Queens Speech

This won't make me any more popular that I already am, but in for a penny, in for a pound.

Lots of people know lots of things about who wore which hat and who is related to whom and whose baby is the cutest.

But there does seem to be a smaller number of people who understand that being monarch comes with constitutional responsibilities and that there are rules about who can do what, and what their responsibilities to the country are. This is why I get so mouthy about the royal family. We are being short changed as a country and a lot of people think that's absolutely fine. Because of the hats.

The royal family appear to want it both ways, the waving crowds and the interest in every engagement from the public, but the absolute privacy and ability to hide behind palace walls (Prince Andrew) when it suits them.
Good point maddyone and there's another very close relative I'd put in your brackets too!

volver

Sorry GSM but its all starting to sound a bit desperate.

No, no, no, that's not what's happening, everything's fine, its just a temporary thing.

Reading the Queen's Speech is a formal thing that can only be done by certain people with certain roles. The last time the Queen couldn't do it, it was the Lord Chancellor that did it I think. This time Charles is doing it as Counsellor of State. The Queen is no longer able to fulfil the tasks she is obliged to perform. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's true.

I didn’t think the day would come when I agreed with you on a RF matter volver, but I agree with everything you say. She is no longer capable or no longer wishes to fulfill certain duties and we should know what the score really is. Whatever the problem is, at her age it’s not going to go away is it?

The other one is too contentious Joseann and I don’t want to derail the thread into another approve/disapprove of the other one. Anyway, that person is out of the country and not in a position to actually do the duties of Counsellor of State at a moments notice, unlike Prince Charles who is available.

Interesting regarding Counsellors of State. I have been looking it up on The House of Commons Library. “In the case of temporary incapacity or absence from the UK then the Monarch can appoint Counsellors of State via Letters Patent.” Has the Queen actually done this or are we just assuming?

volver

This won't make me any more popular that I already am, but in for a penny, in for a pound.

Lots of people know lots of things about who wore which hat and who is related to whom and whose baby is the cutest.

But there does seem to be a smaller number of people who understand that being monarch comes with constitutional responsibilities and that there are rules about who can do what, and what their responsibilities to the country are. This is why I get so mouthy about the royal family. We are being short changed as a country and a lot of people think that's absolutely fine. Because of the hats.

Absolutely. Well said. It’s not all Hello magazine.

I very much doubt she has. I think it’s all done on an ad hoc basis at the last minute.

maddyone

The other one is too contentious Joseann and I don’t want to derail the thread into another approve/disapprove of the other one. Anyway, that person is out of the country and not in a position to actually do the duties of Counsellor of State at a moments notice, unlike Prince Charles who is available.

Yup!

maddyone

OakDryad your informative post makes me more certain than ever that we need a republic. The counsellors of State include both Prince Andrew and Prince Harry, neither of whom are in a position to contribute, and neither of whom are likely to be acceptable to the public.

The situation is certainly complicated by the line of succession: after Prince Charles and Prince William, William’s children who are minors, Prince Harry, then his chidren who are minors then Prince Andrew.

Subsequent Regency Acts have dealt with the matter of when the next in line to the throne is still in their minority. For example when Elizabeth succeeded her father, Charles was a minor. Under the 1937 Act, had it been necessary, Princess Margaret would have been appointed Regent. The 1953 Act changed the law so that Prince Philip would be Regent.

Among the officials who could appoint a Regent, one, Prince Philip, has died, two are members of the current government: Dominic Raab currently trying to undermine the authority of the judiciary, Lindsay Hoyle who is responsible for upholding the integrity of the House of Commons,the Lord Chief Justice Ian Duncan Burnett Lord Burnett of Maldon and Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Charles Vos. I know little of Burnett or Vos.

When you have a rocky line of authority as the royal family currently has and government officials embroiled in controversy, it all starts to feel like major overhauls are necessary.

The Queen has issued Letters of Patent appointing Charles and William to stand in for her today. Although constitutionally eligible Andrew and Harry are not included. The Queen will continue to carry out other duties. The Regency Act 1937 covers contingencies in the event of a Monarch being incapacitated temporarily or permanently. It is up to the Queen how she continues.

Elrel

Those who want a republic may get President Johnson

Just reading that made me feel physically ill.
There are a lot worse systems than the monarchy. There are benefits for the country and it gives us colour and tradition which other countries envy.

I imagine that the Queen is very distressed about all this. It can't be easy for her. I have read many times that she regards herself as being Queen for life as it is a duty from God. But then she didn't know that she would live to this great age and become somewhat incapacitated. I agree that something needs to be done.
I see no reason why she simply can't retire and hand over all duties to Prince Charles. She could still retain her title.
I think we need a statement to this effect, soon.
The time to start debating the future of the monarchy is after she dies. I would hate to hurt her feelings after her lifetime of duty. Personally, I hope Prince Charles becomes king, but I do see the need for some changes.

Oakdryad a Regent has not been appointed in this country for 200 years. It would have to be Charles. However, the Queen is not at the point where a regent can be appointed. Instead she has delegated some powers, via Letters of Patent, although she still has overall control, to Charles and William.

Lovetopaint037

Elrel

Those who want a republic may get President Johnson

Just reading that made me feel physically ill.
There are a lot worse systems than the monarchy. There are benefits for the country and it gives us colour and tradition which other countries envy.

What about a President Zelenskyy?

How about that?

Henetha, why should she retire? All of this is very ageist. If she wants to continue then the constitution allows that she can. She will be very well aware of this.

Henetha, why should she retire?

Because she can no longer do the job required of her.

She will be very well aware of this.

Yet still she persists on hanging on.

25Avalon

Oakdryad a Regent has not been appointed in this country for 200 years. It would have to be Charles. However, the Queen is not at the point where a regent can be appointed. Instead she has delegated some powers, via Letters of Patent, although she still has overall control, to Charles and William.

I agree with you 25Avalon. I quoted the legislation as someone had said the Queen should consider appointing Prince Charles as Regent and I do not believe she has the power to do, only to issue Letters of Patent for Counsellors to act is her place while she is indisposed.

Yes, I agree 25Avalon. She should not be forced to retire, but only if she wants to. She doesn't seem at all mentally incapacitated, just physically. As I said, I imagine she is very distressed about all this. It's a dilemma.

Agree Avalon ageist ,

I think it would be better for the Queen to publicly state that she will no longer be carrying out duties that involve travelling or walking, such as the State Opening of Parliament. This would be better than waiting until the last minute to make an announcement for each event as is happening now.

Volver, the constitution permits her to stay and hand over the parts of the job she is no longer able to do. It is all provided for. She is not hanging on as you so eloquently phrase it. She is continuing as reigning monarch within the rules. In any case it is not a job as such. It is being. If you don’t like it then the monarchy has to be abolished. Until then the Queen is acting perfectly correctly.

It's a job. If she can't do the job she should step down. If she won't step down she should be designated incapable and a regent appointed. That would be Charles. I wonder how many confirmed monarchists would still remain? It's obvious why she's clinging on.

I suggested that maybe she should retire, not because of her age, but because of her physical problems which are making it difficult/impossible for her to carry out most of her duties.
I think she deserves a rest, although I don't suppose she would agree with me. At 84, I fervently support the rights of the elderly to do whatever they want. Including the Queen for whom I have the greatest respect.

She will be represented by the empty throne today as Charles has to deliver the speech from elsewhere. It wouldn’t matter how old the Queen is if she could do what is required of her. She can’t, because of her health issues. What would you call that? Healthist?

volver

Morning Yammy.

Its not everyone else.

Morning Volver, what have you got up your sleeve for all our delights today? Looking forward to reading your thoughts on other threads. .
Have a good day.