British public support for monarchy at historic low, poll reveals

I'm unsure how the monarchy could be a check and a balance when the "constitutional settlement" is generally considered to include the monarch staying out of politics publicly - the monarch acts on the advice of ministers, which is to say the monarch is essentially a rubber stamp with several enormous palaces they can be stored in.

There are checks and balances. When Boris Johnson unlawfully prorogued parliament, judicial review leading to a supreme court judgement eventually overturned the order, concluding his advice to the Queen was outside the powers of the Prime Minister. This is a fairly drastic outcome but Brexit was an interesting constitutional fuzzing campaign and we had a situation where the speaker of the house stretched the definition of impartiality quite a bit too.

Other checks and balances include His Majesty's Loyal Opposition and assorted members of Parliament who may disagree with whatever bill is under consideration (the opposition are currently a bit useless, you may be forgiven for thinking they don't exist) and the House of Lords, who scrutinize bills passed from the commons (and do object to things quite frequently in spite of the irritation this causes to the PM of the day).

It isn't perfect, but as the system is currently set up I'm not sure the monarchy can be regarded to have "failed" to check or balance the party in parliament. As to whether the constitution should be written down - I think it would probably be useful, but it is unlikely - and checks and balances still work as shown in the prorogation case. As for first-past-the-post and the UK's electoral system in general - again, yeah, a problem. I'm British and it doesn't matter who I vote for since whoever the conservative candidate is will be returned for my constituency, guaranteed. However, that's also not something the monarchy can change.

> Much of the pomp and prestige of the state gets vested in the Governor General. Whereas in the US the president gets treated like a monarch

The only truth in that statement is that, should the president start behaving like a monarch he can be removed just like King George or Louis XIV were thanks to the second amendment. How about the Governor General?

> People swear allegiance to the monarchy and the state. They serve that rather than the leader

The Oats of Allegiances in America are to the constitution, a founding document signed and agreed upon by all states who formed the republic. It is the voice of the people. The president is only there to enforce it temporarily.

> In the event the prime minister goes truly insane, there is an outside check on their power.

Is it? Can realistically a foreign non-elected person interfere that much in the country's politics? That sounds like a slippery slope to say the least.

The prime minister controls both the executive and legislative branches, removing a lot of the checks and balances built into the American system. Not only that, but the absence of a real constitution -they just at some point decided the constitution wouldn't apply when truckers started protesting- makes the judiciary branch (appointed by the prime minister) pretty much able to do as it pleases.

Largely agree but your wording is interesting - ‘generally considered’, ‘staying out of politics publicly’.

I think that there has been a degree of constructive ambiguity in the past. No more and it’s 100% clear now that the King / Queen would rubber stamp even the most extreme legislation. With FPTP, weaknesses in Lords appointments system, no written constitution etc then that’s a big weakness.

Do you think the “overseas” monarchy played a positive role in Rhodesia or Fiji?

In both cases you had a country going off the rails, the “overseas monarch” said “do what you want, but don’t attach my name to it” and they became a republic.

If Rhodesia had been a republic from the beginning, it would have been easier for them to get international recognition.

> I think that there has been a degree of constructive ambiguity in the past.

Not really. Since what you're calling for specifically is the Monarch to start blocking bills: it was established in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 (which would form part of the basis of a constitution if codified) that Parliament is sovereign, and the actual Sovereign can only act on the advice of parliament apart from when exercising royal prerogative, which is done on the advice of ministers.

One example of royal prerogative is proroguing parliament, which we've discussed. Another would be giving, or not, Royal Assent to a bill. The last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1708: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill and that was also on the advice of ministers, as they'd changed their mind about a law that had completed its passage through parliament.

In other words, what you're asking for has not happened in over 300 years.