The Queen.

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Stephen Farley from West Lothian says the heirs to the throne are "not up to the job" and the Royal Family is an "out of date institution"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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Either way, PaddyAne they are the ones who should decide to stay or to go.

All the time that the Queen's mental state is such that she can make a rational choice of whether to abdicate the role she vowed to hold all her life, then she is the person to decide it. The Prince of Wales is ready to take over, and has in fact been doing some of the things that his mother used to do. If she is ready to hand over more to him without totally retiring, that is between them. If she wants to give up her role completely, that again is between them.

No Elegran you should tell them that the only person who counts is them.Not you or your kids ,if they feel its time to go then let them go with good grace .Its not signing off its its being a grown up and seeing that life is so difficult for them they need to let go.
Yes I have told two much moved relatives that if they felt it was time to give up the struggle then they must let go.Broke my heart but its what needed to be said.We shouldn't EVER guilt trip any old person in living in pain or lonliness just because WE think they should and the queen is no different .

Anniebach

maddy I accept atheists can’t and will not accept or understand what a vow made to God means to a Christian who
makes a vow. Keeping a vow is not easy and it is certainly not fear which could make a Christian keep their vows. I know it can be difficult for many.

If the majority of people in this country wanted her to retire/abdicate, should she stay Queen because she promised God?

Of course I don't know what the majority think, but it's interesting to think about.

Anniebach

Kevin Maguire is a republican so it’s understandable that republicans agree with him

Well d'oh.

Kevin Maguire is a republican so it’s understandable that republicans agree with him

maddy I accept atheists can’t and will not accept or understand what a vow made to God means to a Christian who
makes a vow. Keeping a vow is not easy and it is certainly not fear which could make a Christian keep their vows. I know it can be difficult for many.

Great post eazybee. The Queen made an oath to God, who she believes in and means to honour that oath; what's wrong with that?

Maybe she is planning to do just that, but waiting until after the Jubilee. It is human nature to want to reach a deadline, and I don't think anyone would grudge her that.

Or perhaps some would?

The Queen once said 'I have to be seen to be believed'. I think that now, in view of her failing health, is the time for her to make Charles Prince Regent.
That way she could keep her vow, that seems to be important to her, but hand over the responsibilities of the monarchy to her son. She would still die as Queen.

Germanshepherdsmum

Queen Margaret instead? I’m glad that didn’t happen.

Well Charles had been born by the time she became Queen, so if she'd abdicated then it would have been Charles and a Regent. Probably some duke you've never heard of.

But if she had walked away earlier, it would have been Margaret. Don't like that? Well it's a hereditary monarchy. You don't get a choice.

maddyone

^Certain posters aren’t the least bit interested in learning what the Queen has done for^
them.

What has the Queen done for me?

I've asked that several times on this thread Maddyone, in several different ways, but nobody will tell me.

So it's a bit rich when someone says we don't want to know.

It's a bit like the benefits of Brexit.

Certain posters aren’t the least bit interested in learning what the Queen has done for
them.

What has the Queen done for me?

CoolCoco

Its not sneering and jeering to question what is meant by "duty and service" - can you do this if you are physically incapacitated? Basically she just has to stay alive to be queen, she doesn't have to do anything.

Yes, that’s right.

I don’t think there has been any jeering, sneering or ridicule in this thread. There is difference of opinion, that’s all.