Concept of duty escaping you, eh? Because she took a whole bunch of oaths before and during her coronation which she actually took very seriously. This isn’t just another job.
A more likely crisis scenario is that the entire country doesn’t think the same thing about the scandal, the existing government is hastily seeking a constitutional mandate to codify all of the norms that allow British politics to run meanwhile opposition parties reject their authority. Elections and governments trudge along for a while without a public mandate until there’s an unclear situation with an election and/or an opportunistic politician decides they can get away with declaring themselves prime minister without clarity on whether they have the authority.
FYI, the idea of a king vocally opposing the policies of his government was a plot point of the novel To Play The King, the sequel to House of Cards.
He looked scarily like Charles, too.
So she has duty to the oaths- but not to the people or her own conscience?
Perhaps she just didn’t feel like causing a constitutional crisis. Maybe that would be a bad thing to do to the people, redirecting the governments efforts away from the stuff they were elected by the people to do, in order to manage a squirrely self centered monarch.
A couple of points here.
(Firstly, you’re too kind!)
You say that your outcome number 2 is good. Because you like Charles’ environmental policy, I guess. Imagine that he’s proposing a policy you abhor - forcible deportation of black Britons, for example. How good an outcome is his using his unearned moral authority to change government policy now?
We’ve put the King in the unique position of embodying and representing the UK, and being figurehead and spokesperson for the nation. But what he gets to say in that role is very much under our direction. He does not get to cloak his own personal politics under the guise of being the embodiment of Britain.
Your outcome number 4 (people rally to the banner of absolute monarchism) wasn’t really an outcome I had considered, I’ll be honest. The constitutional crisis is going to be more focused on ensuring that the monarchy gets back in the box we’ve painstakingly built for it. Because again, the legitimacy of every law in the United Kingdom, every tax, every criminal sentence stems from the Crown in Parliament. Letting the King use his position to push the government about = bad. Ripping up the whole thing in a crisis = bad.* Having to choose between two bad things = not good.
*I mean, I might think it would be ultimately good, but that’s a minority view among a) UK citizens and b) the people who would be most closely involved
Looked and sounded. Just short of being an impression but still uncanny.
In all seriousness folks, “watch this 6 part drama series” is possibly the worst cite in the world but! it’s great TV drama and does do a good job of laying out the Crown/Parliament conflict so if you’re really interested and you’re looking for a show to watch, you could do worse.
Triple post but this is directly on the topic of the OP.
There’s a Bank Holiday (public holiday, no school, no trading) on Monday 19th, the day of the funeral. Fine I guess but:
Centre Parcs (popular holiday company with multiple village type destinations in the UK) has announced that it will be closing and throwing out guests for the day
At least one foodbank (soup kitchen) has announced it will close
Hospital appointments are being cancelled
“British Cycling strongly recommend that anybody out riding their bike on the day of the state funeral does so outside the timings of the funeral service and associated processions”
Also, a young man has been for yelling at Prince Andrew that he is a “sick old man” (an evident and important truth), and there’s a video of a cop telling someone they can be arrested for having a blank piece of paper, on the grounds that they might write something bad on it later.
We are going mad.
Duty to oaths, when in conflict with duty to not facilitate crimes against humanity, is a shitty duty best abandoned.
It’s fair to say that I support people who act in ways that oppose crimes against humanity, and oppose people who act in ways that support crimes against humanity. If you think that my position means I must support or oppose them equally based on their protocol, you misunderstand my position. This is really similar to arguments I used to get in with @Bricker.
Look: if this were about King Charles insisting that parliament lower the import tax on anchovies, I’d adopt a “who cares” position. As it is, this isn’t a matter of tremendous importance to me. I’ve only really been paying attention because the news coverage here has been so fawning, and it’s gross. But we’re not talking about someone who kept silent about Parliament’s position on busking in Trafalgar. The events themselves are far more important to me than the traditions surrounding them.
We are talking about a person who is intended, specifically and deliberately, to have no influence on the government. She may have had some influence by virtue of being popular and well known, like Paul McCartney, but unlike Sir Paul, she didn’t get to vote.
I cannot imagine the sort of person who would willingly, albeit perhaps subject to coercive influence of family and long-standing custom and practice, surrender themselves to such a role, and what it would do to them personally. Once more, I am left wondering if the most poignant expression of why the practice of hereditary monarchy should end is the dehumanizing effect it must have on the monarchs. I cannot fathom the moral injury it must cause to see oppression done in one’s own name, and yet be powerless to speak out against it. Or worse, to see oppression done in one’s name and have been so conditioned as to nod approvingly along with it.
Poor Elizabeth… 
I am well aware that we’re talking about someone who’s intended to have no influence. I say that those are bad intentions.
One of the most eye-opening bits of activism advice I got came to me thirdhand from a union leader. He recounted a conversation he had with a very effective organizer in another state. When she was telling him about what he should do when sitting down at the bargaining table, he stopped her. “Jane,” he said (obviously I paraphrase), “Wait a minute. Here in North Carolina, we can’t collectively bargain, it’s against the law.”
“So what?” she answered. “Do it anyway.”
The lesson I took was this: there are always going to be people who tell you that you can’t speak up or use your power, because you’re not supposed to.
So what? Do it anyway.
Life is full of people who do shitty things, and when you want to speak up, say, “Shh. Don’t tell anyone about the shitty things I’m doing. If you do, something bad will happen!”
Those people are bad actors. Don’t listen to them. Speak up.
It hasn’t worked that way in practice.
Can you please stop referring to the constitution of my country as a mere tradition? I know you understand what a constitution is and why it matters, I just don’t understand why you are pretending not to.
The point is that when you are setting up a constitution, you don’t get to pick and choose like that! Either the good and wise queen can use their unearned authority to lay down the law, so to speak , about what the government should and shouldn’t be doing and so can the bad racist king or neither of them can. We went with neither. Maybe we should have gone with both and hoped we got lucky. Or maybe we should have gone with neither, but secretly hoped that only the good wise monarchs would break the constitution while the wicked ones respected it.
When you’re saying “The Queen is morally stained by her role as figurehead of a racist Empire” you’re quite right.
When you’re suggesting that monarchs should be allowed or even encouraged to use unearned and unaccountable moral authority to bully democratically elected governments, then you are placing a heavy bet that over several hundred years monarchy will produce better rule than democracy and…I can’t believe a Brit is telling an American this… that’s not right at all.
If he continues as King, The Parliament should put a stop to it. What he did as a prince is another thing.
Now, I’m not condoning it, and am on principle against monarchy. But if we’re debating what the sitting monarch can or cannot do, and what the sitting monarch should or shouldn’t do, then bringing up a person who is not the monarch seems to be missing the point.
Um, okay. I’m not merely referring to the constitution when I say this, but to the constitution and the other traditions. “Mere” is your word, not mine. But if it’s important to you, please feel free to swap “The constitution and the traditions surrounding it” anywhere I wrote “traditions”
How fortunate that I’m not setting up the constitution. I’m reflecting on someone’s prioritizing of the constitution and the traditions surrounding it over atrocities being committed against thousands of people.
Not even remotely. That is a bonkers reading of what I’ve written.
Monarchy is a tradition (with constitutional implications and tie-ins). Mass atrocities trump those, every time. The queen shouldn’t speak up because she’s queen; she should’ve spoken up because she could have spoken up, and as a human with the potential to prevent such atrocities, that’s her obligation.
Headline from one of the provided links:
“The Queen, Prince Charles vetted 1,062 laws before passage in parliament: The Guardian”
Seeing that the Queen was getting into the act as monarch, why do you think Charles will refrain from trying to influence laws and government policies?
I don’t really care what Britons do or don’t do with their royals. The problem is when royal influence spills over and affects the rest of us.
Ok but I don’t understand which other traditions you’re referring to in that case.
OK. The US constitution, as you have indicated upthread, has a long and inglorious history of permitting and failing to punish crimes against humanity. Do you advocate for its overthrow by non-constitutional means?
I don’t. Why do you think he will?
We have to wait and see.
Now if he does, and Parliament allows that, then the problem is with the Parliament, no? And if enough voters in the UK think it’s a problem, then they should make that known at the next election.
I’m not holding my breath though. Here in Sweden, the Social Democrats have had abolishing monarchy as part of their platform since the 19th century. They’ve been in power for 75 of the last 100 years, and we still have the royals to support.