The closest they have to US republicans are the Tories. Conservative right wing etc.
There is no real desire in England to push for a republic.
People who attack the queen or chuck are looking at the wrong place. The institution of the constitutional monarchy is sound. It fulfills a very important role in the checks and balances of government, so forget the person it is the office that we need to address.
Could we have a more low key royal presence? Possibly but as they have been the figurehead of the country [and once and empire] I think that you will find that people will still admire them etc.
yep we have the same system in Aus. Although some say it is a figurehead we did get a prime minister sacked once due to blocking of supply in both houses. This is a big reason that the labor party is royal, oh and that a core of the labor party comes from strong Irish stock.
Thing is, ever since Charles I was declared 8 inches shorter by act of parliament, parliament decides who the monarch is. So the UK has an elected monarch, sort of. And just recently Edward VIII was chucked out on his ear for misbehavior.
So, since Parliament chooses the national mascot, who cares that they usually choose the oldest kid of the last mascot?
No the Parliament does NOT appoint who the next royal is, they can change the rules such as eliminating male-preference cognatic primogeniture. So in some ways if you control the rules you can determine next in line.
Edward VIII was an abdication not a sacking and in fact for it to happen they had to authorise a new act at the time.
Also the Prime Minister is appointed by the Monarch but this is normally a rubber stamp process.
Not bad for a bunch of lizards…
Elizabeth seems a reasonably fine person. But Charles is such a ninny he makes me grateful I’m an American. I don’t know how you Brits will stand him once she passes on.
I’m a Yank and mostly don’t mind Charles, outside of his messy romantic life. His first marriage was a bit embarrassing, but have you seen how politicians behave? He’s practically a man of probity by comparison.
If Great Britain goes republican (itself unlikely), I imagine some of the colonies will lean toward installing him as monarch elsewhere, and maintain the children of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as heads of the Commonwealth.
There are republican organisations scattered around. The biggest one is Republic (strangely enough).
I don’t see them as a mainstream political force, though. It seems to me that there are any number of people who, in principle, would prefer the abolition of the monarchy. But it’s not really a “live” political issue.
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.
But it was still an abdication, they do not have specific powers to get rid of a monarch but there are always ways to game the system. He valued something more than his monarchy, so he did make a choice. If he had adhered to the rules he would have stayed in power.
Meh I think they might skip Charles altogether and go for Will.
The U.K. Parliament does not need powers: it has general powers to legislate on any matter with respect to the U.K. So, next week, they could pass a bill saying that Queen Elizabeth ceases to be monarch, and Lady Gaga is now the Queen of the United Kingdom – only provided that, under the Statute of Westminster, they had the consent of the parliaments of the other dominions.
(And Canada, Australia or any of the other dominions under the Crown could unilaterally abolish the monarchy with respect to their country, or choose a different monarch, without the consent of the U.K. or of the other dominions.)
Then they need to get the ball rolling on that (which they won’t, because it’s not an idea with serious backing). That change would have to be made in advance of the Queen’s death, and I don’t mean to be macabre, but she’s 85. By all accounts she’s a healthy 85, but actuarially the country needs to have its bags packed for that event.
Much as Charles is less popular than Will, I think most people appreciate that part of the package of a monarchy is that it is hereditary. There is no tradition in Britain of abdication past a certain age (unlike European monarchies), and I don’t think we’d like to start even with Charles.
The consensus is that it’s his ‘turn’, so we should give him a chance. Plus, once you start actively selecting which of the monarch’s offspring gets to succeed her, you start making it practically elected (and all the messy jostling for position that entails).
When were the Irish ever royalists?!