The Queen.

If she wants to give up her role completely, that again is between them.

With respect Elegran, its not just up to them. She has a role in the Constitution of this country. It's not a family matter.

I think the difference that we will never agree on is this.

Some of us think that there are expectations on a Head of State that need to be fulfilled by somebody who is fit and able to do all the tasks that entails.

And some of us think that being Queen is a special thing that is a role for life and we should all be grateful for someone who thinks they are divinely annointed to do it, and that they are therefore never to be questioned about it. And that they can choose who else can do it for them.

Never the twain shall meet.

I’m back! I’ve been to see a friend who has cancer, and so I had to bow out of this interesting discussion for a couple of hours.

The Queen doesn’t need to abdicate, she could simply retire, just like her husband did. Charles could then take over all the roles of state and only be crowned when the Queen dies. She could then enjoy her remaining time doing things she enjoys.
I’m not a monarchist. Nor I am a republican. That’s because I can see the pluses and negatives of both. However the longer the Queen carries on and won’t retire, the more I veer to republican.

Now I’ve got to go to visit my own elderly relative. So I do believe in duty, and this is my particular duty.

Someone mentions the queen and her role in our constitution.

But they queen plays no part in upholding or defending our constitution

Presidents HoS do defend their countries constitution but queen does not. Though as HoS she should do

So our country government is like a game with no referee
No checks or balances on PM government

So tell me why do we need a monarchy?

How many palaces castles land she has?

What constitution? We don't have a written, definitive constitution. We have a collection of laws about this, that and the other. We have records of how things have been done previously, which sets a precedent for how they are done the next time. When the Prime Minister wanted to interpret a law differently from how it has been interpreted before (so as to get controversial legislation through Parliament faster and without so much time for discussion) the only successful challenge was a case in the Law Courts in Scotland.

I am aware we don't have a proper constitution. We could have one of those as well if we stopped thinking medieval institutions and precedents were the bees knees.

Poor grany she has been posting about our defending constitution for years

The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document. Thus, it is known as an uncodified constitution.

Indeed it is. I remember studying the bl**dy subject.

It’s really isn’t good enough is it? We absolutely should have a written constitution regardless of whether we have a monarch or a president. I wonder why no one cares enough to start a demand for one.

Sky News
@SkyNews
"The monarchy should end when the Queen's reign ends."

Stephen Farley from West Lothian says the heirs to the throne are "not up to the job" and the Royal Family is an "out of date institution"

twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1503488741624762374?s=20&t=fyt8XSKa18-8cuM9fc1O7Q
? Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233

I agree.