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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wouldn’t the Monarch have to give Royal Assent for it to take effect? Edward VII had to do so
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
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?
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.
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.
In that case, Parliament would exercise a block vote.
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.
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.
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?
I was not responding to the OP, but to the question which I quoted.
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.
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 WikipediaQueen 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.
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?