose to live in reclusion after her husband's death, which helped boost the further development of constitutional monarchy.....

Not sure if this entry is correct. I'm too tired and need to take a nap. ........be back later....

[Karla Milan]

I saw recently a german documentary on TV on the British Empire and there they equated Queen Elizabeth I. and Queen Victoria as examples for the power of women in the English/British history. They said that in the reign of these women the Empire was most powerful in the world. But maybe Queen Victoria was more a symbol for the British Empire. I search it out too.

[Shangas]

The British monarchy is a constitutional monarchy. Beyond signing bills into laws and a few other official duties, the British Royal Family's position is one mostly of ceremony more than anything else. The days of kings and queens holding any actual political power are long over. In fact of all the royal families still left in the world, I think the Saudi-Arabian one is the only one which still holds any genuine political power.

The Empress Dowager, Cixi, was an absolute monarch. This meant that her word determined government policy. Elizabeth's word, and indeed, Victoria's word, did not immediately influence government policy. Government policy was determined by the decisions made by ministers, not the queen.

[Limited-Fantasy]

Yes, Queen Victoria was a symbol of power. It is a common misconception that the royal family had much political power after the eighteenth century.

The reason for Victoria's lack of power when it came to legislation is because there was always that threat of one of the major parties in government leaving Parliament entirely if she refused to sign a law. This threat was especially powerful when political parties were influential in government. True, Parliament is loyal to the crown, but Parliament is also aware that the Crown cannot do without a portion of them.

I could explain this further if needed.

[7% Cocaine]

I could explain this further if needed.

Please do. I'd appreciate that. Thanks:)

[TKR9]

The reason for Victoria's lack of power when it came to legislation is because there was always that threat of one of the major parties in government leaving Parliament entirely if she refused to sign a law.

Although at the moment, with the expenses scandal, I'm not sure anyone would really care if half the Government left Parliament if Lizzy refused to sign a law... Interestingly enough, our police, armed forces, secret services and civil servants swear allegience to the Crown, not Parliament or Government. This is a failsafe to make sure that there are no Government military coups and should, theoretically, prevent the Government from being able to form any dictatorship. I don't think anyone's ever had the time or energy to really test the system, so we all assume it works... But to overthrow the Government the police and armed forces would need Parliament's permission, ratified by the Crown...

[John Clayton]

Although at the moment, with the expenses scandal, I'm not sure anyone would really care if half the Government left Parliament if Lizzy refused to sign a law... Interestingly enough, our police, armed forces, secret services and civil servants swear allegience to the Crown, not Parliament or Government. This is a failsafe to make sure that there are no Government military coups and should, theoretically, prevent the Government from being able to form any dictatorship. I don't think anyone's ever had the time or energy to really test the system, so we all assume it works... But to overthrow the Government the police and armed forces would need Parliament's permission, ratified by the Crown...

Just a passing thought ... Sometimes I wonder about the fact that Great Britain has an unwritten constitution, as opposed to the United States' written constitution. Perhaps the fact that Britain's constitution is unwritten makes it inherently more civilized than having a written constitution that American constitutional scholars are forever debating. This especially concerns me after Neo-Conservatives attempted to shred the U.S. Constitution during the Bush/Cheney administration. To our undying shame, the Neo-Cons got away with it most of the time!

[Limited-Fantasy]

Please do. I'd appreciate that. Thanks:)

Sorry this took so long. I haven't had the time. Prepare yourself for a bit of a history lecture.


Although the English Constitution is not written down, there are laws and government adheres to them.

Now, according to the English Constitution, the monarch does have power because they are the executive branch of government. By law, the Monarch has to sign bills in order for them to become law, but the Monarch can also refuse, veto, a bill. Also, the monarch is supposed to be allowed to pick the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers, although they don't anymore. Parliament picks now. The reason why is basically the same as the reason why the monarch no longer vetoes bills.

Of course, the last time the monarch vetoed a bill was in the 18th century (correct me if I'm wrong here, fellow historians, I'm foggy on this).


Now, that being said, let's get to political parties.



Political parties are actually a recent invention in English history. Before Edmund Burke defined political parties as a good thing in government, parties were frowned upon because they were thought to splinter government. Therefore, political parties really didn't appear in the political scene until 1769 on, so late 18th century, a few decades before Queen Victoria takes the throne.

Political parties are not part of the English Constitution, but there was no stopping them from forming after that. Parties back then were organized groups of politicians who met at an establishment to talk about the politics and whatnot because they had the same views. In Parliament, it was true that parties were present then, but members could cross party lines rather easily for one bill or another.

However, with the development of parties, there also came the threat to the crown: no longer did all of Parliament adhere to all of the Crown's beliefs. Parties made it so that large groups of people were backing one idea or another. And so, instead of dismissing one member of Parliament and replacing that member, if a bill was not signed, there was a threat of several hundreds of statesmen resigning on the spot, leaving the monarch with a limited amount of time to replace each and every one of those politicians with capable or willing people. Moreover, for a bill to even reach the Monarch, it had to be passed by both houses and with a majority. Therefore, refusal to sign a bill may mean more than half of the government just getting up and leaving. A country cannot run with half a government and still call itself a Constitutional Monarchy. You need both a parliament and a monarch.

Of course, there are rare times where Parliament doesn't have strong parties, and when that happens, the monarch then may be able to exert his or her influence on Parliament to make them pass laws he or she wishes. However, those times are rare and it certainly didn't happen during Queen Victoria's long reign!

The result is, Queen Victoria signs bills, but cannot refuse, even if it goes against her conscience. What Queen Victoria is, though is a figurehead. She is there to be the leader of morals and the leader of society. In short, she is a celebrity and she still does ceremonies and such.


Sorry I couldn't explain it better. Feel free to correct any mistakes, guys.



--



As for the lack of a written Constitution...I think Britain just doesn't want to write it since they don't need to. They've managed this long without writing one and have been fairly peaceful as a country as opposed to the other countries who squabble over the Constitution and have revolts over laws and such (see 19th century USA--if you ever read Bagehot, he talks a lot about how their Constitution is worse than the English one. He wrote The English Constitution after the Civil War in the States). Besides, like John Clayton said, written Constitutions mean that you spend more time debating and tip-toeing around the Constitution to pass laws. It just delays the whole process too much. Also, an unwritten Constitution means that it is more flexible so it may change with the time. Whatever becomes law automatically goes into the English Constitution.

[John Clayton]

Although the English Constitution is not written down, there are laws and government adheres to them.

And that is what I find fascinating!

[7% Cocaine]

Although the English Constitution is not written down, there are laws and government adheres to them.
.......
As for the lack of a written Constitution...I think Britain just doesn't want to write it since they don't need to. They've managed this long without writing one and have been fairly peaceful as a country as opposed to the other countries who squabble over the Constitution and have revolts over laws and such (see 19th century USA--if you ever read Bagehot, he talks a lot about how their Constitution is worse than the English one. He wrote The English Constitution after the Civil War in the States). Besides, like John Clayton said, written Constitutions mean that you spend more time debating and tip-toeing around the Constitution to pass laws. It just delays the whole process too much. Also, an unwritten Constitution means that it is more flexible so it may change with the time. Whatever becomes law automatically goes into the English Constitution.

Thanks for such a detailed lecture, Fantasy. No political system is perfect but in this respect, my country falls way behind.

The differences are:
The UK govn't would adhere to the constitution even if it's unwritten.
The US gov't would adhere to the constitution if it is written.
Our gov't would not adhere to the constitution even if it's written.

...

I find it sad and comical.

[TKR9]

Just a passing thought ... Sometimes I wonder about the fact that Great Britain has an unwritten constitution, as opposed to the United States' written constitution.

Everyone keeps asking for a written one, but it seems so... Unbritish it never gets anywhere, and even if one was written up no one would ever agree on it.

but the Monarch can also refuse, veto, a bill.

Also, the monarch is supposed to be allowed to pick the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers, although they don't anymore.

I like to call this political lethargy. The Crown could veto, but doesn't, the government could walk out, but won't, and no one in the UK leadership has ever felt excited enough about anything in particular to exercise one or the other options...

Political parties are not part of the English Constitution, but there was no stopping them from forming after that.

However, with the development of parties, there also came the threat to the crown: no longer did all of Parliament adhere to all of the Crown's beliefs. Parties made it so that large groups of people were backing one idea or another. And so, instead of dismissing one member of Parliament and replacing that member, if a bill was not signed, there was a threat of several hundreds of statesmen resigning on the spot, leaving the monarch with a limited amount of time to replace each and every one of those politicians with capable or willing people. Moreover, for a bill to even reach the Monarch, it had to be passed by both houses and with a majority. Therefore, refusal to sign a bill may mean more than half of the government just getting up and leaving. A country cannot run with half a government and still call itself a Constitutional Monarchy. You need both a parliament and a monarch.

Parties drive me nuts. I used to work for an MP and all the 'party this, party that, who's doing what, who needs to get behind who, where we can encourage people to use tactical voting' used to bore me witless. It gets in the way of politics, which should be about the issues, not about networking one's way properly to a position of influence in order to be selected as a prospective candidate for a general election.

As for the lack of a written Constitution...I think Britain just doesn't want to write it since they don't need to.

Nice idea, worth some merit, but seriously, the main reason is because we just can't be bothered, and as I said above, even if we did draw one up we wouldn't be able to agree on it.

[John Clayton]

Nice idea, worth some merit, but seriously, the main reason is because we just can't be bothered, and as I said above, even if we did draw one up we wouldn't be able to agree on it.

That observation seems worthy of Lewis Carroll! There is something so eminently civilized about a general agreement about what you do not know for a fact, as opposed to a great disagreement about what you know for certain. Imagine how much unpleasantness a society can avoid simply by continuing to ignore matters until they simply cannot be ignored any longer. It does seem more civilized than efforts by extremists to change the U.S. Constitution to support their narrow minded agendas.

One great aspect of the U.S. Constitution that I particularly love and respect is the separation of church and state. Religious fanatics continue their assault on this principle, in spite of the weight of historical evidence that is a necessary foundation for law and liberty. It has also helped the United States avoid violent religious conflicts. After all, historically the cruelest wars of all have been religious wars.

[TKR9]

I think the British attitude overall is to only resort to drastic action if all sitting down to have a nice cup of tea doesn't resolve the situation... While people are okay with the situation but not 100% happy they'd rather just stand on soap boxes and cry out that 'SOMEONE must do something', just as long as it's not them. Usually they're happy with 'enquiries'. They demand AN ENQUIRY, the establishment has one and establishes the establishment could have done better, everyone nods sagely, shoves through some beige legislation and then we all just get on with muddling along again. It works. It seems banal, but the country ticks over quite nicely, recessions aside...

John Clayton, I prefer to differ. The cruellest of wars have always been about the trendy issue of the day with religion as an excuse. Religion, oil, money and ideology don't cause wars, people do.

Take the crusades: If they didn't use religion as an excuse they would have found some other 'Cause' to unite disparate principalities against an expansive economic power growing in the Mediterranean, trade, power, money, commerce, spices, anything would have done. Religion was just mightily handy as it tied in to the existing political structures (and gave it one coordinating authority under a City State otherwise known as the Vatican) and enabled the cooperation of otherwise warring states to unit against an outside force directly adjacent to their borders and expanding.