Actually only 2 pounds, I think. But still bloody heavy for a hat! :eek: Perhaps she should have a new one made, out of some lighter material.
Carbon nanofiber would be the New Gold, I think. I’d have a carbon and carborundum crown made.
Let me see if I get it now
The Queen ‘can’ exercise far more power than she ‘does’, yes?
In reality even vetoing bills doesn’t happen, she approves what Parliament sends?
And the courts have final say if she does something- but basically, it comes down to public opinion?
But, there’s never a vote. The courts would just rule based on what the judge(s) felt?
Looking at that as an outsider, I find it baffling.
It’s almost like a backup government waiting in case democracy fails.
No, the Queen has no power to dismiss judges. Prior to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the monarch could dismiss judges, just like any other royal appointee, using the royal prerogative. The Stuarts abused this power, to get court decisions in their favour, which contributed to the Revolution.
One of the constitutional principles established by the Revolution was that the royal prerogative is subordinate to laws passed by Parliament, which can limit the scope of the prerogative.
The Act of Settlement, passed in 1701, provides that judges hold office during good behaviour, and can only be removed by the monarch if the two Houses of Parliament pass joint resolutions calling for the dismissal of a particular judge. That provision has reduced the prerogative, so the Queen gas no constitutional authority to dismiss a judge, unless Parliament requests it.
This is correct. The royal Prerogative has remained intact, but instead of the Queen being an independent political actor, those functions are delegated to elected politicians. It’s generally considered that vetoing of a Bill, any Bill, simply because the Queen or the PM dislikes it is completely unacceptable, and it’s purely there as a last-ditch safeguard of the democratic basis of the constitution.
I don’t think I quite follow what you’re getting at: I think you’re saying that the Queen’s rule is bound by democratic priorities, but the exercise of the Prerogative is governed by the courts?
That’s kind of it 
remember the thing about the British constitution is that it’s a modern democratic state but wearing the clothes of a much older one. De jure, much of the 18th-Century makeup of the state remains intact, but de facto, the operation of it is quite modern.
No, because the Queen is part of the legislative branch, Parliament. A bill must be approved by Commons, Lords, and the Queen to become law (there are some exceptions where the Lords’ consent is not needed, but that doesn’t affect the Queen’s powers).
It’s quite a clever system if you think about it. The Queen can leap into action against a latter Day Stalin terrorising her people, but otherwise lets the elected people get on with the business of governing and goes back to opening care homes and shaking hands.
Responding to aNewLeaf’s question, there’s two aspects to the Royal Prerogative. One is that it’s the residual legislative authority of the Crown, the bits that have not been altered by a statute passed by Parliament over the last 8 centuries or so As you can imagine that’s not much, particularly given the growth of the regulatory state in the past century
The Queen only exercises that residual legislative authority on the advice of the Cabinet, which takes political responsibility for the measure. And, anyone whose legal rights are affected by that exercise of the prerogative can challenge it in the courts, a principle dating back to a decision known as Campbell v. Hall in 1774. The courts have the authority to determine if the royal prerogative authorised that legislative measure. If not, the courts hold that the measure is null.
The queen also has prerogative powers with respect to Parliament - to summon it, to prerogue it, to dissolve it. She has the power to appoint and dismiss the PM. The exercise of these powers are highly circumscribed by constitutional convention and the political situation, and wouldn’t be reviewed by the courts.
That’s how I imagined it. Has that ever happened?
Norther Piper, I had no idea prerogue was a word. My ignorance persists, yet continues to be fought.
To get back to the meat of the Original Post- suppose the newborn baby is somehow deficient intellectually, but otherwise suited to kinging.
A birth defect, or just luck of the draw. He’s sweet, charming, handsome, but not wise, perceptive, or insightful.
Is the country better off to have an uncle appointed as regent? Or not?
Obviously, that’s got to take place well in advance of the hypothetical future crisis, it has to be well-established fact.
If he’s just not particularly clever it’s not likely to be a problem - he’d hardly be the first monarch of below average intelligence.
There would only be a regent if whatever was wrong with the heir was sufficiently serious that he was not able to understand or carry out his royal duties.
Well, I spelt it wrong, which doesn’t help. It’s “prorogue”.
Here’s a wiki article: Prorogation in Canada.
Google caught the typo, I didn’t feel it needed mentioning. 
I think the most interesting part of this whole interesting story has to do with the way birth and monarchy go together.
Kate Middleton, by virtue of her marriage to a certain man, now has a magical vagina.
Any person birthed from The Royal Twat is in line to rule a kingdom. That’s kind of cool. (Kind of DaVinci Codean, too, in a way)
Note the term ‘crowning’ as related to the topic. 
And that decision would be made by Parliament, right?
And they have an interest in a monarch who is controllable and not likely to overthrow (or prorogue!) them?
So a monarch who could greet people, smile, shake hands, and sign papers when directed() meets all the qualifications? As far as Parliament cares?
Then it comes down to public opinion, and the ability of the public to affect Parliamentary make up?
() the current Queen doesn’t read all that stuff, an aide lays it out for her and hands her a pen.
I don’t think her vagina is really the issue - more likely her uterus. The baby would still be royal even if born by c-section.
Or maybe it’s William’s magical organ, which is a childrens book title if ever I saw one.
William’s organ doesn’t play into it, per Legitimacy Laws, but you are right that a c-section baby qualifies.
It’s really about the Royal Ovaries more than anything else.
Y’know what they should do- conceive an embryo and freeze it.
Parliament declares that mass of cells to be king. Then declares that whoever is current Prime Minister appoints a Regent.
No more constitutional issues, yet the monarchy remains preserved and unbroken. At very little expense compared to the current situation.
A Regency has very little to do with Parliament. Only the Speaker has a say in whether one becomes necessary, the other four people are the Lord Chancellor (a Lord, obviously), two members of the judiciary, and the consort of the Monarch. Parliament doesn’t have the power to create a Regency, or to determine who is Regent.
Or we could just reduce parliament to a couple of robots who would debate each other all day and have no powers.
Since the constitutional reforms over the past decade, the Lord Chancellor is no longer automatically a member of the House of Lords. It’s a Cabinet position, and is currently held by an MP (member of the Commons): Lord Chancellor Grayling.
so- the Speaker can create a Regency alone? Or the other four you mention all have to agree? (unanimously?)
And for a minor, would a parent count the same as a consort? Would they have to convince Kate to tell the world her child was unfit?
A minor is automatically disqualified whether they are “fit” or not. A regency would be created and would end on the minor’s 18th birthday. Neither Kate nor William would have a say in this.