On borrowed time - the royals

The Queen is there to "“to be consulted, to advise and to warn” in the light of her long connection with the affairs of the country and her conversations with sucessive Prime Ministers and her excellent assessment of personalities. But the legal establishment is the arm with the power to issue a definitive verdict. The (Scottish) legal eagles were there with the cavalry to not only add their advice to the Queen's, but to use their own position as they are entitled to.

The lawmakers, the law interpreters and the law enforcers are three separate prongs in this country, who each have responsibility for one part of the rule of law. The Queen is above but outside those three prongs, carrying out the duties that belong to her. If she made a habit of interfering in any of the three branches, there would soon be outcry. Her remit to rule in person is limited to extreme emergencies, if there is absolutely no-one to take over from a dead or incapacitated Prime Minister and deputy.

With all the laws Johnson is breaking giving Tory supporting friends millions for failed test and trace failed PPE ect And the police bill going through second reading. He did put this on page 46 2019 Tory manifesto

A president would have power to stop the government doing anything unlawful Remember when he tried to prorogue parliament and it found the queen should not have accepted his advice?

You see the queen can only do what the PM asks her What is the point of having a queen that can't defend stand up for the people for what's right.

If you want us all living in some Whovian dystopia Alegrias ?

I am happy that we are having a grown up conversation Pantglas2

We couldn't have Bill Gates of course.....what about Tim Berners-Lee?

Sweden again is ceremonial. I do wonder if William will go that route in all honesty. I'm not sure Charles will.

“But it does concern me that we are prioritising experience of what the world was like 70 (60, 50....) years ago with knowledge of how it is now. Look how excited we all get when we learn that the Queen has used Zoom.”

I appreciate that we disagree on this one Alegrias (and nothing wrong in that) my whole point is that it IS current experience and not from some fixed point decades ago, set in aspic!

Look at all the statesmen/women she’s met this century alone - I don’t believe for a second that she’s dismissed them all out of hand as Johnny-come-latelys.

As for Zoom, I suspect that doesn’t figure on most folks essential criteria for Head of State otherwise we’d opt for Bill Gates or some such wouldn’t we?

Now I like that model.

Denmark seems a little more ceremonial and token with it's monarchy.

www.thedanishparliament.dk/en/democracy/the-constitutional-act-of-denmark

Thank you NellG it does look similar, doesn't it?

The Netherlands is the same as us by the look of it - or similar anyway.

www.royal-house.nl/members-royal-house/king-willem-alexander/position-and-role-as-head-of-state

Bridgeit

Ummm this is England/ Great Britain, each country to its its own, & if that means some folks actually like having & want to keep the RF so be it , feel free to leave if you don’t like it .

The RF do not make the UK. It is perfectly acceptable to be a republican supporting Brit.

Bridgeit is it necessary to be quite so confrontational? I'm having a serious conversation about how the country could be modernised and you suggest I leave and live somewhere else?

Incidentally, I'm not in England.

Ummm this is England/ Great Britain, each country to its its own, & if that means some folks actually like having & want to keep the RF so be it , feel free to leave if you don’t like it .

The President doesn't have to have a political responsibility though, do they? They can be a figurehead without any input into the business of government.

I'm guessing, but I don't expect every country relies on a hereditary HoS to advise the government of the day? How do they do it in (e.g.) Sweden, or the Netherlands?

I suspect she's driven by an innate sense of duty - but never having quizzed her I can't know. From what I've observed over the years I think she tries for political neutrality as much as any of us can, but even the most self aware have to admit that nothing happens without a degree of self interest. A president would be no different, and perhaps substantially more self and politically driven? Wouldn't have to be to go that route? being born to it without choice is a mite less machiavellian than striving for it out of a sense of being suitable for the job of representing a nation because you're that great. Again, better the devils we know.

sorry, that should have been conservative with a small "c". I'm not suggesting she is a Tory!

I'm not being argumentative here Pantglas2, what you say is true.

But it does concern me that we are prioritising experience of what the world was like 70 (60, 50....) years ago with knowledge of how it is now. Look how excited we all get when we learn that the Queen has used Zoom.

But we still don't know what drives her; concern for the people of the UK, I'm sure, but that probably comes from a "Conservative" viewpoint and that is bound to influence her advice.

“The fact that she advises the PM (advise, warn, encourage, is it?) and we have no idea from what political perspective she is basing her advice, that is a problem for me.”

Her political perspective Alegrias comes from almost 72 years of actual experience in doing the job! Add in the learning from her father for around 5 years before that and all those PMs and world Heads of State along the way.....I can’t think of anyone who’s had that benefit, can you?

*Callistemon" I had been thinking the flip side to your post - that those who would be most keen to have the job would be the ones who would do it worst.

The kind of people whom we might consider would be best for the job would most likely be the kind of people who would not want it.

Pantglas2

“.....the Queen must have some political thoughts that we know nothing about.”

Right again Alegrias, which is why she’s the best HoS. All those PMs she’s dealt with would probably all agree on that.

The fact that she advises the PM (advise, warn, encourage, is it?) and we have no idea from what political perspective she is basing her advice, that is a problem for me.

My recommendations for President - Sarah Gilbert, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Marcus Rashford. People of honour who represent the best of British values.

I just scrolled down and saw Piers Morgan's name under the line Do pigs fly - for a second there I thought things may have gone too far again! ?

I honestly can't think of anyone better than the Queen right now when it comes to head of state. Better the devils we know for me.

Piers Morgan. ?

Grany you are claiming Michael Higgins stood as the Labour candidate but the day he was elected he brushed aside
his political beliefs ?

Do pigs fly

Right again Alegrias, which is why she’s the best HoS. All those PMs she’s dealt with would probably all agree on that.

Pantglas well said.