[toyg]

A lot of people have a say on the list of people to be honoured, but the Prime Minister is the most influential of the lot. Technically speaking the monarch could overrule any objection (afaik the process is not defined by any specific law or regulation, just built on convention), in practice it rarely ever happened with Elizabeth II. It will be interesting to see how this, like many other conventions established under her rule, will morph once we go back to having a male King who will be more popular than the political establishment, something that hasn't happened for a very long time.

[toyg]

She wasn't necessarily so when she "took office" and formed her views on what her role had to be. At various stages, up to the 80s, a large segment of the population would have happily done away with the monarchy, which is unthinkable today. In a way, her constitutional profile as a weak ruler was a way to sneak the institution past turbulent times.

The next ruler will probably find himself, from the very beginning, more popular than powerful. The temptation to wrestle back some power from an unpopular political class will be strong, and there are very little safeguards. This wouldn't necessary be a bad thing: the UK system values pragmatism over principles, maybe restoring some royal privileges could be useful to get us out of the current ideological rut.

[Silhouette]

> the UK system values pragmatism over principles

I suspect that's because, for better or worse, a lot of people in the UK do as well. Personally, I'm always torn on the House of Lords. In principle, as an institution, the Lords is an anachronistic affront to democracy that obviously has no mandate and no place in legitimate government for the 21st century. Pragmatically, I can't help noticing that the elected representatives in the House of Commons often seem incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery or showing any empathy whatsoever for their constituents, while the Lords actually has a fairly respectable track record for getting in the way of bad legislation. I would much prefer a second chamber (or entirely new system) where everyone with any kind of power to act on behalf of the people also had a democratic mandate, but until such a system comes along, I suspect as a practical measure we're actually better off with the Lords than without.

[geden]

Have you considered the that maybe one of the reasons the House of Lords works (and I believe most people are of the view it at least sort of does) is because they ARE unelected, and thus don't have to pander to any interest other than their own humanity?

Given the state of politics in the west, perhaps leaders in society should be appointed in a similar way to jury service.

[Silhouette]

I think there is potential in having a second chamber where the people making decisions serve a long term in office (possibly until they choose to retire) unless they are actively recalled. As you say, that puts them above the need to make decisions based on the worst kind of reactionary politics, as often happens to those serving for terms of only a few years who always have one eye on the re-election campaign fund.

On the other hand, I think getting into such office in the first place should be about more than buttering up the current PM. Rather like the US Supreme Court, if all you have to do to reach such high office is receive the assent of someone who may themselves be on the way out politically by the time they appoint you, there is a very real danger that too many bad apples get in and then can't readily be removed.

I've often mused idly over the jury service for politicians idea. For a while, I wondered what would happen if we ran a staged process where randomly selected citizens were invited to join the second chamber for one term of office, lasting quite a while (say 6 years), with a new intake every other year so you never have a chamber full of people who haven't figured out how things work yet. The difficulty I always run into is that like jury service, it probably has to be compulsory rather than an invitation if you're going to get a reasonably representative group, but unlike jury service it is clearly not reasonable to require people to give up several years of their lives for public service. And you can't really do it on shorter terms of say one year, because then the administration of the day can just wait out a hostile second chamber and hope for better luck next time before steamrollering through all the bad legislation it really wants in one favourable year.

[geden]

I'm optimistic enough to believe that as technology increasingly eliminates most kinds of material scarcity, and human network effects & education continue to eliminate violence, then the question would be, well, really, why wouldn't you want to be in public service?

[rmc]

> Technically speaking the monarch could overrule any objection (afaik the process is not defined by any specific law or regulation, just built on convention)

The UK doesn't really have a constitution in the sense that the US, France, Germany, etc. have a constitution. Power changes all the time, and has gradually gotten more democratic over the last 200 years.

In theory, all power is from the Queen/King, which they give out to Parliament. In theory

In practice Parliament has the power, and if the Queen/King over steps their bounds it's either sorted out by war (Parliament vs. the Monarch (English Civil War in 1640s)), or Parliament kicks out the Monarch and gets someone else in (Glorious Revolution of 1688 when they got rid of the Catholic King and invited the Prodestant Willian of Orange in).

[epscylonb]

I would say the queen is more popular than the political establishment as it is.

[non123]

Is there that much love for Charles?

[NickPollard]

No. I wouldn't say he is unpopular, but Charles is definitely less popular than the Queen, particularly due to the Diana/Camilla situation.

Quite a lot of people have mentioned (not particularly seriously) that they would prefer if he just abdicated for William (who is very popular).

[FuzzyDunlop]

He's not popular with some people for what might be an abuse of power.[1] He's had a reputation of intervening in architecture projects that don't fit his ideal vision (ie. they're not traditional, Georgian style), leading to them being cancelled outright even at the late stages of planning.

[1] http://goo.gl/hA78K

[toyg]

Chances are that Charles will never be king, and if he is, it won't be for very long.

[cstross]

See also Edward VII -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_vii -- Queen Victoria's oldest surviving male offspring, he had to wait 59 years for the throne. Reigned for nine years, then died.

Given the Windsor family medical history, Elizabeth II could well make it past her centenary. In which Charles will not get to place his bum on the throne until he's in his late seventies or eighties.