Queen's Role Rewritten

[antelopevalley]

In The Telegraph an article about how the Queen's duties have been rewritten giving many to Charles. This is unsurprising in some ways. She is a very old woman and no longer capable of fulfilling all the previous essential duties. But I find two things interesting about this development.

First I think this is a compromise position by the aides for a Queen who refuses to abdicate, but is no longer capable of being Queen in terms of duties. It hands over duties to Charles so he is the de facto King, but allows the Queen to appear at things when she is able to.

Secondly, the press always insist the Royal Family is about never changing tradition. But rewriting the essential duties of the Queen is a pretty massive change. It is a pragmatic change, but it lays bare the nonsense concept that the Royalty never changes. In reality, it constantly changes, and at times in pretty major ways.

"The Queen’s role has been rewritten by Buckingham Palace, as it removes duties she “must fulfil” as monarch and entrusts more to the Prince of Wales. The Queen’s “official duties” have been edited in the palace’s annual report for the first time in at least a decade, to take out specific events such as the State Opening of Parliament that were previously considered necessary by “constitutional convention”.
The new version, published following the Platinum Jubilee, places greater emphasis on the support of the wider Royal family. According to the Sovereign Grant report, signed off by Sir Michael Stevens, Keeper of the Privy Purse, the Queen’s role still comprises two key elements: Head of State and Head of Nation.
As Head of State, the “formal constitutional concept”, the Queen “must fulfil” specific duties. These were previously laid out as a 13-point list, including the State Opening of Parliament, the appointment of the Prime Minister, and paying and receiving state visits. The new version instead offers a more loose definition, saying that the Queen’s role “encompasses a range of parliamentary and diplomatic duties” and that she only “receives” other visiting heads of state.
It comes after the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge jointly attended the State Opening of Parliament on the Queen’s behalf this year, as much-reported mobility problems made it too difficult for her to attend in person.
The second part of the monarch’s job description, the symbolic role of Head of Nation, is carried out by the Queen “where appropriate or necessary”. It focuses on her position inspiring “unity and national identity” and “continuity and stability”, recognising the “achievement and success” of others and ensuring “support of service” from volunteers to the emergency services and the military."

I think it would make much more sense to make Charles Prince Regent officially. As you say he's de facto king already. There's already precedent for it and it wouldn't preclude her from attending the events she wants to much as now.

It would also have the attractive bonus of keeping Counsellors of State like Andrew and Harry from getting their sticky mitts on the levers of the throne.

Disclaimer:

This ^^ is obviously my least preferred option.

In my ideal world the whole damn lot would be stepping down

Interesting point OP.

And WHO exactly rewrites the duties and on what authority?

Also no doubt the royal machine is very aware that Charles is unpopular so by not making him Regent ( nothing to see here , it's still Lizzie!) they are putting off the inevitable

Secondly, the press always insist the Royal Family is about never changing tradition. But rewriting the essential duties of the Queen is a pretty massive change

Where is this written? The “never changing tradition” bit? And also, there’s alot of historical precedent (aka tradition) for monarchs to have consorts or children acting as regents for all sorts of reasons from age to illness to off fighting wars and so on. It’s hardly a new change or even massive imho. Its just new to you as our Queen has ruled for a lifetime.

I agree it's nothing particularly new. It's more like a cafeteria plan regency. The Queen may be resisting a full-on regency because it usually is based on incapacity. By all accounts, she is still fully mentally competent.

Twitter tells me the queen had a phone call with Boris late last night that put him on track to resign this morning. So she is still doing the important stuff.

If you think about it, they have undermined the position of the monarchy and revealed it shaky foundations.

Her roles have been 'edited' and there has been no difference to the running of the country .
This is because needing a monarch to open parliament is a fairy tale .

She has mobility issues not incapacity so there is no reason for a regent.

I mean I think it's only fair she gets to slow down a bit in her 90's. I'm sure as a society we can agree that a very elderly person might not be as able to stand for hours, walk about and shake hands and so forth.

She can and does continue to do much of the state responsibility role such as speaking to the prime minister, the red box of letters from the comfort of her desk.

I think we can all see this change won't be in long. She's sadly nearing the end of her reign, and what a magnificent one she has had. But eventually and within this decade it will come to an end. But none the less hopefully she remains as well and as comfortable as she can be.

So the queen being needed to open parliament and make it 'valid' has been edited out.
And naturally parliament carried on as normal as all the dressy up nonsense is not needed nor is the personage . As demonstrated.

Interesting.
You would think that parliament would be pretty key wouldn't you?

Edit the lot of them out .

It’s not so much that she’s been edited out so much as she can WFH to open Parliament instead of travelling into ‘the office’ to do it F2F. If you think this has undermined the monarchy and revealed shaky foundations to allow a 90+ yr old the odd WFH day, well then how do you feel about all the young fit people doing their jobs from home?

But she isn't opening parliament.

She sent Prince Charles in to read her Speech to Parliament….the speech she wrote/approved while WFH.

Queen Victoria scaled back in her twilight years I recall studying in history. It's a pragmatic decision

She did not write the speech. She may have approved it.
But Charles opened parlaiment.

And she did not make Boris resign either. He was clinging on by his fingernails and still is.

She always approves it and has the right to edit it…so yeah she wrote it as much as anyone in authority writes anything these days. Issuing government statements isn’t the same as writing a romance novel. There are formal processes.

I don’t see standing there and reading someone else’s speech as actually doing anything tbh. By your logic the US Press Secretaries reading the US Presidents’ speeches are the ones running that country instead of Biden. Prince Charles was just a mouthpiece.

So she has the right to edit the speech and this is the same as writing it?

There is a lot to be said for a gracious realisation of ones ageing and the appreciation of handing over some semblance of power to a sucessor.
Sadly, that's not the case here. And I admire Her Maj hugely, but at this stage she would help the future of the Monarchy hugely if she could show she had planned for it without her.

Sorry but if you think the queen had anything to do with Boris resigning you don't understand constitutional law, you don't understand Boris and you don't understand the queen.

There are no essential duties of the queen. They are all ceremonial - life will go on fine without them. Whatever possible role (other than the decorative) the crown could have played in the British constitution ended when Boris told her to prorogue parliament. She did it on his instruction. The house of lords (or whatever the judicial SC is called) deemed the prorogation unconstitutional. What on earth is she for if not for this?

@Pallisers Exactly. The argument was always that they provided a safety net against illegal acts by the government. But that was proven to be untrue.
They are basically celebrities funded by us, nothing more. We could just as easily have Joanna Lumley opening parliament as the Queen.

That hasn’t been the argument for three hundred years since Parliament became the sovereign power in the U.K., replacing the monarchy. And actually, no we don’t pay for the RF at all. Zero taxes fund them. They get their income from the Sovereign Grant which is not taxpayer funds.

Ah I see, so your argument isn't taking offence to a elderly woman's job description/duties being amended to make considerations for her mobility/disability.

It's actually a anti monarchist argument.

Got ya.

We will have to agree to disagree. I believe the monarchy should exist, as I do not support becoming a republic and having a president.

@Discovereads not this old lie again .
You clearly have swallowed royal PR whole.

Royal finances are murky and they use misdirection to obscure how much they are raking in and more importantly, how they aren't subject ( ha! Of course not - we are the subjects) to the same tax laws as the rest of us.
Set aside the sovereign grant ( the % profit from all the land they ' surrendered' to the state hundreds of years ago ) . They don't pay for their security or transport
The queen doesn't pay inheritance tax
Charles doesn't pay corporation tax or capital gains tax . Why?

I tend to think of it more as making reasonable adjustments to allow her to continue in her role, the same as most of us would hopefully have made for us if our mobility became affected for some reason.

Also, none of the “fairy tale” stuff is necessary - none of it. Not just the monarch, but the mace, the searjeant-at-arms, Black Rod, physically dragging a new speaker to the chair, judges sitting on the legal woolsack, searching the cellars the night before the State Openeing, MPs voting by going into the lobbies - you could go on for ages and ages and ages. These are all practices that continue because they have been part and parcel of how things have been done throughout the extremely lengthy history of the British parliament and monarchy, which many people find meaningful and valuable. Not you, obviously.