Thank you, Androos! 
Thank you, **London_Calling, ** for your discourse on the both of the not-so-Great “subjects” that I proposed for Debate.
(I confess that the real subject was no more than the semi-mystical word “abrogootion” which had come up in conversation the night before but didn’t sound right. In truth, my “gut feeling” is that the “oo” would be better spelt with an umlauted “u”, [ü], but I didn’t know how to do that without HTML. I suspect that Poster Arnold Winkelried [thanks, MonSire, for the M-W link; I was able to paste an “ü” from it ] was correct: I was probably thinking of “abrogate” [“abrogare”], but pronounced with a Anglish/Saxon/Germanic “oo”. Having read the many responses to my querry this A.M., I find that I agree with Poster Ross’ view: “abrogütion” does sound much better for the process than the bland, oatmeal-like “abdication”.)
But back to the Subject: London_Calling, you have written:
Here in the Fifty States, we have been moving toward “greater grassroots democracy” ever since we dumped the imperious President/King (self-styled “King”, that is) Adams, the First. Our President Thom. Jefferson called himself a Democratic Republican, but it was really Militia General Andrew Jackson (The Hero/Victor at New Orleans—my appologies for bringing up unpleasant historical memories 
) who, as President, initiated our movement toward “grassroots democracy”. We think that we have progressed pretty well along this path (for better or for worse), yet we still have the equivalent of Fifty witan which cast (and then pool) the votes for President (and Vice President/President-of-the-Senate). In was in this context that I thought that bringing back the witan (or, as do we, separate witan for England, Scotland, Wales, and N.Ireland) might be a debatable question.
( 
)
You later write, London_Calling,
I think that all of the Fifty States in our American Union have a “sub-monarch” called “Governor”.
(I am far out on a political limb here, but I think that since none of them actually “govern”, the title refers to their position as “Governor” of their respective State’s Militia [an entity which is a fundamental part of the United States’ Supreme Law, and one, I think, that is drawn from British History as well as from our own Revolutionary History].)
Yet we generally think that we have “democracy”—or, at least, that we have (sort of) democratic institutions. It was in this sense that I posed the debatable**(?)** thought of “sub-kings” for England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland, with, of course, a “Grand King” (truly, I suppose, today’s P.M.-equivalent) for the United Kingdom[s]
( )
Many thanks, again, London_Calling, for your time and effort and knowledge. As for “American TV”, I’m afraid that I find it pretty disgusting: I didn’t own one for the first 5+ decades of my life and, although I now one, even today I seldom watch it (–except for Zena, of course 
). My knowledge of English/British history (mostly) comes from reading somebody’s book-series (Coldstain’s?) on one of the Monarchical lines (Planetgenets?). DECADES ago! 
Finally, Poster Ross wrote:
But, sir, haven’t you just given an excellent rationale for summoning the Witan and, for all intents and purposes, changing what is now ‘merely’ the First Minister into the “King of the U.K.”? (Or, one must suppose, in the case of M. Thacher, the Queen.)
(On the other hand, I have read that the Windsors are extraordinarily rich so perhaps it is [practically] impossible to have anyone but a Windsor as the King/Queen. ?)
But, of course, I am a distant viewer, whose [genetic] background is French and German, with no more than a whif of English. Perhaps I have no business even suggesting topics for Debate about the governments of other lands—particularly when we have so many problems with our own!
Still: Thanks to all for “abdication” as well as “abrogütion”. 
“To abrogüt or not to abrogüt. That is the question.”
I don’t think this is accurate. Under the Regency Act, if the Queen is incapacitated, the next in line to the throne normally becomes regent, provided that person is of full age. It’s only if the heir is underage that the Duke would be regent. Since Charles is of full age, he would be the regent, if HM had a stroke, for example.
If the Queen is out of the country for a while, she can appoint “Counsellors of State” from within the Royal Family to carry on routine duties. The Duke could be one of them, but not necessarily.
Of course, by that definition, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a few other places would be part of Great Britain.
Not too long ago we had a Uncrowned King Of Ireland
Until comparatively recently, the textbook view was that Parliament could trace itself back to the Anglo-Saxon witans. This view has now fallen out of fashion, not least because it is now recognised that this idea was mainly propagated by past Parliaments in order to stress their own importance. Arguing that a witan had simply been the Anglo-Saxon Parliament allowed those who wished to reduce the powers of the monarchy to argue that Parliament pre-dated the monarchy and that the monarch’s power derived from Parliament. This neatly combined with Lockean ideas about the origins of government to form the original ‘Whig interpretation’ of English history. That interpretation undoubtedly influenced the thinking of the Founding Fathers.
It is however the alternative ‘Tory interpretation’ which is now regarded as being correct. The nature of the Anglo-Saxon witans remains a matter of dispute among historians, but all agree that the idea of them as Anglo-Saxon Parliaments was absurdly anachronistic. Most historians accept that the English Parliament didn’t originate before the thirteenth century, although, in a very general sense, it can be seen as having some similiarities to other bodies of advisers from which monarchs had previously sought advice.
There are those who would argue that an element of election survives in the accession of a new British monarch. The Privy Council must meet to acknowledge the new monarch and at the coronation he/she is first presented to the congregation for their approbation. However, these are just formalities as the succession is now laid down by statute. It is extremely doubtful whether either the Privy Council or the congregation in Westminster Abbey have any legal right to object. That said, Tony Benn, the arch-republican politician, has said that he intends to turn up at the next Accession Council to try to do just that.
Or whether there would be any impact if they did.
Thanks APB. Good stuff, that.
While breakfasting in an English-Irish (“Irish-English”?) restaurant, I looked closely at the picture depicting “The Year of The Three Kings”, (1936), and noticed that the middle King of the three resigned because he intended to marry an American.
I’ve read where Prince Charles is just now involved in a marriage of some contraversy. Is there any chance that he, too, will abdicate (–this question is the ROOT cause of this entire thread and the hypothetical “verb” to abrogüt. Thanks.
You might want to check this thread: Prince Charles and Camilla, sittin’ in a tree….
In theory Parliament can vote in someone else to be the monarch ( it happened before ).
I expect one day we will get rid of the royal family and have a president but it will take a longgggggg time.
Although the queen seems very rich most of it is ‘crown property’ which means that Parliament can give it to someone else.
I would prefer a president and less taxes to keep this rich ‘welfare’ family going.
Many thanks Ross, for posting
I have always thought that the name “Brits” was a (mild) slur and that “Britishers” was the equiv. of “Americans”. Shows how little I knew.
It was more the fact that she was divorced that was the problem than the fact that she was American. The fact that he was a Nazi sympathiser (as are some of the present Royal Family if Woodrow Wyatt’s diaries are to be believed) was, of course, not a problem at all.
BTW, what does an English-Irish restaurant serve? I have an image of chicken tikka masala with boxty – not a pleasant thought.
Nazi sympathiser! And divorced to boot!! I vaguely remember the second one, now—from high school history, I think. I can see why he had to abrogüt.
I’m not sure what foods you listed, TomH. Shudder or not, I can only wish. 'Fraid that it’s more like the standard olde American fare (the owner is British, tho). The “Fish and chips” are good but the “chips” look just like French Fries (but good). He serves a mean Blue-cheese Burger—but that sounds more American than anything else. (There used to be an English place around the corner that served the best Welsh Rarebit I’ve ever had [1 out of 2] and they made their own corned beef hash that was very good.)
The walls, tho, are lined with Irish stuff on one side and English stuff on the other. A full-sized Beef-eater model stands in one corner.
(Really “ethnic” food seems to be very hard to come by around here–even though our main industry is soaking tourists. Wish that it weren’t so.) (Not the “fleecing tourists” part; the lack of ethnic food part.)
For ruadh’s benefit, if for no-one else’s, “Brit” does have uncomfortable connotations for some of us. “Britisher” is definitely straight out of The Eagle comic c.1950 though.
I’d expect an Irish-English restaurant to serve Dublin Bay prawns that glow in the dark, and half-baked King Edward spuds.
I’d never heard that before. Any idea what the connotations are and why the discomfort?
I think everton is referring to the fact that “Brit” often is used derisively, by the Irish.
Huh. Learn something new every day, I guess. I mean, I’ve encountered plenty of people who preferred not to be called “Brits,” but out of a preference for another name rather then out of offense.
Well, everton has previously referred to himself as being from an Irish background, so I’m guessing his personal discomfort with the term is based on that, not that I should speak for him or anything.
Yeah, that’s why, but I wouldn’t worry about it andros. If you’re looking for a general term of address to use in a colloquial context practically anyone from England, Scotland or Wales would be happy with “Brit”, but many people from Northern Ireland (or the north of Ireland) would not. I’m English myself but with Irish grandparents on both sides of my family, so for me “Brit” has echoes of an inappropriate kind to do with Irish politics.
I didn’t mean my posting to be taken too seriously, and have even referred to myself as a Brit on these pages because I knew the audience would be mostly American. I wouldn’t use it at home, though, and certainly not to an Irish audience.
If you really want to give offence, try calling a group of Scotsmen or Welshmen “English”!
Well, see, I value my meat and two veg too much to do sommat that stupid.
(And for the same reason I know better than to call an Irishman a Brit.)