The only thing Queen Elizabeth and Boris Johnson have in common

my king The Daily Beast’s newsletter for everything related to the royal family and the royal family. Subscription over here To get it in your inbox every Sunday.

The British find themselves in need of a new head of government and a new head of state without a well-thought-out plan for either.

Moreover, their respective challenges are very different. In the case of the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, there is a need to replace someone who was not fit for the job with someone else. In the case of monarchy, the concern is that the one who was a complete master of the job will be replaced by someone who will never rise to him, Prince Charles.

For the long-held vanity, the experience of two centuries of experience in balancing parliamentary democracy with constitutional monarchy will always ensure a smooth transition of power.

As it stands, no one can say with any confidence that they know Queen Elizabeth’s views on anything, even the weather, but it is no exaggeration to think that she hated Johnson – first and foremost, because he cheated on her. In 2019, as Johnson was trying to hide how aggressively he was pushing for a deeply flawed deal to pull Britain out of Europe, he convinced the Queen that it was legal to suspend Parliament for five weeks (technical term, to abolish Parliament) so that he could escape their scrutiny. The English Supreme Court later ruled that this was illegal.

But, which was more offensive to her, she brought Johnson to the top office with a crushing smash of the qualities of leadership she had expected and found in all thirteen prime ministers before him.

No doubt she has maintained an icy composure in the weekly masses the Queen conducts with her Prime Minister, while seeing through his Falstavian levels of love to false quack beneath her. These encounters became less repugnant to her when they became hypothetical as a result of the pandemic.

What goes on in those masses has never been recorded, and prime ministers have always been silent about their experiences. The Queen is constitutionally stripped of any power to influence politics, however vehemently she may object. The only time she made it clear she was at odds with a prime minister was when Margaret Thatcher slowly scrambled to put pressure on the white South African government to end apartheid. However, the relationship between the two women gradually frayed, and one month after Thatcher was expelled by her party after 11 years in power, the Queen awarded her the Order of Merit, the country’s highest honor and one of its own. Personal gifts.

What a difference with Johnson. The Queen must now feel that nothing defines a man so much as the reason for his departure. He ignored warnings that Chris Pincher, the man he had appointed as deputy whip of Parliament, was a hack and drunk. Johnson’s downfall was finally hastened when it emerged, about two weeks ago, that Pincher had attempted to touch two men at the Carlton Club bar.

Boris Johnson resigned as British Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader in a statement to the country on Thursday.

Li Ying / Xinhua via Getty Images

The Queen spent many years gaining inside knowledge of the political significance of the London clubs, and they never became more influential in the upper class than Carleton. It’s the central keyboard for Tory networks (and where Boris’ successor will need to look fit for purpose). Her Majesty and her advisers had immediately recognized that dragging Carlton into such a dirty scandal was politically unavoidable – even if Johnson did not initially.

Although the parliamentary procedure of abandoning a leader may seem shameful, this episode shows that it has one advantage over the American system: a leader who appears programmatically incapable of operating within the law can be dispatched at any time. That is because the Prime Minister is always the leader of the party and parties and not the people who elect their leaders and can kick them out. There is no inflexible constitutional obstacle to prevent this.

There were fleeting fears that Johnson might cause a constitutional crisis by calling an early election, but this risk, which was never tolerable, dissipated when he resigned.

There were fleeting fears that Johnson might cause a constitutional crisis by calling an early election, but this risk, which was never tolerable, dissipated when he resigned. The Queen is expected to remain regularly isolated while the Conservative Party goes through the process of selecting its new leader, who then automatically becomes prime minister without going into the country in a general election.

The only time the Queen was accused of allowing herself to get involved in choosing a new Prime Minister was in 1963. Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister of the Conservative Party, resigned due to poor health. In an unprecedented move, the Queen visited Macmillan in hospital to receive his recommendation for his successor. The two were left alone for half an hour and what was said was not recorded. Within an hour of her return to Buckingham Palace, the Queen sent for Macmillan’s candidate, Sir Alec Douglas Home, and he was appointed Prime Minister.

But a large faction of the Conservative Party claimed it was a seamstress who had arranged a “magic circle” of elites from the Conservative Party and the monarchy, and that the Queen had ignored a letter sent to the palace warning her against it. The house was, to be sure, a stunningly outdated option (admit to counting with matches on the table) as well as a Scottish bunker and a friend of the Queen, duly defeated by Labor at the following election.

An illustration of the front pages of British newspapers after Boris Johnson’s resignation speech on July 8, 2022 in London, England.

Dan Kitwood / Getty Images

In fact, Macmillan’s advice had followed the rules of the party at the time, a vague “voice” of opinion in Cabinet, Conservative MPs, Conservatives in the House of Lords and leaders of the popular parties. The queen has not been bargained for.

After that quarrel, Home changed the system. The parliamentary party decides the leadership. They still have a role, but not the final say. In the gap following Johnson’s belated resignation, it remains unclear when the selection will begin or how long it will last.

There will be many contenders. The 358 Conservative MPs hold a series of secret ballots until the list is chosen in the last two. These names go to about 200,000 Popular Party members to choose the winner – meaning the new prime minister will be chosen by 0.29 percent of the population.

Johnson leaves his party so broken and humiliated by serving his vanity so all-consuming that vertebrates are hard to find among the candidates.

But Johnson leaves his party so broken and humiliated by serving his all-consuming ego that vertebrates are hard to find among the candidates. The winner will be the Queen’s 15th, and almost certainly her last Prime Minister. The sheer number of politicians who served her provides a context in which she must be as aware as anyone of the appalling damage done to the office by Johnson – a cumulative bombardment of all previous standards of personal integrity, competence and public duty.

At the same time, the future of the Queen is determined by the absence of a clear roadmap. Consultations about how and when she might choose to step down are haunted by the implications of two words: regency and abdication.

The Regency Act 1937, updating earlier versions that originated in the eighteenth century, is very specific about the constitutional step to be taken if a living king is to be replaced by a regent until that monarch’s death. It requires “a declaration of incapacity, either due to impairment of mind or body”.

There is no text for a simple decision by the King to retire, because in 1937 no one expected that there could be another reason to give up the job: to live so long that old age would slow you down.

At the age of 96, the Queen is certainly not helpless in mind or body, except for the obvious problem of greatly reduced mobility. However, this means that she can no longer meet the demands of the day-to-day job because she has always met them.

And so the law of stigma and stigma because it indicates that the king is seriously ill. The ghost always hovering above this state is George III, who was judged in 1811 to be “deeply insane”. He lived until 1820 while his son, the Prince of Wales, became regent. (The prince was a notorious rake, but when he became regent, and later as George IV, he did his business together, surprising everyone with his political skills and cultural sophistication.)

No one understands better than the Queen the iniquity of the perpetrator. That’s why you won’t quit by these means. This leaves the whole issue of succession in limbo.

A ‘Declaration of Disqualification’ must be signed by three or more officers of the Crown – the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justice or Speaker of the House (a senior judge) and the Speaker of the House of Commons. They have to provide supporting medical evidence – a process that strikes many of the beneficial actions that kept George III away, rather than a civilized pact paving the way for Charles as regent. In fact, there is no mechanism for taking the simple step of letting the Queen retire, like any normal mortal.

The act of abdication – in person – is similarly toxic because of Edward VIII, later Duke of Windsor, who abdicated in 1936. He was a weak-willed fascist who chose to marry a divorced woman, Wallis Simpson, over the service of the crowns. His departure made the young Princess Elizabeth the next in line to the throne after her father, George VI, changed her life forever. And no one understands better than the Queen the iniquity of the perpetrator. That’s why you won’t quit by these means. This leaves the whole issue of succession in limbo.

Queen Elizabeth II attends the Archers Reddendo Parade’s royal show in the gardens of the Palace of Holyroodhouse on June 30, 2022 in Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Jeff J. Mitchell / Getty Images

This is happening at a time when the heir’s public reputation appears to be strained. His primary problem is not a lack of integrity, but naivety. This stems from its fabricability – those who spoil tend to earn his trust with disastrous results.

The most egregious example was his affair with Jimmy Savile, a cigar-chomping TV presenter who turned out to be a lifelong sexual predator. At one point, Charles asked Savile to screen candidates for senior positions on his staff. Last year Charles lost one of his most trusted, long-serving and humiliated lieutenants, Michael Fawcett, in a scandal involving a tribute offer in exchange for donations to his charitable foundation, the Prince Fund. Then there was the recent revelation that Charles accepted a suitcase full of more than $1 million in cash from a former prime minister of Qatar.

In her new book, Palace LeavesTina Brown reports that in 1993, at the height of his so-called Camillajet exposure to Charles’ physical devotion to his future wife, his angry father, Prince Philip, reflected that Charles was “not a king”. This was evidently colored by a strong public bias in favor of Charles’s betrayed wife, Diana, which had been replaced by more favorable public views of Camilla.

But this criticism appears to be much better grounded when Charles’ executive abilities are examined. Part of being a king is being a CEO, not so much in running the company as in choosing who does it. In this regard, he seems clueless.

Leave a Comment