Isn’t it though? The hereditary line of succession as currently exists was specifically established by Parliament, over-riding the previous line of succession and thereby excluding James II and his successors. And given that in a Parliamentary democracy, Parliament acts in the name of the People, you could say that the latest iteration of our hereditary system of monarchy is, therefore, entirely democratic.
If Parliament ever wants to change the line of succession, it can, and it has. More than once.
Yes, Parliament is a democratic institution. And yes, it has sanctioned the monarchy. So the monarchy is under the control of a democratic institution.
But that, in my opinion, doesn’t make the monarchy itself a democratic institution.
Say I run a business, here in the United States. I have a bunch of employees who work for me. I decide to retire and I name my son as my successor, who will now run the business. The employees of the business did not have any say in who will be running the business. They did not vote for me or my son. My business is not a democratic institution.
But the United States is still a democracy (for the moment anyway) and the state my business is in is still a democracy. My business can exist in a democratic system and be subject to the laws of the democratic system, even though my business is not itself democratic.
That’s not remotely an equivalent. The monarch has no power to name its successor - that is a matter of Law, as decided by Parliament - and the voters are not in the service of the monarchy. And where is Parliament in this ‘company’ set up you have here? Because they are the critical decision maker, and you have excluded them entirely.
Yes, I completely ignored the role of the British Parliament in the running of a small business in the United States.
The equivalence of the British monarchy and the hypothetical American business I described is that they are both examples of non-democratic institutions that exist under a democratic government.
Hilarious! I can see why other posters are getting frustrated with you.
The monarchy is not a private institution, run like a small business, existing under a democratic institution. They are a fundamental part of said institution. The general public are not its staff. And the head can’t nominate their successor. But otherwise, totally equivalent
I still don’t see the OP’s point. The king is explicitly approved by democratically chosen parliament. Isn’t that as democratic as possible?
I don’t believe democracy is equivalent to being directly chosen by the people. Otherwise one might well argue that the US president is not democratically chosen,
Let me ask a couple of questions to help me understand your position. You write that the king is explicitly approved by Parliament.
Are you saying that when Queen Elizabeth II died in 2022, the British Parliament took some specific action to affirm that Charles III would succeed her as the new monarch? Or are you saying that Parliament at some point in history took some specific action to set up a system whereby the next person in the hereditary order of succession automatically becomes the new monarch, without needing a specific affirmation of this when the previous monarch dies? Or are you saying that the system of the hereditary heir becoming the new monarch when the previous monarch dies was already in existence before Parliament but that Parliament has given the system its implied consent because it hasn’t said the system can’t exist?
I personally feel that the first two possibilities count as explicit approval but the third does not.
Yes, there’s a valid argument there. I said this in a previous post about the differences between a direct democracy and an indirect democracy.
I personally feel that an indirect democracy, where the citizens vote for the people who then vote for government policy (including who is President) counts as a democracy. But I can see where other people might disagree with this opinion and I won’t say they’re objectively wrong.
That is what I already said. Parliament defined the line of succession (to exclude Catholics at the time) when they deposed James II. The monarch we currently have is a direct consequence of the law created by Parliament
Can you tell me what part of that you disagree with?
The comparison of the monarchy to a private company. A better comparison would be you Supreme Court. When did you last get to vote for that?
I’m not clear on the role of the Accession Council. Do they actually have a choice of saying yes or no to the heir becoming the monarch? Or are they basically a means to proclaim that the heir is now the monarch?
Let me apply the equivalence issue back to you. I voted for representatives who chose the nominees for Supreme Court openings and who confirmed those nominees. It’s not just a rubber stamp process. Nominees are picked from multiple available candidates and some chosen nominees are not confirmed to the position.
The equivalence in the British monarchy would be if the current monarch died and the Prime Minister looked over a list of names and chose who they would like to be the heir. And then Parliament had to confirm and turn down the Prime Minister’s choice for that heir to become the new monarch.
As you note, the public would not get to directly vote in this system. But there would be a vote.
And if Parliament wanted to do it that way, they could - the power rests with them. They have chosen a different system, but it is still under the ultimate control of the democratically elected MPs.
True. But saying that the United Kingdom could establish a democratic method of choosing the monarch is not the same as saying that the United Kingdom has a democratic method of choosing the monarch.
That’s something the televising of the Accession Council for the first time in 2022 helped clarify. Most commentators had previously implied that the privy councillors would explicitly approve the accession. Which isn’t quite the same as saying that they had the power to decline to approve, but nevertheless assumed that they would formally give their assent. But it was clear when we actually saw the process that the crucial step was merely approving the proclamation announcing the accession. (Plus approving a lot of technical measures to ensure a smooth transition.) They were basically just agreeing to issue the press release, albeit one on parchment to be read out by Garter King of Arms.
Whereas it has pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy our late Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second of Blessed and Glorious memory, by whose Decease the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is solely and rightfully come to The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George:
We, therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm and Members of the House of Commons, together with other members of Her late Majesty’s Privy Council and representatives of the Realms and Territories, Aldermen, and Citizens of London, and others, do now hereby with one voice and Consent of Tongue and Heart publish and proclaim that The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George is now, by the Death of our late Sovereign of Happy Memory, become our only lawful and rightful Liege Lord Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of his other Realms and Territories, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to whom we do acknowledge all Faith and Obedience with humble Affection; beseeching God by whom Kings and Queens do reign to bless His Majesty with long and happy Years to reign over us.
Given at St James’s Palace this tenth day of September in the year of Our Lord two thousand and twenty-two.
GOD SAVE THE KING
This isn’t the Accession Council saying “We have just made Charles III the king.”
This is the Accession Council saying "We are informing you that Charles III automatically became the king when Elizabeth II died.
I suppose we can conclude that, were they going to give Charles the Spanish Archer, it would not be a spontaneous surprise move by the Accession Council. However, in such circumstances the Council would not be publishing and proclaiming that he “automatically” became King.
James was probably also keen to quickly dissolve the accession council, as its members did not owe their place to royal appointment, implying that there existed in England an alternative source of authority to the crown.
But as far as I can see from the Accession Council’s proclamation, the proclamation didn’t actually do anything. The proclamation says that Charles had become the King when his mother died, so he was already the King when the proclamation was written and issued. Therefore, withholding the proclamation would not have affected his status.
I agree that Parliament could remove a monarch from power. And could abolish the monarchy entirely. But Parliament would have to take some positive action to do this. It can’t happen by Parliament not acting.
It seems pretty clear that Parliament is the body determining who “automatically” becomes the monarch with all those succession Acts and Bills they keep passing. (In particular, you are right that Charles became the king immediately; it is not the case that there is no sovereign at all until the Council gets around to proclaiming it)
