Parliament, actually. That divine right stuff ended in the basket with Charles I’s head.
The line of succession has been fixed by legislation since 1688/89:
Bill of Rights transferred the Crown from James II to William & Mary, and their heirs, failing which, to her sister Anne, thereby cutting out James II, James’ elder son, and eventually his two grandsons, Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Cardinal Duke of York. The change to the line of succession was conditional on William and Mary accepting the conditions set out in the Bill of Rights, under the theory of the social contract developed by James Locke.
When Anne’s only surviving son died in 1701, Parliament passed the Act of Settlement, which settled the Crown on the next protestant in the royal family, Sophia of Hanover, and her issue. That statute excluded about a hundred potential claimants because they were roman catholic.
That line of succession was confirmed by the union acts passed by the Scottish Parliament and the English Parliament in 1706 and 1707.
Succession to the throne was based on the Act of Settlement for the next 235 years, until Parliament passed His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act in 1936, which excluded Edward VIII and any potential heirs from the throne.
That change to the succession was confirmed by the other Commonwealth realms at that time, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa and Newfoundland, through measures passed by their own Parliaments or governments.
The UK Parliament again amended the succession rules just 10 years ago, with the Succession to the Crown Act, which established strict primogeniture rather than male-preference primogeniture. The change was made with the consent of all the governments for which the monarch is the head of state, at the Perth Agreement, and then implemented in each realm by their Parliaments or other legal mechanisms.
Mostly they sent representatives to QE II’s coronation.
Eisenhower sent:
George C. Marshall – Personal Representative of the President with rank of Special Ambassador
Omar N. Bradley – Representative of the United States Military Services with rank of Special Ambassador
Earl Warren – Representative of the President with rank of Special Ambassador
Fleur F. Cowles – Representative of the President with rank of Special Ambassador
Over 8,000 people attended QE II’s Coronation in person
The Prime Minister’s of Commonwealth realms were honored by being in the Coronation Procession leading to Westminster Abby. No other world leaders were in this procession.
Most Commonwealth countries (of which there are about 50) will be represented at some level — Charles is head of the Commonwealth as well as king of the UK.
Australia will be represented by the Governor General (head of state) and the Prime Minister (head of government). So will New Zealand.
Canada will be represented by the Governor General.
Pakistan will be represented by the Prime Minister.
Cyprus will be represented by the President (head of state and head of government, as in the US)
No doubt other Commonwealth countries will be represented, but word has not yet reached Wikipedia of the details.
Non-commonwealth countries are mostly likely to be represented at a lower level, though the kings of Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden will be in attendance, as will the Grand Duke of Luxembourg. They are relatives of Charles’, though, as well as head of their respective states. Other European royal families will be represented by junior members - the Netherlands, Norway, et. There’ll also be a couple of ex-royals, invited because of the family relationship - e.g. the ex-Queen of Greece.
The French, Italian, Polish and Austrian Presidents will attend, but Germany will be represented by the Chancellor, not the President. The President of the European Commission will attend.
IMO people are overlooking one tiny issue. Biden attending would be a security nightmare for everyone involved. It goes without saying that the US President is by far and large more important than any monarch or world leader and those extra people would hamper his own security flow, and his security flow would hamper the others’ security operations.
If anything Charles and or Biden will receive each other during a heightened state visit following by a lavish reception as has been done before.
At past coronations, self-governing Commonwealth countries were represented by their Prime Ministers but not by their Governors-General, not least because the role of the Governor General is to represent the monarch, and what is the point of representing the monarch on an occasion where the actual monarch is present? This tendency for Governors General to act like republican heads of state shows the representational function of Governors General is increasingly being lost.
But the rule is that British monarchs do not attend the funerals of foreign heads of state. The single exception was in 1993 when Elizabeth II attended that of King Baudouin of the Belgians. In fact, it was only in the early twentieth century that they began attending those of close family members and the late Queen only attended a handful of funerals for people to whom she was not related. That she attended Churchill’s funeral was at the time a major break with tradition.
Yeah, well we in the UK fought innumerable wars to make sure the hereditary head of state had no effective powers. Your heads of state on the other hand seem to have power without due responsibility; which is fine when the incumbent is a responsible, level-headed person; not so fine at other times.
Which, y’know, prudent move, so props for that. But from this side of the pond it still seems that once a nation gets to that point, it makes more sense just to ditch the hereditary headship (and aristocracy) entirely, rather than dragging along a useless ceremonial figurehead and a bunch of his/her relations as an appendage to national government. (Mighta required fewer wars, too. Although tbf I doubt that it would have been possible for anybody at all to sell anything like Thomas Paine’s brand of republicanism to the dudes at Runnymede, for example.)
Don’t get me wrong, Americans in our role as spectators still very much relish the existence of the British monarchy and its contributions to both national ceremony and celebrity culture. But I’m very glad that we don’t have to cope with a similar setup in our own system in addition to all the wackadoodle leaders we’ve already got.
Yeah, I think every democratic nation is fundamentally vulnerable to the dangers of getting landed with an elected head of government (whether or not that person is also called the head of state) who’s an irresponsible fuckup. Your own nation’s recent experiments in that regard don’t seem to have been significantly mitigated by the fact that your official headship of state is vested in a ceremonial figurehead.
There’s definitely a right-wing fringe in the UK who cite Biden’s recent state visit to IRL and (merely) official visit to NI, and his decision not to attend the coronation, as evidence that he is “anti-UK”. But even in the UK it’s a pretty marginal position, and I don’t know that it has found any traction at all in the US.
How was his recent visit received in Great Britain? In the U.S., I’ve seen much made of his gaffes (apparently, he didn’t understand a question asked by a kid, and his son Hunter had to repeat the question to him; he referred to the All Blacks as the Black and Tans; and he told Ireland to ‘lick the world).
FWIW, I think these are incredibly mundane, and shouldn’t be a big deal. But the haters love to hate.
His recent visit didn;t include Great Britain; just Ireland and Northern Ireland. I don’t think it received a huge amount of notice in GB; just, as already stated, a certain amount of commentary in right-wing circles combining two of their favourite themes - dislike of Biden and disdain for Ireland.
With this particular right-wing fringe, nothing Trump does can possibly bug them. If he trips over his tie or loses control of his bowels, they will cheer him to the echo.
Why do I have the feeling that if Trump does show up, somebody will come up with the idea of getting him into a limo, let him out in Cambridge, point to the chapel at King’s College and pretend that’s Westminster Abbey (to keep him out of the way), and then claim that Prince William himself has not only invited him to speak at “his wife’s pub”, but the area it is in has been renamed Trumpington in honor of his visit? (Seriously, there is a community just south of Cambridge named Trumpington, and it has a Duchess of Cambridge Pub in it.)
I don’t know why the mention of Trumpington above didn’t bring this to mind before - it’s a pity Baroness Trumpington is no longer available to greet him in her memorable fashion