Iain McLean (Oxford, Nuffield College): Peter Oborne claims that the monarchy is one of the defining institutions of Britishness. Perhaps. But what is its record as a supporter of constitutional process? Here is my table on the wonderfulness and constitutionality of the monarchy.
George I: OK, but didn't speak English
George II: ditto
George III: Vetoed Roman Catholic Emancipation in 1801, therefore made conciliation in Ireland impossible
George IV: Provoked crisis at his coronation by keeping his wife out
William IV: 'One of the least wise of your predecessors' - Asquith to George V. Dismissed Melbourne in 1834 and was forced to take him back in 1835
Victoria: Tried to block Gladstone in 1885, 1886, and 1892
Edward VII: Committed us to World War I without consulting his government
George V: Conspired with unionists and Ulster protestants in 1914 coup d'etat
Edward VIII: Fascist sympathiser
George VI: OK
Elizabeth II: OK
That makes 4/12 good constitutional monarchs if you include those who could not speak English or 2/10 if you leave them out and start with George III.
