The United Kingdom’s constitution can be described as the muddling-through constitution. The constitution, which is highly flexible, evolutionary in nature and responsive to changing circumstances, has proved capable of surviving historical challenges by adapting or weathering countless constitutional crises. Unlike most other constitutions, the United Kingdom’s is said to be unwritten (even if in reality many of its sources are written) and consequentially has been criticised as unfit for modern circumstances. Central to the concept of muddling through is the relationship between the monarch and the Prime Minister, who both must work effectively in order for the constitution to work. This key relationship has seen considerable change in terms of the allocation of political power. The premiership of Boris Johnson (2019–2022) pushed boundaries and witnessed a willingness by those in power to disregard the unwritten constitutional norms that underpin the operation of the constitution. Johnson’s premiership in the twilight years of Elizabeth II’s reign challenged conventional constitutional norms, showed a willingness to silence Parliament, and has been reported to have caused concern at Buckingham Palace. This chapter will argue that the muddling-through constitutionalism that exists in the United Kingdom has been proven to work, and the term ‘muddling through’ should not be seen as a criticism, or an acknowledgment of persistent incompetence or lacklustre performance, but rather an acknowledgment of the strength of the constitution and how it has responded to challenges. There is a caveat, and that is the need for those in power to respect constitutional norms. The Johnson premiership resulted in concern that Johnson had proved the constitution to be defective and in need of fixing. How would we fix the post-Johnson constitution? This chapter argues that the solution of drafting a new written constitution whilst attractive, is not needed and we should not be too quick to abandon our current arrangements. History offers lessons on how we should view the constitution, and these provide broader historic context and illustrates how the constitution has survived challenges (such as in the 1780s) which were more significant than that posed by the Johnson premiership.