The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (
-   British Royals (
-   -   HM Queen and Prince of Wales working together (

cepe 01-26-2014 01:51 PM

HM Queen and Prince of Wales working together
As the Queen, through age, does less engagements there is a move towards Prince Charles taking on more. This has been discussed across a range of threads.

Today the Sunday Times published a YouGov poll which covers this. Sunday Times is subscription only but here is the Express "rewrite"

Prince Charles should take over Queen's roles, according to poll | Royal | News | Daily Express

If a new thread isnt appropriate, the perhaps Mods could move to most appropriate thread.

Rudolph 01-26-2014 01:58 PM

Outside of travel there isn't much Charles can do.

The Queen and Prince of Wales's job share will not be a regency - Telegraph

But there are some royal functions – the core constitutional functions – that cannot be delegated or shared. Only the Queen can give the Royal Assent to legislation. Only the Queen can appoint a prime minister. Only the Queen can exercise the functions, first identified by Bagehot, of being consulted, advising and warning, at weekly meetings with the prime minister. Some of these functions are mainly symbolic, except in emergency situations, but not all of them are. The Queen still retains a residual discretion which only she can employ.
In addition, the Queen retains the important function of appointing and dismissing governors-general in the 15 other realms of which she is Head of State. It is often forgotten that the Queen is not only Queen of the United Kingdom, but also Queen of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and of various small states in the West Indies and South East Asia.

Skippyboo 01-26-2014 07:25 PM

Investitures are something that is being shared right now. Charles and Anne have been doing them for awhile and now William has been added to the rotation.

cepe 01-26-2014 07:44 PM

I think the important message in the article is that there has been a swing towards the majority wanting Charles to be King, rather than William.

wbenson 01-27-2014 07:17 AM

"In those monarchies, most of the functions of the Queen are undertaken by a governor-general, but the Queen has a genuine discretion in appointing a governor-general, and also in responding to a request from a prime minister in one of these states to dismiss one. That, too, is a function that cannot be delegated. "

In Canada, at least, appointment of a governor general is only reserved for the Queen by convention. If she were to be indisposed when it came time for a new governor general to be appointed, the letters patent delegating powers to the governor general allow the old one to appoint the new one.

One of the delegated powers is "us[ing] Our Great Seal of Canada for sealing all things whatsoever that may be passed under Our Great Seal of Canada." It also says that the governor general is appointed "by Commission under Our Great Seal of Canada." In any case, the letters patent are themselves sealed with the Great Seal of Canada, so they could be amended locally to allow the governor general to perform any function not delegated.

Dismissal is a little less certain, but it does allow the chief justice of the Supreme Court to exercise all powers in the event of the "incapacity" of the governor general, which is an expansive word and probably not reviewable in court.

"Indeed, the concept of regency does not apply to the other 15 monarchies. "

It does apply in New Zealand.

branchg 01-27-2014 12:39 PM

By convention, The Queen does not exercise her right to appoint or dismiss a Governor-General without being advised by the Government of her Realm. She is Queen, but constitutionally these nations exercise their own political will in appointing the Governor-General as head of state.

mslewis 01-27-2014 12:50 PM


Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1636282)
I think the important message in the article is that there has been a swing towards the majority wanting Charles to be King, rather than William.

What does it matter what the "majority" want? Charles is in line to be King and he will be King. People don't get to vote on this.

Rudolph 01-27-2014 01:21 PM

True it isn't a popularity contest and anyway, a 53 percent majority isn't very large.

What I don't understand is for all of Charles supposed PR wizardry, Camilla's numbers for people wanting her to take the title Queen are 17 percent. Brutal if you ask me. 9 years of marriage and less than 1/5 of people want her as Queen.

People on here have been commenting on the younger royals not having Charles knack for PR but surely one of the biggest PR failures in the last 16 years has been this idiotic notion of Camilla being the Princess Consort, an idea floated by Charles himself.

Maybe William & Kate and Harry should retain their own PR if this is an example of what Charles can do

cdngirl 01-27-2014 01:39 PM

Annnnnd back to our regular schedule program

tommy100 01-27-2014 03:12 PM

I'd take any figures for Camilla being Queen with a pinch of salt. to me its like asking who likes paying taxes, nobody says yes but actually how many people go out and refuse to pay them?
I'm sure before their engagement was announced poll after poll said they should not marry but did the country rise up against them?No
How many of those people who say no to Camilla being Queen would actually go out and do something about it? Probably very very few.

In terms of the Queen and Prince Charles working together more I think we are likely to see Charles taking on the longer distance travel from HM leaving her free to stay in the UK and see to constitutional matters with perhaps a few significant trips to Europe for special events.
I wonder though if we will see more joint engagements like those the Queen and Camilla have been on.
In fact when you think about it there have many changes towards a closer working together for some time now with the joint PR office actually being relatively minor.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises