There is precedent in English/British history for Parliament to alter the line of succession to the throne. So we can make a valid argument that it is in fact the people that chooses the monarch, at least indirectly.
Not to mention that there are elected monarchies in the world, where the monarch is directly chosen by (at least a part of) the people.
We should try that here! The Imperial Throne of the United States has been vacant ever since the passing of our lamented sovereign Norton I in 1880 . . . No known descendants . . . Let’s elect His Majesty’s successor! The Emperor will do the high-profile ceremonial stuff, and presidents will play the PM role, i.e., they will be treated as the disposable bureaucrats that they are. (Thx to John Oliver.)
We must be sure to choose an Emperor who embodies all the most notable qualities of Norton I.
He should name himself Pie.
King Pie!
According to a couple of songwriters, we already tried that about 1980:
Oh beautiful for spacious skies/ but now those skies are threatening
They’re beating plowshears into swords/ for this tired old man that we elected king
©1989 D. Henley, B. Hornsby
SS
Is that some British slang?
I didn’t think a 
was necessary there. I’m actually a bit of an Edward VII fan myself.
I think it’s literal. Presumably, Charles has a valet who does things like squeeze toothpaste onto his toothbrush for him.
You know, I wanted to ask Quartz for a cite here, because for one, it makes no sense to me that Charles would need a servant to squeeze his toothpaste, and for two, I think I remember this being discussed here before, and the consensus was that it was mean-spirited gossip.
But I think Capitaine Zombie was making a funny.
Well, I’ve never heard it called that before.
You think at the Queen’s weekly meeting with the PM she just nods and says yes? As I understand it she has Views and I don’t doubt she expresses them and they make a difference.
By constitutional convention, the Queen must accept and implement the advice of her ministers, provided they enjoy the support of the House of Commons. But, again by constitutional convention, the Queen has the right to be consulted by her ministers, to encourage them, and to warn them. While meetings between the Queen and the PM are private (and, I think, not minuted) I think it is generally known that she does express her views on matters of policy and - since she has a great depth of experience to draw on - many PMs have found her views helpful and, therefore, they have been influential.
I think this is quite an important point. Queen Elizabeth was crowned when Winston Churchill was Prime Minister (for the second time) and has had regular meetings with every prime minister since. Fucking Churchill!
That is some pretty hefty experience there.
Long Live Queen Paris I!
I would second (or third) the praise of the British political satire To Play the King. But be sure to see the first series, House of Cards, before you do. Very good stuff. The third, The Final Cut, isn’t nearly as good, IMHO, alas.
There is opposition to Charles for a number of reasons: many still see him as having been an ogre in his dealings with Diana (not that she was perfect herself) by having an affair with his current wife while both were married to other people, and in not properly supporting Diana as she struggled with the demands of her new life in the Royal Family; the intercepted cellphone calls where he said he wanted to be Camilla’s tampon did not reflect well on him, to say the least; his forays into criticism of modern architecture and advocacy of green agriculture have been semi-political, and have rubbed some people the wrong way; a few years ago there was a controversy when he was quoted as saying, in essence, that the British people should know their place and shouldn’t aspire to a higher social status. That and behind-the-Palace-scenes gossip about having a valet put toothpaste on his toothbrush, talking to his plants, etc. hasn’t helped him. Plus William is simply a younger, more dynamic man. For a public with a short attention span in a 24/7 news environment, he’s “new and improved.”
That said, the Queen will almost certainly never abdicate for the reasons stated upthread, and Charles has been waiting so long to become King that it’s almost inconceivable he would let it pass him by when, someday, he inherits the Crown. Both he and the Queen have a strong sense of duty and I’d be amazed if he didn’t eventually begin the reign for which he has so long been preparing. (An old pun from when Queen Victoria kept the future Edward VII waiting: “Why is the Queen like the weather?” “Because she reigns, and reigns, and reigns… and never gives the poor Sun a chance!”).
As to the monarchy generally, although I’m proud to be an American and am glad we don’t have one here, it seems to work very well for the British, and it sets them apart from the rest of the world in a very distinctive way. There is an enormous body of tradition and history behind the monarchy which shouldn’t be casually thrown away. It brings in far more money in tourist revenue than it costs the British taxpayer. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have both said that the Queen was an invaluable source of counsel for them, and they really valued their private conferences with her; their predecessors said much the same.
God save the Queen!
Please! Charles’s affair with Camilla is NOTHING compared to his ancestors! The only difference here is that the tabloids exposed it. (There was a reason Edward VII was called “Edward the Caresser”)
But it didn’t always stop them from being good monarchs.
Of course Brown and Blair said that. It’s not likely to be a hugely popular statement that the conferences with the Queen were worthless and they wishes she would just shut the hell up, whether that was true or not.
And it disturbs me more is she is counsel to elected officials. The idea that our government cannot find better sources of advice than uneducate inbreds who have no concept of life outside their bastions of privilege is terrifying. When was the last time she nipped down the road to buy a loaf of sliced white and twenty Benson & Hedges? She wouldn’t even know the price of them. She has no concept of the problems facing everyday people, and no valuable input on them.
Of course, Guinastasia. Charles II was no choirboy, either, and don’t get me started on George IV. Charles’s blameworthiness for his failed marriage is still an issue with a considerable segment of the British public, though, which is what the OP asked.
No, no. Too sane.
Oh, I get you. I just don’t think it would bear on his fitness to be king. Or at least, it shouldn’t. How many politicians are faithful to their spouses, and yet were completely efficient? Think of say, JFK? HE makes Charles look like a choirboy!
I’ve only ever heard it in reference to the late Duke of Marlborough, who while on a state visit was heard loudly complaining that his toothbrush “wasn’t foaming properly”.
Turns out his gentleman’s gentleman had always put paste on his brush for him.
Villa, I’m sure you already know this, but anyone that says things such as the Queen has powers beyond just her “representation” role are just trying hard to justify a tradition (and every tradition has its expiration date). The Queen plays no more role in British politics that the Italian President plays in Italian politics.
If a Nazi Prime Minister was elected in GB, she’d still have to appoint him (maybe not that hard considering the past sympathies some of the Royals have had for National Socialism). Well, even if the new PM was a hardcore commie, she’d have to appoint him. She’s got no more power than a toilet granny, she just dresses with poorer tastes.