<non-partisan politics nerdery; sorry, longish
>
Some reasons why I reckon that a long incumbent Monarch, and a well-prepared Heir Apparent, may be a constitutionally and pragmatically useful discipline on 'here today, gone tomorrow' Ministers and PMs, even without any actual 'Powers'. It would be difficult for a new 'non-Partisan worthy public figure' to have comparable 'hinterland'. Others, of course, may disagree. There is some evidence from (to me credible) Memoirs that some of the political and Palace 'establishment' at first tried to daunt the present Queen when she first Succeeded; and that she had the strength of personality and (though still young, and in mourning) the prior preparation from the late King to see them off. Anyway:
- At the weekly Audience, the PM is required to
explain current Government policies and plans, and may be asked questions. In the absence of the Monarch (overseas, or unwell), a Royal who is a Privy Councillor (minimum age: 21) fulfils this function. Prince Charles and I've been told occasionally Princess Anne have been doing this for years. I don't know if Prince William yet has. When the current children were young the Queen Mother usually fulfilled the Audience role.
- For a Bill to become law it requires Assent, or a proposed Regulation to be made or amended by Order in Council, this similarly requires the presence of the responsible Minister. An Order in Council is just that: a formal meeting of the Privy Council (quorum: 3 Councillors). By convention, this requires two Ministers. Again, explanations may be required. As we learnt last year, the Supreme Court can rule that a submitted draft Order (to Dissolve Parliament)
may be illegal, and so null.
[There have not been any vetos
('Le Roy/La Reyne ne le veult pas') since the Act of Settlement, but ISTR there was one (slight) 'delay'
('Le Roy s'avisera') under George III. He took his Constitutional role seriously, and wanted legal advice whether a Bill allowing greater emancipation of non-Conformists was compatible with his Coronation Oath. Happy to be corrected]
- Perhaps less well known is that there is also a weekly Audience while Parliament is in Session with two Lords Commissioners (senior Government Whips). They explain (and may be questioned on) forthcoming Parliamentary Business, and the mood on Government and Opposition Benches, likely contentious votes both Houses and Committees of both, ..
One such Whip whom I got to know well told me that both the first and all subsequent Audiences were the most daunting parts of the whole of his political and previous industrial careers. This was because the questions were so penetrating, and reflected both a formidably long memory and excellent prior self-briefing. Waffle and imprecision were not tolerated.
[However, the courtesy was impeccable, and the memories (especially for those at their first Audience) were often kind. The former Speaker, the late Bernard Wetherill, had been a Whip. He came from a family of Master Tailors, and had been Apprenticed to his father whose store had a Royal Warrant. He used to tell the story of his first Audience: the Queen greeted him by saying 'Very pleased to meet you again, Mr Weatherill. I can remember you helping your father when he measured me for a riding jacket'. Obviously, he had remembered, but had decided that he did not dare to mention it]
The Monarch also gets a full copy of the weekly JIC Assessments. I have heard that these are sometimes returned with written notes asking for further clarifications, also often revealing a long memory of a highly pertinent former issue, and requiring a prompt, concise, complete and accurate response. Those who have had to field these have told me the questions are typically more penetrating and thoughtful than any coming from Ministers
.
Obviously, the Dominions and their subNational legislatures rely on having the 'respected worthy' fulfilling a similar role through being Governors-General or Lieutenant-Governors. This seems to work fairly well, and the one whom I knew well (a Canadian Provincial L/Gov) took the role and responsibilities (constitutional as well as ceremonial) very seriously. Sometimes they may have had political careers: a recent Canadian GG had been a MP but finally Speaker which somewhat raised him 'above the fray'. They have usually performed with uncontroversial distinction. However, they cannot realistically have as long a memory, and may themselves become contentious, as a while ago in Australia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Aust ... nal_crisis.. and very recently in Canada, where the last GG (quinquilingual Engineer and Astronaut!) resigned under a 'cloud' this year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%8 ... ace_reviewNevertheless, an incumbent Head of State of less than impeccable personality, intellect or ethics is arguably both less likely and less damaging than an incumbent Head of Government, which may be an argument for keeping the roles separate
</>