Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-28-2018, 08:07 AM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,490
Can a King/Queen be removed by the government?

I don't mean by an armed method , by a legal method.

Can the UK, Sweden, Spain, etc. parliament decide one day to say "we prefer John Smith to be King and approve that law?" And the current King/Queen no longer has the title.
  #2  
Old 12-28-2018, 08:31 AM
Banksiaman Banksiaman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 844
Australia also has its own Queen, who also happens to moonlight as Queen Elizabeth II. At the moment she is the pinnacle of the Australian constitutional food-chain as our head of state, represented by an appointed Governor-General.

There is an intermittent movement to make Australia a republic, which would require a constitutional amendment to provide for an elected head of state. Australia would not otherwise change anything else and could remain a member of the Commonwealth.

That's the legal mechanism to remove our Queen. The last referendum to make that change failed, but there is some [a bit maybe, ish] of a feeling that once the Old Girl dies there will be less appetite for her son to take over and a referendum backed by the government would pass. In theory we could have a referendum question to replace her with the descendants of Ex-King Zog of Albania or another worthy regal lineage, but somehow I don't think so.
  #3  
Old 12-28-2018, 09:12 AM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banksiaman View Post
Australia also has its own Queen, who also happens to moonlight as Queen Elizabeth II. At the moment she is the pinnacle of the Australian constitutional food-chain as our head of state, represented by an appointed Governor-General.
It is more accurate to say that QEII is the Australian Commonwealth's Monarch whose single role is to appoint the Head of State, being the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister.
  #4  
Old 12-28-2018, 09:22 AM
Great Antibob Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,067
The examples given seem to be methods by which a nation can either choose to no longer to have a monarchy or to decide successors to existing monarchs.

Following up on the OP, are there any nations with legal, non-violent methods to remove a sitting monarch from that position and what are those nations/methods? Or, again legal and non-violent, to replace a sitting monarch with another person?
  #5  
Old 12-28-2018, 10:16 AM
Hari Seldon Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
It is more accurate to say that QEII is the Australian Commonwealth's Monarch whose single role is to appoint the Head of State, being the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister.
That may be true of Australia. In Canada, the Queen is the official head of state and the governor general her representative and carries out her "wishes", as decreed by the Canadian parliament. That can be changed only by a constitutional amendment and that is virtually impossible.

I don't know how true this is, but I read once that the constitution specifies male primogeniture, while Britain now specifies simple primogeniture. Thus it could happen sometime in the future that a queen regnant could be the head of state of Britain while her younger brother be the formal head of state of Canada.
  #6  
Old 12-28-2018, 11:45 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,228
Varies by location and time, of course.

Sancho I of León was removed from office by Parliament because his obesity and obsession with food made him incapable; his grandmother Toda, queen of Navarre, took him to visit her son-in-law Abderramán III in Córdoba, where Sancho went on a crash diet. Eventually and with the help of Abderramán's troops he recovered his kingdom.

Article 59 of the current Spanish Consitution states:
Quote:
1. Cuando el Rey fuere menor de edad, el padre o la madre del Rey y, en su defecto, el pariente mayor de edad más próximo a suceder en la Corona, según el orden establecido en la Constitución, entrará a ejercer inmediatamente la Regencia y la ejercerá durante el tiempo de la minoría de edad del Rey.

2. Si el Rey se inhabilitare para el ejercicio de su autoridad y la imposibilidad fuere reconocida por las Cortes Generales, entrará a ejercer inmediatamente la Regencia el Príncipe heredero de la Corona, si fuere mayor de edad. Si no lo fuere, se procederá de la manera prevista en el apartado anterior, hasta que el Príncipe heredero alcance la mayoría de edad.

3. Si no hubiere ninguna persona a quien corresponda la Regencia, ésta será nombrada por las Cortes Generales, y se compondrá de una, tres o cinco personas.

4. Para ejercer la Regencia es preciso ser español y mayor de edad.

5. La Regencia se ejercerá por mandato constitucional y siempre en nombre del Rey.
1. Being the Monarch a minor, their father or mother, or if these are not available the adult relative closest to the succession line, will become Regent during the Monarch's minority.

2. If the Monarch is demonstrated to be incapable, and having this incapacity being recognized by Parliament [N: both chambers], the Crown Prince shall become Regent if an adult; otherwise, Regency shall be set as per 1.

3. If nobody fulfills the previous requisites, a Regent or Regents in number of 1, 3 or 5 shall be appointed by Parliament.

4. The Regent(s) must hold Spanish nationality and be a legal adult.

5. The Regent(s) shall always act according to the Constitution and in the Monarch's name.


So, in case of dementia, coma, etc. Parliament can remove the Monarch, but they can't do it because they've decided they don't like the current one.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 12-28-2018 at 11:48 AM.
  #7  
Old 12-28-2018, 01:10 PM
hibernicus hibernicus is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Article 59 of the current Spanish Consitution states:

1. Being the Monarch a minor, their father or mother, or if these are not available the adult relative closest to the succession line, will become Regent during the Monarch's minority.

2. If the Monarch is demonstrated to be incapable, and having this incapacity being recognized by Parliament [N: both chambers], the Crown Prince shall become Regent if an adult; otherwise, Regency shall be set as per 1.

3. If nobody fulfills the previous requisites, a Regent or Regents in number of 1, 3 or 5 shall be appointed by Parliament.

4. The Regent(s) must hold Spanish nationality and be a legal adult.

5. The Regent(s) shall always act according to the Constitution and in the Monarch's name.


So, in case of dementia, coma, etc. Parliament can remove the Monarch, but they can't do it because they've decided they don't like the current one.
The appointment of a regent doesn't imply the removal of the monarch, though. In a regency the monarch retains the title while someone else discharges his/her duties.
  #8  
Old 12-28-2018, 11:52 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banksiaman View Post
Australia also has its own Queen, who also happens to moonlight as Queen Elizabeth II. ...
Out of curiosity:

I suppose you refer to her as "the Queen" or "our Queen" but when a typical Australian feels inclined to provide a place-name when referring to her casually, is she "Queen of Australia"? "Queen of England"? "Queen of the Commonwealth"? Other? [and same question for Canadians]
  #9  
Old 12-28-2018, 06:12 PM
Aspidistra Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Out of curiosity:

I suppose you refer to her as "the Queen" or "our Queen" but when a typical Australian feels inclined to provide a place-name when referring to her casually, is she "Queen of Australia"? "Queen of England"? "Queen of the Commonwealth"? Other? [and same question for Canadians]
Out of those options, it would almost certainly be "Queen of England". The average Australian has neither a great sense of ownership in Queen Liz, nor a very comprehensive education in the distinctions between various parts of the UK
__________________
It is easier to fall than to climb ... letting go for the fall brings a wonderful feeling of ease and power
- Katherine Kerr Daggerspell
  #10  
Old 12-28-2018, 12:20 PM
Tom Tildrum Tom Tildrum is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Falls Church, Va.
Posts: 14,004
Indeed, the UK's current monarch was established by acts of Parliament, establishing a line of succession long ago and amended to account for events like the abdication of Edward VIII. So as PatrickLondon indicated, the only constraints on Parliament's ability to designate a new monarch by law are political.
  #11  
Old 01-01-2019, 10:49 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
I don't know how true this is, but I read once that the constitution specifies male primogeniture, while Britain now specifies simple primogeniture. Thus it could happen sometime in the future that a queen regnant could be the head of state of Britain while her younger brother be the formal head of state of Canada.
No, that's not the case. The Constitution Act, 1867, provides that the country is to be "under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". After the Perth Agreement and the British Succession to the Crown Act, 2013, the Parliament of Canada passed the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, giving Canada's consent to the alteration in the line of succession, as required by the Statute of Westminster for it to be effective in Canada.
  #12  
Old 01-02-2019, 09:55 AM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
It is more accurate to say that QEII is the Australian Commonwealth's Monarch whose single role is to appoint the Head of State, being the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister.
Forgive the digression, but I have always wondered if the PM flies to England or calls her on the phone.
  #13  
Old 01-02-2019, 04:05 PM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Forgive the digression, but I have always wondered if the PM flies to England or calls her on the phone.
If the Australian Prime Minister wishes to speak to the Australian Head of State their secretaries make an appointment and the PM is driven the 3.6km from Parliament House to Yarralumla.

The PM speaks to their Monarch on State occasions and likely few else. Ma'am isn't seen out socially around Canberra that often.
  #14  
Old 01-03-2019, 12:37 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Forgive the digression, but I have always wondered if the PM flies to England or calls her on the phone.
When it comes to nominating a GG, I"d imagine there's a fairly formal document that gets sent for signature, after a bit of behind the scenes forewarning between officials. No need for either party physically to travel.
  #15  
Old 01-03-2019, 01:16 AM
UDS UDS is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Forgive the digression, but I have always wondered if the PM flies to England or calls her on the phone.
Neither. Since the GG is appointed for a fixed term, vacancies and the need to fill them are generally foreseeable. Correspondence on the subject is by letter, between the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in Canberra and the Private Secretary to the Sovereign in London, with the letters being routed through the Australian High Commission in London.

If the need for urgent contact arises it's by phone or any other convenient technology, but it's still mainly between officials, not between the principals.

Only when the whole thing is settled does the PM formally advise the Queen to appoint so-and-so as Governor-General. This would normally be by letter from the PM to the Private Secretary, but in a case of urgency it could be phone or e-mail or whatever.
  #16  
Old 01-03-2019, 09:09 AM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,827
Thanks, Patrick and UDS.
  #17  
Old 12-28-2018, 08:33 AM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 5,927
The Norwegian rules of succession are part of the constitution, and the constitution can only be changed by a 2/3 vote of at least 2/3s of parliament in two consecutive parliamentary periods.

But given a strong majority over several years for such a major change the parliament can do almost anything.
  #18  
Old 12-28-2018, 09:42 AM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,490
In 2008 Nepal got rid of their King and declared they are a republic . That was after a Marxist takeover of the government. It was not violent removal but there had been a war going on for a while before that takeover.
  #19  
Old 12-28-2018, 10:12 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 9,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
Following up on the OP, are there any nations with legal, non-violent methods to remove a sitting monarch from that position and what are those nations/methods? Or, again legal and non-violent, to replace a sitting monarch with another person?
Japan does not. In fact, when the current Emperor wanted to abdicate, a special law was required in order to allow this, and the law was customized for only him.

There are only four in line for the throne: the heir, the Crown Prince who will ascend to the throne in spring next year; the spare, the Crown Prince’s younger brother; the younger brother’s son; and then the current Emperor’s younger brother.

There is a law which codifies all of this, and it is possible to change this, although not likely unless there were extraordinary circumstances.

Laws allowing monarchs to be changed on the whims of politicians would not be really popular. The people who really care about having the monarchs are the same ones who care that the bloodlines and traditions are carefully followed.
  #20  
Old 12-28-2018, 01:08 PM
hibernicus hibernicus is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 2,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoBayer View Post
Japan does not. In fact, when the current Emperor wanted to abdicate, a special law was required in order to allow this, and the law was customized for only him.
You say "Japan does not", but the example you gave of a law being passed to allow for a change of emperor seems to fit the OP's criteria quite well.

The abolition of the office of emperor would require a change to the constitution, which can be by means of a referendum or a parliamentary super-majority. Neither is likely but it does represent a non-violent route to abolition, should the political/public will favour that option.
  #21  
Old 12-29-2018, 09:48 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 14,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoBayer View Post
Japan does not. In fact, when the current Emperor wanted to abdicate, a special law was required in order to allow this, and the law was customized for only him...
Neither does the UK; when Edward VIII abdicated back in 1936 his "Instrument of Abdication" was just him declaring his wish to abdicate in writing. Then Parliament* passed a law declaring that he was no longer king and that his descendants wouldn't have any inheritances rights to the crown (nor would he or them require royal permission to marry). Only once Royal Assent was granted in his name to the act did Edward VIII cease to be king. Just like in Japan it was a special law that applied only in that specific case.


*Canada, South Africa, and the Irish Free State passed their own laws with the same effect to demonstrate their recent independence under the Statute of Westminster.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters

Last edited by alphaboi867; 12-29-2018 at 09:50 PM.
  #22  
Old 12-30-2018, 01:50 AM
Spoons Spoons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 15,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
In Canada, it's simply "The Queen.". Well, in English Canada anyway. Charles will certainly be the next king, unless he dies before Elizabeth. It may be short-lived, but he's been groomed for this his whole life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
(Remember: my question isn't what her technical title is — it's what do ordinary folk call her when chatting in a pub, assuming they choose to append an "of Placename" at all.)
I have to agree with Leaffan, at least as far as Canada goes. Constitutionally and legally, Elizabeth is styled Queen of Canada, though in everyday conversation between ordinary people, she is simply referred to as the Queen.

There are a few people in Canada who will refer to her as Queen of England, but they tend to be those who cannot wrap their heads around the fact that the two offices (Queen of Canada and Queen of the UK) are embodied in the same person.

So, simply "the Queen" works well.
  #23  
Old 12-28-2018, 12:09 PM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,995
As far as the UK is concerned, the answer is "Yes of course". There's no written constitution to say what parliament can or can't, must or mustn't, do, so if a parliamentary majority took it into its head to pass a law abolishing the monarchy, of course it could.

As a matter of practical reality, though, public opinion would need to be clearly onside after long public debate, general election and/or a referendum; but there is no prescribed rule or procedure.
  #24  
Old 12-28-2018, 06:42 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
As far as the UK is concerned, the answer is "Yes of course". There's no written constitution to say what parliament can or can't, must or mustn't, do, so if a parliamentary majority took it into its head to pass a law abolishing the monarchy, of course it could.
Wouldn't the Monarch have to give Royal Assent for it to take effect? Edward VII had to do so
Quote:
First, there was no provision in British law for a sovereign to abdicate. Parliament had to pass a bill to remove the king from the throne. Finally the king had to give royal assent to the legislation, which only then became a law. (This process had to be repeated in the parliaments of the Dominions which had enacted the Statute of Westminster 1931: Canada and South Africa.)
The question then would be what would happen if the Monarch doesn't want to be removed?
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #25  
Old 12-28-2018, 09:32 PM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
The question then would be what would happen if the Monarch doesn't want to be removed?
I struggle to fathom your preoccupation with the divine right of kings.

The Runneymede Convention was established 800 years ago.
The definitive nail was hammered in by "cruel necessity" in front of the Banqueting House in 1649.

Time to move on, maybe?
  #26  
Old 12-28-2018, 09:51 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
The question then would be what would happen if the Monarch doesn't want to be removed?
Charles I and James II didn't want to be removed either and refused all cooperation with Parliamentary attempts to depose them. But Parliament won.
  #27  
Old 12-28-2018, 10:22 PM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
The question then would be what would happen if the Monarch doesn't want to be removed?
In that case, Parliament would exercise a block vote.
  #28  
Old 12-29-2018, 12:04 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Wouldn't the Monarch have to give Royal Assent for it to take effect? Edward VII had to do so


The question then would be what would happen if the Monarch doesn't want to be removed?
Even if you only look within the strict parameters of written law, they could get Miss Zenouska Mowatt to agree to give royal assent and then declare everyone else before her to be unfit to do so. Imagine the 25th Amendment but with thousands of successors.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 12-29-2018 at 12:07 AM.
  #29  
Old 12-30-2018, 03:23 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Charles I and James II didn't want to be removed either and refused all cooperation with Parliamentary attempts to depose them. But Parliament won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
In that case, Parliament would exercise a block vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Even if you only look within the strict parameters of written law, they could get Miss Zenouska Mowatt to agree to give royal assent and then declare everyone else before her to be unfit to do so. Imagine the 25th Amendment but with thousands of successors.
So effectively if Parliament wants the Monarch removed via legal means and the Monarch refuses to cooperate and withholds Royal Assent, then the House of Commons will lead a coup and install whomever they want?
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #30  
Old 12-30-2018, 04:09 PM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So effectively if Parliament wants the Monarch removed via legal means and the Monarch refuses to cooperate and withholds Royal Assent, then the House of Commons will lead a coup and install whomever they want?
Broadly so, yes. It would depend on the precise issue at hand. If the Commons was acting against the wishes of the majority of the public, that would be a potential break on the Commons. But if the monarch were in trouble for breaching the many conventions surrounding the operation of the monarchy and running the reputation of the Crown and/or country through the mud, then there's little kidding which institution would win a battle of wills.
  #31  
Old 12-29-2018, 12:37 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Wouldn't the Monarch have to give Royal Assent for it to take effect? Edward VII had to do so
That Act was about the legal consequences of the Instrument of Abdication Edward VIII had already signed (having, perhaps, been slightly surprised to find his bluff called - the possibility of abdication was his idea in the first place) ; his successor was already in place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
The question then would be what would happen if the Monarch doesn't want to be removed?
Everyone would be scrabbling through the records for 1688 to establish precedents for parliament to declare a vacancy and rule on what happens next. Whether it would get to the point of needing to send someone in to physically remove the monarch and their personal effects from Buckingham Palace and Windsor, or to switch off the electricity until they go of their own accord, who knows?

Last edited by PatrickLondon; 12-29-2018 at 12:38 AM.
  #32  
Old 01-01-2019, 10:58 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
That Act was about the legal consequences of the Instrument of Abdication Edward VIII had already signed (having, perhaps, been slightly surprised to find his bluff called - the possibility of abdication was his idea in the first place) ; his successor was already in place.
The Instrument of Abdication was simply a formal statement by Edward that he wished to abdicate. However, it could not change the line of succession, because that was set by the Act of Settlement. After Edward signed the Instrument on December 10, Parliament on December 11 passed His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, which was the legal change to the line of succession. Edward gave Royal Assent to the act, at which point there was a "demise of the Crown" and he ceased to be king. George became king immediately upon royal assent being given on December 11.
  #33  
Old 12-28-2018, 12:13 PM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,490
isn't there talk some want Charles to not be king and go right to William? I assume Charles is not in favor of that plan. I guess the idea is to go with a younger person.
  #34  
Old 12-28-2018, 12:24 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
isn't there talk some want Charles to not be king and go right to William? I assume Charles is not in favor of that plan. I guess the idea is to go with a younger person.
I expect Charles to become King; I hope his first and only act is to abdicate in favour of William.
  #35  
Old 12-28-2018, 02:18 PM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
isn't there talk some want Charles to not be king and go right to William? I assume Charles is not in favor of that plan. I guess the idea is to go with a younger person.
They are already achieving the effect without changing the formalities, just by careful management of PR and the choice of events and activities each gets involved in.
  #36  
Old 12-28-2018, 09:48 PM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
isn't there talk some want Charles to not be king and go right to William?.
Not from anybody informed.

Elizabeth R will reign until her death. That's the gig.
She will be succeeded by her heir who is currently Charles, who in turn will reign til his demise. For the Windsors, there's already been one abdication too many in the family.

It's a monarchy, not a meritocracy, hagiocracy or a reality TV show.
  #37  
Old 01-01-2019, 11:04 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
isn't there talk some want Charles to not be king and go right to William? I assume Charles is not in favor of that plan.
I'm torn between not wanting such a "prat" and "twit" (as many Brits apparently view him) as head Royal, and enjoying the spectacle of him making an ass of himself on a larger stage. The prospect of some form of impeachment by Parliament would be even juicier.

Alas, I don't get a vote on the matter.
  #38  
Old 01-01-2019, 11:38 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
I'm torn between not wanting such a "prat" and "twit" (as many Brits apparently view him) as head Royal,
Wow. Reading that first piece - the one from The New Yorker - it becomes clear that a great deal of Charles' issues come from a severely poisonous upbringing. The fault appears to be in the people around him who have one view - only one - of what he was to grow up to be and no flexibility at all. They both pushed him away from his interests and coddled him into being something he couldn't become. If his parents think less of him that's their fault and not his. He is what they made him.
  #39  
Old 12-28-2018, 12:23 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Can the UK, Sweden, Spain, etc. parliament decide one day to say "we prefer John Smith to be King and approve that law?" And the current King/Queen no longer has the title.
The UK precedent is set by the Glorious Revolution. While it wasn't entirely without military effort, it was at the behest of Parliament.

However the modern way, as in the case of Edward VIII, is to force them to abdicate. This avoids any mess and provides the ex-monarch with a cushy retirement to ensure their compliance.
  #40  
Old 12-28-2018, 12:56 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
The UK precedent is set by the Glorious Revolution. While it wasn't entirely without military effort, it was at the behest of Parliament.

However the modern way, as in the case of Edward VIII, is to force them to abdicate. This avoids any mess and provides the ex-monarch with a cushy retirement to ensure their compliance.
Parliament claimed that James II also abdicated. They said that by leaving England the way he did, he was also making a de facto abdication and choosing to give up his throne. James denied this but Parliament was writing the rules.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 12-28-2018 at 12:57 PM.
  #41  
Old 12-28-2018, 12:28 PM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,490
what's the record for oldest person to become king/queen? In UK or any country? Charles is 70 now.
  #42  
Old 12-28-2018, 12:41 PM
PaulParkhead PaulParkhead is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Lothian
Posts: 2,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
what's the record for oldest person to become king/queen? In UK or any country? Charles is 70 now.
UK answer - assuming he survives his mother, Charles will be the oldest person ever to become monarch.
  #43  
Old 12-28-2018, 01:07 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
what's the record for oldest person to become king/queen? In UK or any country? Charles is 70 now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulParkhead View Post
UK answer - assuming he survives his mother, Charles will be the oldest person ever to become monarch.
Sophia of Hanover was the Heir Presumptive when she died in 1714. She died in June and Queen Anne (her cousin) died in August; if that had been reversed, Sophia would have become Queen at the age of 83.
  #44  
Old 12-30-2018, 12:20 PM
Throatwarbler Mangrove Throatwarbler Mangrove is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Sophia of Hanover was the Heir Presumptive when she died in 1714. She died in June and Queen Anne (her cousin) died in August; if that had been reversed, Sophia would have become Queen at the age of 83.
The current king of Saudi Arabia, Salman, succeeded his brother Abdullah at age 79.
  #45  
Old 12-28-2018, 12:54 PM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
what's the record for oldest person to become king/queen? In UK or any country? Charles is 70 now.
In the UK it was William IV at 64 - Charles will easily beat him. The last Mughal Bahadur Shah was ~62.

I'm not aware of anyone older, but there might be a few. However in general ascending to the throne so late in life is quite rare. Particularly in the pre-modern era when adult mortality rates( quite aside from the notorious skewing by high child mortality rates )were not nearly so favorable and enfeebled monarchs and competitors were a little more apt to be pushed aside or out-competed by ambitious youngsters. If a monarch did live to an unusually ripe old age they were very liable to outlive their children.

Louis XIV for example is still the record-holder as longest reigning European monarch at a little over 72 years( QEII is gaining on him ). But he was succeeded by a five-year old great-grandson.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 12-28-2018 at 12:54 PM.
  #46  
Old 12-28-2018, 01:22 PM
Mk VII Mk VII is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 2,837
In Britain the rightful King is whoever the Parliament says it is .
However, under the Statute of Westminster, all changes in the succession are void unless the remaining Commonwealth Realms pass exactly similar legislation.
  #47  
Old 12-28-2018, 01:39 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk VII View Post
In Britain the rightful King is whoever the Parliament says it is .
However, under the Statute of Westminster, all changes in the succession are void unless the remaining Commonwealth Realms pass exactly similar legislation.
And as an example, they recently amended the succession to make male and female heirs equal. At this point, given Charles, William, George already in line before Charlotte, no terribly relevant. But it's an example of how the British system works. they simply pass a law.... then the Queen signs it. then it takes effect.

Last edited by md2000; 12-28-2018 at 01:40 PM.
  #48  
Old 12-28-2018, 07:21 PM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Wouldn't the Monarch have to give Royal Assent for it to take effect? Edward VII had to do so



The question then would be what would happen if the Monarch doesn't want to be removed?

Then things get Interesting.

Didn't Belgium's king refuse to sign an abortion law sometime in the Nineties, and Parliament declared him incapacitated until the law was passed anyway?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #49  
Old 12-31-2018, 12:11 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
And as an example, they recently amended the succession to make male and female heirs equal....
For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succes...Crown_Act_2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
...Didn't Belgium's king refuse to sign an abortion law sometime in the Nineties, and Parliament declared him incapacitated until the law was passed anyway?....
Something like that: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/w...s-day-off.html
  #50  
Old 12-29-2018, 01:49 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 9,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibernicus View Post
You say "Japan does not", but the example you gave of a law being passed to allow for a change of emperor seems to fit the OP's criteria quite well.



The abolition of the office of emperor would require a change to the constitution, which can be by means of a referendum or a parliamentary super-majority. Neither is likely but it does represent a non-violent route to abolition, should the political/public will favour that option.
I was not responding to the OP, but to the question which I quoted.
Quote:
Following up on the OP, are there any nations with legal, non-violent methods to remove a sitting monarch from that position and what are those nations/methods? Or, again legal and non-violent, to replace a sitting monarch with another person?
My interpretation of that question was that they are asking if there are currently established procedures for that purpose. No, in Japan’s case it would require a change in law, which I clearly stated in my third paragraph.

In contrast, there are established laws concerning the change in governments, for example.

If the question were phrased such as “Is it possible for this to happen?” Then the obvious answer is that in all modern democracies then anything the voters decide could eventually occur, although depending on the subject, it would be difficult and perhaps impossible from a practical standpoint.

If a question were posed as “can States succeed from the Union in a legal, nonviolent method?” Then I would assume the person is asking about the current rules as any democracy with a constitution can modify the constitution without resorting to bloodshed if sufficient people agree.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017