# Can a King/Queen be removed by the government? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 28, 2018, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826 "2018-12-28T13:07:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2018, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/21 "2018-12-28T18:08:08Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Japan does not. In fact, when the current Emperor wanted to abdicate, a special law was required in order to allow this, and the law was customized for only him. You say “Japan does not”, but the example you gave of a law being passed to allow for a change of emperor seems to fit the OP’s criteria quite well. The abolition of the office of emperor would require a change to the constitution, which can be by means of a referendum or a parliamentary super-majority. Neither is likely but it does represent a non-violent route to abolition, should the political/public will favour that option. ---
**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2018, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/22 "2018-12-28T18:10:43Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Article 59 of the current Spanish Consitution states: > > 1. Being the Monarch a minor, their father or mother, or if these are not available the adult relative closest to the succession line, will become Regent during the Monarch’s minority. > > 2. If the Monarch is demonstrated to be incapable, and having this incapacity being recognized by Parliament [N: both chambers], the Crown Prince shall become Regent if an adult; otherwise, Regency shall be set as per 1. > > 3. If nobody fulfills the previous requisites, a Regent or Regents in number of 1, 3 or 5 shall be appointed by Parliament. > > 4. The Regent(s) must hold Spanish nationality and be a legal adult. > > 5. The Regent(s) shall always act according to the Constitution and in the Monarch’s name. > So, in case of dementia, coma, etc. Parliament can remove the Monarch, but they can’t do it because they’ve decided they don’t like the current one. The appointment of a regent doesn’t imply the removal of the monarch, though. In a regency the monarch retains the title while someone else discharges his/her duties. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/23 "2018-12-28T18:22:39Z")
In Britain the rightful King is whoever the Parliament says it is . However, under the Statute of Westminster, all changes in the succession are void unless the remaining Commonwealth Realms pass exactly similar legislation. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2018, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/24 "2018-12-28T18:39:42Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > In Britain the rightful King is whoever the Parliament says it is . > However, under the Statute of Westminster, all changes in the succession are void unless the remaining Commonwealth Realms pass exactly similar legislation. And as an example, they recently amended the succession to make male and female heirs equal. At this point, given Charles, William, George already in line before Charlotte, no terribly relevant. But it’s an example of how the British system works. they simply pass a law… then the Queen signs it. then it takes effect. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2018, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/25 "2018-12-28T19:18:56Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > isn’t there talk some want Charles to not be king and go right to William? I assume Charles is not in favor of that plan. 🙂 I guess the idea is to go with a younger person. They are already achieving the effect without changing the formalities, just by careful management of PR and the choice of events and activities each gets involved in. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2018, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/26 "2018-12-28T20:57:38Z")
> [@hibernicus](#): > > The appointment of a regent doesn’t imply the removal of the monarch, though. In a regency the monarch retains the title while someone else discharges his/her duties. That’s a crucial distinction. Pretty much every constitutional monarchy has some provision for the appointment of a regency, with no need for the formal removal of the existing monarch. An odd exception was Bavaria during the final years of its monarchy. The experience of two mad kings in succession (including Ludwig II) and the long regency of Prince Luitpold finally brought about a constitutional amendment in 1913 by which a regent was allowed to declare themselves king if a regency had already lasted ten years. This meant that Luitpold’s son was then immediately able to become Ludwig III. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2018, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/27 "2018-12-28T23:12:29Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Out of curiosity: > > I suppose you refer to her as “the Queen” or “our Queen” but when a typical Australian feels inclined to provide a place-name when referring to her casually, is she “Queen of Australia”? “Queen of England”? “Queen of the Commonwealth”? Other? [and same question for Canadians] Out of those options, it would almost certainly be “Queen of England”. The average Australian has neither a great sense of ownership in Queen Liz, nor a very comprehensive education in the distinctions between various parts of the UK ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2018, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/28 "2018-12-28T23:36:05Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Out of curiosity: > > I suppose you refer to her as “the Queen” or “our Queen” but when a typical Australian feels inclined to provide a place-name when referring to her casually, is she “Queen of Australia”? “Queen of England”? “Queen of the Commonwealth”? Other? [and same question for Canadians] > [@Aspidistra](#): > > Out of those options, it would almost certainly be “Queen of England”. The average Australian has neither a great sense of ownership in Queen Liz, nor a very comprehensive education in the distinctions between various parts of the UK In Canada, it’s simply “The Queen.”. Well, in English Canada anyway. Charles will certainly be the next king, unless he dies before Elizabeth. It may be short-lived, but he’s been groomed for this his whole life. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2018, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/29 "2018-12-28T23:42:37Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > As far as the UK is concerned, the answer is “Yes of course”. There’s no written constitution to say what parliament can or can’t, must or mustn’t, do, so if a parliamentary majority took it into its head to pass a law abolishing the monarchy, of course it could. Wouldn’t the Monarch have to give Royal Assent for it to take effect? [Edward VII had to do so](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Majesty%27s_Declaration_of_Abdication_Act_1936) > [@](#): > > First, there was no provision in British law for a sovereign to abdicate. Parliament had to pass a bill to remove the king from the throne. Finally the king had to give royal assent to the legislation, which only then became a law. (This process had to be repeated in the parliaments of the Dominions which had enacted the Statute of Westminster 1931: Canada and South Africa.) The question then would be what would happen if the Monarch doesn’t want to be removed? ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2018, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/30 "2018-12-29T00:21:56Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Wouldn’t the Monarch have to give Royal Assent for it to take effect? [Edward VII had to do so](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Majesty%27s_Declaration_of_Abdication_Act_1936) > > The question then would be what would happen if the Monarch doesn’t want to be removed? Then things get Interesting. Didn’t Belgium’s king refuse to sign an abortion law sometime in the Nineties, and Parliament declared him incapacitated until the law was passed anyway? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2018, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/31 "2018-12-29T02:32:09Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > The question then would be what would happen if the Monarch doesn’t want to be removed? I struggle to fathom your preoccupation with the divine right of kings. The Runneymede Convention was established 800 years ago. The definitive nail was hammered in by “cruel necessity” in front of the Banqueting House in 1649. Time to move on, maybe? ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2018, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/32 "2018-12-29T02:48:02Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > isn’t there talk some want Charles to not be king and go right to William?. Not from anybody informed. Elizabeth R will reign until her death. That’s the gig. She will be succeeded by her heir who is currently Charles, who in turn will reign til his demise. For the Windsors, there’s already been one abdication too many in the family. It’s a monarchy, not a meritocracy, hagiocracy or a reality TV show. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2018, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/33 "2018-12-29T02:51:26Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > The question then would be what would happen if the Monarch doesn’t want to be removed? Charles I and James II didn’t want to be removed either and refused all cooperation with Parliamentary attempts to depose them. But Parliament won. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2018, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/34 "2018-12-29T03:22:21Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > The question then would be what would happen if the Monarch doesn’t want to be removed? In that case, Parliament would exercise a block vote. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2018, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/35 "2018-12-29T05:04:39Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Wouldn’t the Monarch have to give Royal Assent for it to take effect? [Edward VII had to do so](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Majesty%27s_Declaration_of_Abdication_Act_1936) > The question then would be what would happen if the Monarch doesn’t want to be removed? Even if you only look within the strict parameters of written law, they could get Miss Zenouska Mowatt to agree to give royal assent and then declare everyone else before her to be unfit to do so. Imagine the 25th Amendment but with thousands of successors. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2018, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/36 "2018-12-29T05:37:44Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Wouldn’t the Monarch have to give Royal Assent for it to take effect? [Edward VII had to do so](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Majesty%27s_Declaration_of_Abdication_Act_1936) That Act was about the legal consequences of the Instrument of Abdication Edward VIII had already signed (having, perhaps, been slightly surprised to find his bluff called - the possibility of abdication was his idea in the first place) ; his successor was already in place. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > The question then would be what would happen if the Monarch doesn’t want to be removed? Everyone would be scrabbling through the records for 1688 to establish precedents for parliament to declare a vacancy and rule on what happens next. Whether it would get to the point of needing to send someone in to physically remove the monarch and their personal effects from Buckingham Palace and Windsor, or to switch off the electricity until they go of their own accord, who knows? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2018, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/37 "2018-12-29T06:49:45Z")
> [@hibernicus](#): > > You say “Japan does not”, but the example you gave of a law being passed to allow for a change of emperor seems to fit the OP’s criteria quite well. > > The abolition of the office of emperor would require a change to the constitution, which can be by means of a referendum or a parliamentary super-majority. Neither is likely but it does represent a non-violent route to abolition, should the political/public will favour that option. I was not responding to the OP, but to the question which I quoted. > [@](#): > > Following up on the OP, are there any nations with legal, non-violent methods to remove a sitting monarch from that position and what are those nations/methods? Or, again legal and non-violent, to replace a sitting monarch with another person? My interpretation of that question was that they are asking if there are currently established procedures for that purpose. No, in Japan’s case it would require a change in law, which I clearly stated in my third paragraph. In contrast, there are established laws concerning the change in governments, for example. If the question were phrased such as “Is it possible for this to happen?” Then the obvious answer is that in all modern democracies then anything the voters decide could eventually occur, although depending on the subject, it would be difficult and perhaps impossible from a practical standpoint. If a question were posed as “can States succeed from the Union in a legal, nonviolent method?” Then I would assume the person is asking about the current rules as any democracy with a constitution can modify the constitution without resorting to bloodshed if sufficient people agree. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2018, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/38 "2018-12-29T09:51:20Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Out of those options, it would almost certainly be “Queen of England”. The average Australian has neither a great sense of ownership in Queen Liz, nor a very comprehensive education in the distinctions between various parts of the UK Thanks for the answer! I wonder if the ‘of England’ rather than the ‘of the U.K.’ has less to do with ignorance and more to do with (a) “King of England” was the traditional designation for the chief of the English-speaking people for almost a thousand years after their first political union. (b) For an Australian to refer to his Monarch as “of U.K.”, would call attention to the fact that Australia and U.K. are different countries. “England”, OTOH, can be viewed as almost a metaphor, like Gilead or Zion. My Australian expat friend agreed with “of England” when pressed. And so did my English expat friend! (Remember: my question isn’t what her _technical_ title is — it’s what do ordinary folk call her when chatting in a pub, assuming they choose to append an _“of Placename”_ at all.) ---
**Author:** ![Banksiaman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banksiaman/32/3334_2.png) [@Banksiaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banksiaman)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2018, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/39 "2018-12-29T10:24:53Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Thanks for the answer! I wonder if the ‘of England’ rather than the ‘of the U.K.’ has less to do with ignorance and more to do with > (a) “King of England” was the traditional designation for the chief of the English-speaking people for almost a thousand years after their first political union. > (b) For an Australian to refer to his Monarch as “of U.K.”, would call attention to the fact that Australia and U.K. are different countries. “England”, OTOH, can be viewed as almost a metaphor, like Gilead or Zion. > > My Australian expat friend agreed with “of England” when pressed. And so did my English expat friend! (Remember: my question isn’t what her _technical_ title is — it’s what do ordinary folk call her when chatting in a pub, assuming they choose to append an _“of Placename”_ at all.) But wait! She is, according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia)Queen of Australia: _Australian constitutional law provides that the monarch of the United Kingdom is also the monarch in Australia. This is understood today to constitute a separate Australian monarchy, the monarch acting with regard to Australian affairs exclusively upon the advice of Australian ministers. …_. I don’t think that makes a practical difference to giving her or one of the family the boot. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2018, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826/40 "2018-12-29T13:10:45Z")
The Act of Settlement and such limited who could be the monarch of the UK. What if Parliament passes a new law limiting succession (or even regarding the current ruler) so that person doesn’t qualify? E.g., no one named Charles may become King? Complication: making changes to the Act can get a bunch of Commonwealth states involved. What if they play games regarding the CoE’s role and redefines the religion in an odd way so that the current monarch suddenly doesn’t qualify? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-king-queen-be-removed-by-the-government/826826.md?page=3)