Q. Hold my corgis, please.
A. Certainly, ma’am.
A. Fill out this card, please?
Q. (signed) Elizabeth R.
A. Last name, please?
Q. I am your queen, you silly twit.
A. I’m sorry, Your Majesty, you are not allowed to vote.
Q. What? Why not?
Wrong forum?
Frank. I"ve moved this to MPSIMS from GQ.
Get some sleep.
samclem MOderator, GQ.
No, you haven’t.
Well, for a start she has to be politically neutral; she is a third of parliament after all.
As with many things in Britain it’s constitutional convention; as surpreme soverign she could vote - no one can stop her (this is actually reasonably new; until recently she was technically a member of the House of Lords due to the Royal Dukedoms - and thus would not have been permitted to vote).
But if she were that determined… she could just dissolve parliament and run things herself.
For about five minutes 
This looks to me like a factual question - “Why can’t the Queen vote?” - that happens to be phrased curiously.
Why can’t the Queen vote?
I’ll make a note that even an OP in General Questions is no longer allowed to contain attempted humour.
OK, I’m confused. The other two thirds of parliament are hardly neutral. I understand that in her position as head of state she has to pretend to be neutral; I do not understand why she cannot vote.
A member of the House of Lords can’t vote? Why not?
She has to be seen to be neutral. Voting would suggest otherwise.
Separation of government English style 
The houses of commons are supposed to full of commoners representing commoners. Lords don’t get representation in the houses of commons, but then they can do plenty as part of their role in the upper chamber.
Note that hereditrary peers who are no longer permitted to sit in the House of Lords are allowed to vote.
As an aside, just in case you don’t know: In a criminal trial, a jury is supposed to be made up of your peers. Thus Lords, if they choose to, can be tried by the House of Lords. Not happened at all recently though… Jeffery Archer went to a normal court,
GQ is still available for intelligible OP’s. The fact that Angry Lurker figured it out on his own is proof of something. I haven’t decided just what.
Fortunately, you can still get factual answers in MPSIMS.
It may, in fact, be proof that you are the one in need of sleep. I see no way, shape, or form in which this is an MPSIMS thread. Regardless, I’ll drop the discussion, and lower my expectations of the intelligence of those posters who inhabit GQ.
It’s not the posters…
But the only person to give a factual answer so far is me, and that’s only because I saw the thread before it was moved…
Keeping the thread in GQ makes it more likely that knowledgeable folk will make contributions to it, quite possibly leading to some interesting stuff - the British constituion i sfascinating and I only know the basics… each thread ior post is kinda which is what this forum is about.
I’d move it back, but it’s gone so far astray at this point that even retitled it would be a bit of a mess for those with factual answers.
If you want to start a new GQ thread with the question presented as a question, I can move over those posts in this thread that address that question.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
I’ve started a new thread here. I don’t know if it’s worth moving over the few posts that are on track, but if you feel like it . . .
I’d appreciate it if you close this thread.
Frank, I was among those reporting it, and I did so because I thought, honestly, you’d just put it in the wrong forum, that it was intended as a light-hearted, humorous piece on (a hypothetical doofy) Queen Elizabeth trying to vote, not that it was a joking way of saying, “What? The Queen’s constitutionally barred from voting? Why?” Sorry about that.
Nope - a peer’s right to trial by the House of Lords was abolished in 1948:
For an interesting fictional account of a trial by the Lords, see Clouds of Witnesses by Dorothy L. Sayers, in which Lord Peter’s elder brother, the Duke of Denver, is put on trial for the murder of a house-guest.
Closed at the request of the OP.