to think the Monarch is just a pointless figure head when it comes to our Constitution

[chomalungma]

Has to follow the advice of the Prime Minister.
Can only listen to ministers of the Government.
Other politicians from other parties can't have an audience with them to give their view.
The Monarch can't really refuse to follow the advice.

Other countries have Heads of States who have to protect the Constitution. We have a Monarch who has to be a figure head, rubber stamp person.

(please note - this is about the Monarch as an instution, not the Queen as a person)

Even so, she wasn't actually brought up to be Queen. It was only her Uncles romantic stupidity which made her father King and placed her in line to the throne.

Well, she was brought up as a member of the Royal Family and was 10 when her father became King, plus the writing had been on the wall quite a bit before that that he might have to take over so pretty sure she was being brought up appropriately. She therefore started been brought up to be queen at least 83 years ago, if not more. So, it is unlikely that there is someone around with more experience and grasp of the Constitution.

Her father became king when she was 10 so she was brought up as the heir. She just didn't expect her father to die so young

Her father became king when she was 10 so she was brought up as the heir.

Most Kings were taught how to be Kings before they could walk ...

Admittedly monarchship has changed these past centuries, although the Queen seemed to have the hang of the horsemanship needed . And if only Charles I had been a bit more of of a dab hand at waving.

Anyway, it really makes no difference what the Queen was or was not trained to be. No matter how suitable - or otherwise - she may be for the job of "monarch", it's hardly like we can get another anyway. Which goes to the heart of how shit it is to have a system like ours.

Even now, we're going to have to accept Charles as King, regardless. Which is why he'll have fuck all power. Neatly returning to the OP, and what's the point of a monarch that has no power.

Neatly returning to the OP, and what's the point of a monarch that has no power

Indeed. She can know all about the constitution but there's not a lot she can do without being told. A puppet.

Arguably of course an elected head of state is still problematic in terms of being given actual power to veto, make decisions etc etc. You are very reliant of having a 'reasonable' person in that position and, of course, electoral process can be tampered with in electing them.

I understand why we wanted a system where the individual head of state has less power and there is an expectation of decision making by government. However, the first past the post election, largely two party system of parliament isn't really working anymore in And the pretence that the Queen signs of anything means people can end up wanting her to do something independent (which of course she can't because that would be a constitutional crisis). So no there isn't much point to her apart from that degree of diplomacy and soft power and I am sceptical that Charles et al will have the same soft influence as they don't have her longevity. Apparently lots of people still like having a monarchy though.

Arguably of course an elected head of state is still problematic in terms of being given actual power to veto, make decisions etc etc. You are very reliant of having a 'reasonable' person in that position and, of course, electoral process can be tampered with in electing them.

I never tire of quoting Tony Benns 5 tests for power:

“The House will forgive me for quoting five democratic questions that I have developed during my life. If one meets a powerful personRupert Murdoch, perhaps, or Joe Stalin or Hitlerone can ask five questions: what power do you have; where did you get it; in whose interests do you exercise it; to whom are you accountable; and, how can we get rid of you? Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.”

and while we're on pearls of wisdom, here's some more food for doubt ...

“The way a government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it."

My understanding, and I did study Constitutional Law at university, albeit decades ago and I’ve never used it since, is that the monarch has the power and the responsibility to step in and insist that the supremacy of parliament is upheld if the government try to ignore/overrule/dissolve it. Given that the monarchy has just failed to do that, there doesn’t seem to be any point whatsoever in keeping the monarch as head of state. The titles, palaces and the rest are irrelevant to that though.

We don't want to go back to the 'good old days' when the King or Queen used to arbitrarily order beheadings.

My understanding, and I did study Constitutional Law at university, albeit decades ago and I’ve never used it since,

The only significant change being the Fixed Term Parliament Act

the monarch has the power and the responsibility to step in and insist that the supremacy of parliament is upheld if the government try to ignore/overrule/dissolve it

Walter Bagehot famously attributed three rights to the sovereign – to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00358533.2018.1494687

DGRossetti I like that Tony Benn quote - a very succinct beau of putting it. Who is the refugee quote from - it is a rather chilling thought.

We don't want to go back to the 'good old days' when the King or Queen used to arbitrarily order beheadings.

You may not. I'm sure there are enough who do to worry about.

I do wonder what conversations are being had in the Palace at the moment.

She may have no direct power but she has the power of influence. Doesn't she have a weekly meeting with the PM? Cant she say "now now Bojo are you sure that's such a good idea?'

I never tire of quoting Tony Benns 5 tests for power:

If you're a fan of Tony Benn quotes, how about this one -

The EU is a coup d’état by a political class who do not believe in popular sovereignty