It cannot be that the Queen is compelled to act unlawfully when told to do so. So why did she? That's the reaction of anti-monarchy group Republic on hearing the damning judgement of the Supreme Court this morning.
Graham Smith, speaking for the group, said:
"If parliament had been prorogued by an elected head of state, on the advice of the prime minister, that head of state would now have to resign."
"The Queen was given an instruction to do an unlawful thing, and she did it. We're always told she has the benefit of decades of experience and yet she couldn't see what was obvious to everyone else, that the PM's motives were not honest."
"It cannot be the case that a head of state is constitutionally bound to do an unconstitutional thing. And "I was doing what I was told" is no defence."
"Of course, refusing prorogation would have been dangerous territory for the monarchy, but that's the job. Truth is, this whole episode exposes the monarchy as a pointless and ineffective institution."
"An independent, elected head of state would have had the authority to make a judgement as to whether the prorogation request was lawful. If they got it wrong they would also be accountable for their actions."
"The Queen has abdicated all responsibility for her actions and that is not a sustainable position. We need a democratic alternative to the monarchy, a written constitution and an accountable and effective head of state."
Do you like this page?