I was reading some British history earlier today and, in passing, the writer mentioned that there had been a general election due to the death of the king. With the monarch being the official head of state, I can see where a change in monarchs could be considered a major political event (as well as a cultural one) but is this true?
True in the somewhat distant past, but not today. Someone who knows British constitutional history can explain when it ended – it took a statute to do it.
There was a general election after the accession of Queen Victoria in 1837, but not after that of Edward VII in 1901. I’m not sure whether there was a change in statute, or if it was just custom for the incoming sovereign to dissolve Parliament and they decided to stop.
Didn’t the new monarch also have to reappoint all Privy Councillors, judges, and other crown servants because they ceased to hold office when the monarch that appointed them died? I know Elizabeth I declined to reappoint any of her sister’s Privy Councillors (granted it was a radically different body that it is today).
At one time there was only an automatic general election on the accession of the sovereign - the new sovereign summoned a parliament to advise him, and this involved a general election to choose the members of the Commons. The sovereign could of course dissolve parliament at any time, which would trigger a general election, but there was no set time by which he must do so.
This was changed by (I think) the Triennial Act 1694, which required a general election at least every three years - a limit changed to 7 years in 1715, and then to 5 years in 1911.
It wasn’t just a tradition - in law, the Parliament was the Parliament of the King who had summoned it to advise him. When he died, the Parliament ceased to exist. This principle dates back to the medieval period, when the King was truly the centre of government and the source of government power.
Similarly, the appointments of all judges and executive officers ceased on the King’s death, since they were literally the king’s servants - there was no guarantee that the incoming king would want their services.
The technical term for this was the Demise of the Crown.
As power shifted increasingly to Parliament, the inconvenience of the doctrine became more and more apparent, and Parliament gradually began passing statutes that addressed the problem on a case-by-case basis. The governments of the colonies were the first to obtain some statutory changes, since there could be great inconvenience if, say, all colonial legislatures and governors in North America ceased to exist when the King died, and yet no-one knew it for a couple of months until the news reached them across the Atlantic.
The next major set of changes was during the tail-end of William III’s reign and the beginning of Anne’s reign - once it was settled that the Crown would devolve on the Elector of Hanover, who lived considerably farther away from England than did the Pretender in Paris, there was a real concern that if the Queen died suddenly, all officers would cease to hold lawful office, and then the Pretender might nip across the Channel and claim the throne - and there would be no-one with the lawful authority to oppose him until George in puddin’ time came over. So there were additional piecemeal changes at that time.
As Freddy the Pig comments, there was a change during Victoria’s reign - the Representation of the People Act, 1867 provided that Parliament could continue sitting in spite of a demise of the Crown. (Note that Wiki says that this provision applied throughout the Empire - I’m pretty sure that it did not, and that each colony continued to deal with the issue under its local law.)
Finally, in 1901, after Victoria’s death, Parliament passed a new, general Demise of the Crown Act providing that the Demise of the Crown did not have any legal effect on government. This Act replaced all the piecemeal provisions, and also applied throughout the Empire.
Shakespeare refers to this principle in Henry IV, Part II, Act V, Scene iii, where Pistol brings the news of King Henry IV’s death to Falstaff and Justice Shallow:
Justice Shallow held his appointment as a Justice of the Peace from King Henry IV, so when he died, he ceased to hold office, and Pistol could tell him to foutre off.
The Crown passes from Elizabeth II to her son Charles III in Jeffrey Archer’s excellent near-future political thriller First Among Equals, but there’s already a general election in the works, and the change in monarch has no effect on its timetable.
Charles III? Seriously?
Rumour has it that in the real world Prince Charles will take the title King George VII when he ascends to the throne.
Thank you to everyone for their answers.
I’ve heard that, too. When Archer wrote First Among Equals in 1984, though, the Prince of Wales hadn’t expressed that view.
Never take anything seriously if it comes from a Jeffery Archer book. For example that book also has an appeal from a Scottish criminal trial being held in England, which can never happen.
The trial was of a Scottish Criminal…in England.
I believe it is still traditional for the new monarch to reconfirm all appointments made.
Are you sure about that? It’s a long time since I’ve read it but thought I remembered things to do with the case happening in Scotland. Why was the Scottish MP involved in whatever the controversy was? ETA having glanced at Wikipedia, the American version of the book is very different from the British version so way may not have read the same book.
Even if I’m wrong about that, Archer, who was sentenced to 4 years for perjury, still manages to distort many other basic facts in his books such as the geography of London.
How is the fact that Archer was sentenced to 4 years for perjury relevant to the accuracy of his books? I really don’t get the Archer hate. To hear some people talk, it’s like he’s the worst writer in the world; a second Bullwer-Lytton.
Ok it’s not relevant. I was commenting on the factual accuracy of his books, not the literary quality.
IMO his books are as bad as people say they are, but hatred of Archer goes way beyond his qualities as a writer, and the fact that he is a perjurer. Read Michael Crick on him. However none of this is GQ material.
I did double check, though, and it looks like Archer did make the mistake. It’s in chapter 14 of the book. The Scottish criminal is arrested for and convicted of a robbery on Princes Street in Edinburgh, and the Scottish MP finds out that he had an alibi (He was in a pub being rowdy when the robbery took place).
The guy gets a retrial, which takes place in London.
Thanks.