The monarch in the UK is now supposed to avoid all contentious political issues, and Scottish independence is certainly contentious. If she had been asked, she would have said that it was up to her subjects in Scotland to make their democratic decision, just as back in 1999 when her subjects in Australian were voting on the issue of replacing the monarchy with a republic. If she had taken sides, it would make her position difficult if her side lost, and in any case it would have annoyed those that she was arguing against.
Yeah, like the U.S. Supreme Court.
Prince Charles is a vapid ninny who promotes health quackery (and has been involved in persecuting those who oppose his agenda), so there’s a minimal benefit to Britons and the rest of the world in keeping him in a slightly less influential position.
Are you being purposefully obtuse? Of corse there was no recent precedent for Benedict’s abdication; the point I made was that it was new ground and it acknowledged modern realities, something the House of Windsor might find forced on them if not during EIIR’s reign, then later.
As for the second bit, about George did not have one, but several episodes of madness, until the last one in 1810-1820, and it caused all sorts of consternation. However, it was solved in the traditional British way, by an Act of Parliament.
As it is being the Monarch (as the ghost of GVIR can tell you) while not involving political duties is far from a sinecure and there are serious questions as to how well an aged person can fulfill its responsibilities, and whether an actual regency or delegation is indeed sufficent and satisfactory alternative.
The longer I don’t have Charles’s face on my money the better.
Besides, were the Scots actually voting to become a republic? Because otherwise, even if they had broken off, she would still have been the Queen of Scotland.
I have to agree and it isn’t even my money. 
As it happens it is my money and I hope Elizabeth keeps Charles off the throne until William can take over!
Well, it’s not that bad over here – the old biddy is only on the $20. Presumably if Charles was king, instead of his mug we could surely find a worth former prime minister to put on the $20.
Isn’t she on all your coins?
This was exactly my question upon reading the thread title, and it’s not a rhetorical one.
What does QEII do that Charles would be doing instead, and presumably better, if he were King?
Yes. Fortunately her mother lived - and was fully compos mentis - until past 100. Charles is not only a meddler but someone who meddles directly, and I too would prefer William. Parliament has been ruthlessly pragmatic in the past - from the Glorious Revolution to the abdication of Edward VIII - so I really don’t see any problem there.
Not at all. Her constitutional function is to ensure that the Constitution is being followed by the Prime Minister and the government of the day.
A fundamental part of that Constitution is that the UK is a democratic state, where the people make the decisions, not the monarch. The people express their positions through the ballot box at general elections which decides who is the Prime Minister and government.
Provided the PM and HM’s government are duly elected and are following the law and the Constitution, Her Majesty does not have any reason to act, and in fact constitutional convention says she should not act. She leaves the political decisions to the PM and government, whom the people have entrusted to govern.
Therefore, if the people of Scotland vote to break up the Union, that is a political decision of the highest level. Her Majesty should stay completely mum on the merits of that issue and leave it to be decided by the political process.
[quote]
And to the extent that the monarch has any powers, the power of the bully pulpit is really all there is, so if that is not being used, then I would say that it could be argued that failure to use it would be another aspect of not doing the job.
[quote]
The monarch does not have a bully pulpit. That is an American term to describe the unofficial powers of the President, who is an elected official. The Queen is not elected and should not express her views on political issues.
What is the “real government” you are referring to? There is only one government, and it has full authority over all matters domestic and foreign. (That’s why there’s a Home Secretary and a Foreign Secretary.). The PM and the Cabinet set the foreign policy, not the monarch. She has no more political authority in foreign affairs than she does in domestic matters.
What’s the difference? They are both highly contentious political issues. She should, and did, stay out of both political debates.
That’s irrelevant to the Queen’s role as a constitutional monarch. It’s not her function to keep the monarchy in place. Her function is to uphold the Constitution.
If the people of any of her realms vote to go republican, following duly constituted processes, she should not intervene.
In fact, many of her realms have voted to go republican in her lifetime. Many of the former colonies were constituted as constitutional monarchies on independence in the 50s and 60s, but then chose to adopt republican constitutions, ending the Queen’s constitutional status. The Queen stayed out of those debates, just as she stayed out of the more recent Australian republican debate, mentioned by Giles.
Shoot - just realised I forgot to put quote marks around **Sage Rat’s] comment about the bully pulpit that I quoted in post 32. My apologies.
Yes he did, but his explanation for it is what AK84 said: leave the seat when you’re not truly capable of doing the job any longer, not to the extent and with the care it deserves. IOW, something which is expected of people in any other job.
She is the ultimate guardian of the Constitution. Provided the PM and the government are complying with the Constitution and law, she should stay out of all political matters and not comment.
The concern that some people have expressed (in this thread and in the media) is that Charles has a tendency to be more interventionist than his mum, which is contrary to the role of a constitutional monarch.
We won’t know if that is true until HM moves on.
Quite true. Which is why, as an expression of appreciation and respect, the people of the Commonwealth should vote to restore royal absolutism as she enters what is probably her final decade. It would be fun :D!
Off with their heads!
The English monarchy is mostly symbolic and ceremonial now; the royals don’t “rule” in a traditional sense. The days are long gone when a dude can say “off with his head!” and it’s carried out.
ETA: I wrote this before I saw Tamerlane’s post. Great minds, etc…
Even if Betsy isn’t up to the job of Queening around, all that happens is that Charles is named Regent until his mum finally kicks it. So it’s exactly the same as if she had abdicated in favor of Charles. He acts as monarch even though his mum is still alive, the only difference is that he’s acting on her behalf rather than on his own behalf, and doesn’t get to wear a fancy hat at some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Yes, but I never look at them! 