# Abolition of the British Monarchy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 24, 2012, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479 "2012-01-24T05:23:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![GreenElf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@GreenElf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenElf)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/81 "2012-01-30T00:53:58Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > So does just about everybody else. The concept of monarchy has been around long enough that pretty much everybody is going to descend from some monarch somewhere. But those who assert this are obviously saying that American presidents have had a great deal more than you or me, and they’re referring to the English monarchy in particular, not all monarchies that have ever existed. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/82 "2012-01-30T02:19:44Z")
> [@GreenElf](#): > > But those who assert this are obviously saying that American presidents have had a great deal more than you or me, and they’re referring to the English monarchy in particular, not all monarchies that have ever existed. :rolleyes: This is vaguely royalist hogwash, whether to boost the USA in the eyes of people who care about such things, or to subtly argue for a natural aristocracy. Bill Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, to name two, were each slightly less royal than your average car wash attendant. None of the USA’s presidents were bluebloods. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/83 "2012-01-30T02:23:57Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > Her Grandparents’ ages were either better than average or damn good for their time. Some of those deaths - her father’s and sister’s especially - seem also to be connected to smoking; she doesn’t smoke. > > She’s not just old, but remarkably healthy. Expecting her to live another ten years is not betting against the odds. > > And Chuck is already quite old and looks about the same age as his mother; he walks with a stick whereas she still doesn’t. A short reign does seem likely - very like Edward VII. I think Charles’s biggest problem will be that when Bessy decides to call it quits, and I would take a bet that she makes to 2020 easily, and that when he get to be king he’ll be 75 or 80. Man, I wouldn’t be suprised Elizabeth is around in 2030. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/84 "2012-01-30T03:38:49Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I think Charles’s biggest problem will be that when Bessy decides to call it quits, and I would take a bet that she makes to 2020 easily, and that when he get to be king he’ll be 75 or 80. > > Man, I wouldn’t be suprised Elizabeth is around in 2030. It’s good to be the Queen! ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/85 "2012-01-30T04:03:53Z")
When some woman is acting all high and mighty, it just wouldn’t be the same to ask, “Who does she think she is–the President of England?” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/86 "2012-01-30T04:13:16Z")
> [@GreenElf](#): > > But those who assert this are obviously saying that American presidents have had a great deal more than you or me, and they’re referring to the English monarchy in particular, not all monarchies that have ever existed. It’s mostly rubbish. In addition to those **foolsguineau** mentioned, Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer ([though related to Edward I according to a mostly citationless Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_relationships_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Presidents_related_to_royalty).) It’s certainly true that there’s a degree of electoral nepotism to the selection process; we’ve had three father/son president combos (okay, one was grandfather/grandson), and dozens of cousins. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/87 "2012-01-30T04:35:41Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > I didn’t know that. Can you give us a link? I’ve seen him use a walking stick on country walks but that’s all. He had a cane at William’s wedding - [http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/prince-charles-royal-wedding.jpg](http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/prince-charles-royal-wedding.jpg) - and the way he was walking with it indicated that he was actually using it, rather than it just being for decorative purposes. I think a lot of of the recent pictures I’ve seen of him have included a cane, but I guess it actually doesn’t tell us that much about his general health. ---
**Author:** ![GreenElf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@GreenElf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenElf)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/88 "2012-01-30T06:37:00Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > :rolleyes: > > This is vaguely royalist hogwash, whether to boost the USA in the eyes of people who care about such things, or to subtly argue for a natural aristocracy. Bill Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, to name two, were each slightly less royal than your average car wash attendant. None of the USA’s presidents were bluebloods. Actually it runs along conspiracy theory lines rather than snobbery. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/89 "2012-01-30T08:19:37Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > He had a cane at William’s wedding - [http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/prince-charles-royal-wedding.jpg](http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/prince-charles-royal-wedding.jpg) - and the way he was walking with it indicated that he was actually using it, rather than it just being for decorative purposes. I think a lot of of the recent pictures I’ve seen of him have included a cane, but I guess it actually doesn’t tell us that much about his general health. Eh? That’s a ceremonial sword. He wore it at [his own](http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=prince+charles+wedding&start=0&num=10&um=1&hl=en&biw=1657&bih=1282&tbm=isch&tbnid=4eFGx8NWVoIz8M:&imgrefurl=http://womenshistory.about.com/od/diana/ig/Princess-Diana-Wedding/1981---Diana-and-Charles.-xiZ.htm&docid=P7TxTxw_l2tErM&imgurl=http://0.tqn.com/d/womenshistory/1/0/y/n/2/1981-Diana-Charles-wedding-109326934.jpg&w=3459&h=5153&ei=0FEmT4v4OYHL0QXH0cGPDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=414&vpy=597&dur=817&hovh=274&hovw=184&tx=127&ty=127&sig=105069042929565706762&sqi=2&page=1&tbnh=157&tbnw=124&ndsp=64&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0) wedding too. The only other cane-like thing I’ve ever seen him carry is some ‘monarch of the glen’ shepherds hook he carries when he’s roaming the glens at Balmoral, and [he’s always had that](http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/slideshow/the_prince_in_pictures/slide6.stm). ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/90 "2012-01-30T09:36:00Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > He had a cane at William’s wedding - [http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/prince-charles-royal-wedding.jpg](http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/prince-charles-royal-wedding.jpg) - and the way he was walking with it indicated that he was actually using it, rather than it just being for decorative purpose. Sorry chum - that’s his sword. It’s strapped to the belt, and he’s holding it like that to stop it banging about. Here it is from a different angle: [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fWrwCST\_UZk/Tbw6M3ddUNI/AAAAAAAAApU/BkWhCo74SsE/s1600/camilla-parker-bowles-prince-charles-royal-wedding.jpg](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fWrwCST_UZk/Tbw6M3ddUNI/AAAAAAAAApU/BkWhCo74SsE/s1600/camilla-parker-bowles-prince-charles-royal-wedding.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/91 "2012-01-30T14:20:25Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > Eh? That’s a ceremonial sword. He wore it at [his own](http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=prince+charles+wedding&start=0&num=10&um=1&hl=en&biw=1657&bih=1282&tbm=isch&tbnid=4eFGx8NWVoIz8M:&imgrefurl=http://womenshistory.about.com/od/diana/ig/Princess-Diana-Wedding/1981---Diana-and-Charles.-xiZ.htm&docid=P7TxTxw_l2tErM&imgurl=http://0.tqn.com/d/womenshistory/1/0/y/n/2/1981-Diana-Charles-wedding-109326934.jpg&w=3459&h=5153&ei=0FEmT4v4OYHL0QXH0cGPDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=414&vpy=597&dur=817&hovh=274&hovw=184&tx=127&ty=127&sig=105069042929565706762&sqi=2&page=1&tbnh=157&tbnw=124&ndsp=64&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0) wedding too. The only other cane-like thing I’ve ever seen him carry is some ‘monarch of the glen’ shepherds hook he carries when he’s roaming the glens at Balmoral, and [he’s always had that](http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/slideshow/the_prince_in_pictures/slide6.stm). Yeah, true. That wasn’t even the picture I was thinking of, but it was the only one I could find. I’m certain I’ve seen several news videos where he’s walking with a cane or stick, not when mountaineering; he has had knee surgery and, according to [url=[Hernia operation for Charles after gardening injury | Daily Mail Online](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-228879/Hernia-operation-Charles-gardening-injury.html)]this newspaper[/article], has recurring back pain, so I don’t think this is purely my imagination. (Other sources on this are hard to Google, since there’s a Prince Charles hospital which seems to specialise in knee surgery). ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/92 "2012-01-30T16:52:15Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Yes, he abdicated, but they were holding a gun to his head. He very much did not want to abdicate. He was sacked, period. Yes, Parliament has to pass a law to sack the Monarch. And so? > > Of course the Parliament doesn’t appoint the next royal. But if the “next royal” is unsuitable, as Edward was, they will surely sack him, and if he doesn’t like it he’ll end up like Charles I. Not that I expect Prince Charles to make a mess of things, he wants to be king very much and will do his duty. As a Colonist, I’m a little confused about how the Commons, Monarch, constitutional crises, etc all work towards a republic. The discussions I’ve seen all seem to go like: 1. The monarch takes a stand against the PM’s wishes 2. 3. The Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Mrs. Cad was asking about the British Monarchy after QE2 dies and part of the discussion was in regards to Edward VIII. My understanding was that it was a “Constitutional Crisis” and the government (Question: is the "government the Cabinet or all of the House of Commons?) would resign. N.B. I believe that MPs are not allowed to resign their seats. Suppose Edward married Wallis, perhaps dissolved Parliament if enough MPs forced the issue or at the very least appointed a new PM when Baldwin resigned (I believe Churchill was favorable to the King). What would have happened? The House of Commons declare a republic? Execute EdVIII like they did to Chas I? Shave their heads and start a civil war? Citizen rising up in revolt? Or a lot of lip service but no real action? Similarly as George VI, suppose the new king withholds Royal Assent on a bill condemning homeopathy. What would happen? Would something like that be enough to trigger an abolition of the monarchy? ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/93 "2012-01-30T17:21:14Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > N.B. I believe that MPs are not allowed to resign their seats. They’re not, but if they want out there is a rather bizarre way of doing it. They apply for, and are appointed to, the position of either _Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham_ or _Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead_ (the positions rotate). These are sinecures that make the MP a salaried employee of the Monarch, and as that is against Parliamentary rules, the MP’s seat is revoked and a by-election is called. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/94 "2012-01-30T17:27:14Z")
As for what would happen if the Monarch attempts to use his powers in an irresponsible way, well, that’s why it’s called a constitutional crisis. It depends. Obviously, the Monarch isn’t going to win the battle over anything substantive. A person is only king because the people call him king. If they decide someone else is king, or that nobody is king, then that’s what happens. So if Charles gets full of himself and decides to withhold consent to some law, then the PM is going to sit him down and explain that he can’t win this fight. Either he’s going to shut up and sign, or they’ll find someone else to do the job. Whether that person is some other royal, or a president doesn’t matter that much. Of course, if this particular law were something incredibly unpopular and disasterous, Charles will explain to the PM that the proposed law is a disaster, and he won’t sign, and that the people won’t stand for it, and he really should reconsider. Thing is, any proposed use of the Monarch’s supposed powers would have to be over something the Monarch is willing to risk not only his office, but potentially the monarchy itself. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/95 "2012-01-30T18:17:05Z")
The UK is a democracy, so ultimately it comes down to what the people want and what they are willing to tolerate. If the Government tries to abolish the Monarchy over something trivial without firm support from the public, they’ll find themselves voted out (quite possibly before the abolition takes effect, if the Crown decides to escalate). OTOH, if the Monarch abuses her or his power in a serious way and the Government _doesn’t_ take steps, the Government will likely find itself voted out and someone more republican voted in. Of course, if the Monarch abuses her or his power in a relatively trivial way or exercises it in a highly popular manner (such as withholding consent to a highly unpopular bill) such that no one manages to make it an election issue, then everyone may just have to live with it. So pretty much the same thing as would happen if the President abuses his power. Either Congress impeaches, or it decides it had better live with it. And if it impeaches unjustly, then it has to live with the consequences of that, too, like the Republicans in 2000 and in 1868. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/96 "2012-01-30T18:27:18Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > The UK is a democracy, so ultimately it comes down to what the people want and what they are willing to tolerate. If the Government tries to abolish the Monarchy over something trivial without firm support from the public, they’ll find themselves voted out (quite possibly before the abolition takes effect, if the Crown decides to escalate). OTOH, if the Monarch abuses her or his power in a serious way and the Government _doesn’t_ take steps, the Government will likely find itself voted out and someone more republican voted in. Of course, if the Monarch abuses her or his power in a relatively trivial way or exercises it in a highly popular manner (such as withholding consent to a highly unpopular bill) such that no one manages to make it an election issue, then everyone may just have to live with it. > > So pretty much the same thing as would happen if the President abuses his power. Either Congress impeaches, or it decides it had better live with it. And if it impeaches unjustly, then it has to live with the consequences of that, too, like the Republicans in 2000 and in 1868. So if Edward VIII had forced the issue over his marriage, that might have been the end of the monarchy but if a monarch withholds Royal Assent on something seen as trivial, then it may be a non-issue. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/97 "2012-01-30T18:43:23Z")
It depends. I don’t know a lot about Edward’s abdication, but it his potential marriage was clearly seen as a very significant issue by those in power. And taking the issues out of context doesn’t really work. It’s like saying that if a President gets a blowjob, he can be impeached, but if he authorizes torture and warrantless wiretaps, it’s a non-issue. It all depends on what the opposition can make hay over. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/98 "2012-01-30T18:44:30Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So if Edward VIII had forced the issue over his marriage, that might have been the end of the monarchy but if a monarch withholds Royal Assent on something seen as trivial, then it may be a non-issue. I think that in the present day, a monarch withholding Assent over something trivial would be equally controversial as withholding it over something substantive. The only thing I think the monarch could get away with blocking would be an attempt by the government to undermine the very democratic basis of our constitution - for example, trying to pass a law allowing them to govern by decree, or do away with elections. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/99 "2012-01-30T18:48:25Z")
Edward VIII’s abdication was a funny business. The basic line is that Edward wanted to marry someone who was a) common; b) foreign, and c) a divorcee. These offended the clergy, the government and the general public. Edward compounded this by approaching the issue the wrong way. His government said he must abdicate if he wanted to marry Simpson. He wanted to address the public (which was denied). Nonetheless the message was clear among all those in the know that his attitude was ‘I’ll marry this woman whether you want to or not, I’ll ditch the Crown if I have to!’, while if he had something like ‘I want to marry this woman, but I also want to be King. If the public refuse me I will go.’ The emphasis is different - the former is petulant and selfish, the latter is resigned and considerate (at least, slightly more so). The general impression is that if he had been able to go to the country over the issue, he may have won public approval - if he had gone with the latter approach. His actual approach would have poisoned public attitudes to him further. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479/100 "2012-01-31T00:10:26Z")
Edward couldn’t actually abdicate by himself without causing a constitutional crisis. Since all royal activities have to be accepted by Parliament, so he wrote a letter saying “I’m wanna abdicate, dudes, will ya gimme some law for it?” [The document itself](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Edward_abdication.png) It also bears mentioning that Wallis Simpson was still married when Eddy became king. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-the-british-monarchy/610479.md?page=6)