On what evidence are people asserting that Boris Johnson "misled the Queen" when

requesting prorogation of Parliament? For all we know, the Queen was perfectly well
aware of what the Prime Minister's true reasons were for making the request, and
was happy to go along with it. The Supreme Court correctly decided that the advice
to the Queen was, in the circumstances, unlawful. Whether the Queen was or was not
misled was irrelevant to their decision. The prevalent assumption that she was
misled is no more than an assumption. Evidence for it appears to be lacking.

The rôle of the Queen in the prorogation débacle is, on the face of it, an unhappy
one. The legal basis upon which any Prime Minister is entitled to request the Queen
to exercise the royal prerogative on any matter (such as the prorogation of
Parliament) and the legal basis upon which the Queen is entitled to act on that
request, is that he and his administration enjoy the confidence of the House of
Commons. The Queen's advisers within her household know this. On just what
evidence, if any, one wonders, did those household advisers and the Queen herself
reach the conclusion that Prime Minister Johnson enjoyed the confidence of the
House when he requested prorogation? And if, following the Supreme Court's decision
yesterday, Mr Johnson were once more to request a prorogation, one wonders whether
those household advisers should not scrutinise the evidence on this matter rather
more closely.