• Paul Vickers

    The Queen has proved to be a better leader of our country than virtually every one of the Prime Ministers who have served under her.

    Proof that genetics beats populism: ask any breeder.

    Then look at the current dog’s breakfast that is Blair’s House of Lords – and compare it with the pre-1999 one.

    ‘Nuff said.

    • Matthew Sumption

      But the Queen and the Prime Minister have completely different powers. The Queen is a ceremonial head of state, the Prime Minister is the de facto leader of the country, so your comparison is spurious.

      It would be like saying the President of Italy (ceremonial head of state) has been a better leader of Italy than its Prime Ministers. They’re not comparable positions, so the argument is of no merit.

      If you look at the current composition of the House of Lords it is much more representative of the political spectrum of parties supported in the UK than it was pre-1999 (which had a big Conservative bias), and has become a much more effective refining and reforming chamber, as the peers seem to have more legitimacy to question and send back government bills. Look at the number of rebellions in the laws post 1999, and the way that the government has responded to make sure they have the support of the Lords before a bill goes to the Upper House. Meg Russel of the UCL constitution unit has some great figures on this.

      Equality of opportunity beats a hereditary system every day of the week.

      • A. P. Schrader

        The question really is whether an elected politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch. The late Baroness Thatcher once observed that, anyone who thought in the affirmative “might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians”.

    • A. P. Schrader

      Well said, Mr Vickers!

    • Tariq

      It’s very difficult to make that statement without separating the things that have been uniquely down to the queen, and that no PM can take any credit (/responsibility/blame) for. I can think of no such examples, but I would welcome hearing some.

  • FreedomFrom

    They’ve singularly failed in their duty to uphold common law and keep the common man free.

  • AnonymousCoward

    Kate and Diana both chose to marry into the family. All the others could abdicate. So if they want out they can get out, if they never wanted in they shouldn’t have married in.

  • Robert Neve

    I would dearly like them to have the private lives they so deserve. Not to mention the queen has gone well beyond any reasonable retirement age but still continues to serve us. But they do it out of a duty to the country and us Royalists believe the country is better off with them. Yes I agree it’s not fair to them and I certainly wish the celebrity culture would die off but I fear where this country would be under an elected president. They would no doubt cost us much more while serving us much less.