I’ve always though the problem with parliamentary “republics” is that the head of state ends up being a recycled politician of whatever party is leading in the polls that week. As a result you could end up like Israel or Italy where the president ended up investigated or charged.
Whereas in a monarchy you typically can’t end up in that situation because the monarch has immunity from investigation/prosecution.
Note that this doesn’t leave you in a situation where you can’t have a corrupt or criminal head of state; just in a postion where you can’t do anything about your corrupt or criminal head of state. Which I don’t see as a better position, to be honest.
Actually, she does. The Queen is the fount of all honours, and (on the advice of the Prime Minister) can give or revoke any title to or from anyone. There is no Act of Parliament to regulate this.
He’s a prat. = He’s an ass.
A pratfall is a fall in which you land on your prat.
But I wouldn’t get the synonym “shmeggeggy” which is why LMGTFY is usually not so nice.
But that’s not unique to constitutional monarchies. From just noodling around on wiki, the Presidents of France, Germany, Italy, Israel, and Ukraine all have immunity from criminal prosecution while in office and can only be liable for criminal prosecution after removal from office:
President of France - Wikipedia
http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/Italy.Constitution.pdf (art. 90)
https://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic12_eng.htm (art. 13)
While the US Constitution doesn’t address this point, it is a major area of uncertainty, and was one of the reasons Nixon was named an “unindicted co-conspirator” by the grand jury: the prosecutors weren’t sure if the grand jury had the constitutional authority to indict the President.
True, but md2000 explicitly cites Israel as an exemple of such a scandal. This wouldn’t happen (or would happen less) under a monarchy because monarchs, typically, don’t leave office; they die.
You might not be able to in law, but, in the UK, given enough head of steam, a majority in Parliament could enforce a departure from office, and possibly rather quicker than the grinding of legal mills, if only on the “damaged goods” principle (i.e., once someone’s reputation is damaged enough, they have to go for the sake of the institution, whatever the criminal standard of proof might require).
It is by no means certain that the new king of Thailand, for example, will last for long.
I believe Nansbread is referring to the various conspiracy theories that the Queen had Diana removed. Ranging from the inadvertent “Will no one rid me of the turbulent priest” variety to the murderous “M, I need a 00 for something… delicate” phone call.
Yes and no. The social dynamic for a hereditary monarch, particularly like Britain, with a relatively well off one, is very different from an ambitious politician. A monarch knows they cannot meddle in politics (and should they try, could be reminded by the PM and if necessary, the electorate); so cannot hope or expect to have the power of an elected president. A monarch with their own means of support has less need to engage in shady deals (although that apparently did not stop the husband of - was it the queen of Holland or Belgium?). The elected president is more of a footnote than PPM, still the shady politician who has spent a lifetime connecting with the elite looking for support and favour. A monarch has their place in history assured. A president would presume they still have a modicum of residual power from their office, while a constitution monarch is well aware that they have almost none and any attempt to “throw their weight around” will likely end badly.
Assuming the monarch is not a prat. I honestly don’t think Charles, or William, are that stupid. Charles is just looking for keeping busy make-work while he waits.
To my mind, motivations are completely different.
Cx on standard spelling. And is defined as “American slang” to boot, sans italics, which frankly surprised me.shme·geg·ge
[shmə géggə]
NOUN
an offensive term for a person who is regarded variously as petty, humorless, dull, clumsy, or sycophantic
Powered by EncartaDictionaries
Well, it’s not British. Does it come from Yiddish?
I’ve never heard it either.
Shmengy Brothers - wasn’t that an accordion player duo?
Yes. They were on the SCTV comedy show years ago, and were played by Eugene Levy and John Candy.
Aside to Northern Piper: Thanks for clarifying my question above. I guess we will indeed have to stay tuned on this one!
It’s not that clear-cut. In the case of Edward VIII, the Abdication Act excluded his putative children from the succession entirely. (Not that there ever were any.) It was legally as if he had died at that moment: a “demise of the Crown”. (And that’s certainly how the Royal family treated the Duke and Duchess of Windsor from that point onwards: they were dead to the Royal family.)
In the case of James II, Parliament deemed him to have abdicated and excluded his male issue from the succession, while continuing the rights of his two daughters, Mary and Anne, to inherit the Crown.
The two precedents for abdication thus both say that Parliament will decide at the time whether the children of the abdicating monarch will have any rights to the Crown.
Now, if Charles were to abdicate because he doesn’t want the job, and there are no other political controversies, I would expect Parliament would continue William’s rights to maintain continuity. But it is a matter for Parliament to decide.
ETA: You’re welcome Spoons. Glad to contribute.
If Charles never took the Crown, however (which is the situation to which I was responding), then he’s not the one abdicating.
Moreover, in both of the cases you cite, no son of the abdicating king was in position to be crowned instead (Edward VIII didn’t have any kids at all, and James II’s male heir was both unacceptable and unavailable–the infant was “over the water” and being raised Catholic). If you crown somebody else in the interim, so you have an occupied throne, then trying to circle back later in the event a suitable heir of the abdicated monarch becomes available is awkward at best.
In Charles’s case, however, he does have four acceptable and available descendants; Parliament has no necessity of looking elsewhere.
Here’s where I disagree with you. As the law currently stands, Charles does not have a choice to “take the throne” or not. When The Queen dies, he is King automatically, by the operation of law. So yes, he would have to abdicate, and for that to happen, Parliament has to alter the law governing succession.
Yes, Edward VIII did not have any children at that time, but it was a future possibility. So Parliament changed the law of succession to exclude any future children from the succession. Edward’s abdication applied not just to him and to his future children, if any.
But in the case of James, his abdication did not apply to all his children, just to him and his son and that son’s issue. His daughters retained their claim to the throne, and both of them eventually became Queen.
That was a decision by Parliament, changing the law of succession. It shows that it is not possible to say in advance what decision Parliament will make about who will be the next monarch. It becomes a political decision.
Yes, James and his son were politically unacceptable, but that in itself did not exclude them from the throne: it was the laws passed by Parliament that did so. There was nothing in law barring a Catholic from being King at that time: James had been Catholic from before his accession, and assuming his infant son was raised Catholic, at that time that wouldn’t have excluded him from the succession. It wasn’t until 1701 that Parliament again changed the law and barred Catholics from succeeding to the throne.
Nor was there any legal problem with the heir to the throne being across the water. If there was, George I could not have succeeded.
Agreed.
But my point is simply that it is not possible to say that if Charles abdicates, William automatically becomes King. An abdication requires Parliament to change the law of succession, including who will be the next monarch. Politically, if the only reason for the abdication is that Charles has said “I’ll pass, thanks”, I agree with the prediction that parliament would make William the next King. But it is a political decision and will depend on the political situation at that time. William would not have a legal right to the throne until Parliament changed the law of succession and makes him King.
Ok, I think we’re talking past each other here. If Charles never takes the throne, it’s because either the Queen abdicated and it is HER abdication act Parliament is passing, or Charles predeceases his mother.
The problem here is that the future possibility had no manifested at the time. Say Parliament had not excluded Edward’s future kids from the throne. “We’ll allow the throne to pass to your brother Albert (George VI), but we reserve the right to kick Albert off the throne and give it back to your kid (when the kid is born? at age 18? when?).” There aren’t many precedents for Parliament kicking a king off the throne, and the ones that do exist are all messy.
James had a surviving daughter of his second marriage; Louisa Maria was likewise excluded, although she was alive in 1701 (and was reportedly on reasonably friendly terms with her half-sister Anne).
Much of Charles II’s popularity at/after the restoration was due to his willingness to adhere to the Protestant faith (at least nominally; historians debate whether he was even conscious at the time of his deathbed conversion to Roman Catholicism). One of the major political crises of his reign, however, concerned the Exclusion Bill, an attempt to exclude the Duke of York (James II) from the throne precisely because he was Catholic. Opposition to a Catholic monarch didn’t suddenly appear in 1701.
George I was ready, willing, and able to cross the water to London. James’s infant son, not yet a year old, was in no position to do so, and Parliament had no reason to think he would have been able to return until he attained his majority or his father died. We’re back at the same situation, either giving the throne to somebody else with a plan to kick that somebody off the throne if James’s son turned up later, or leaving the throne vacant.
My point is that the situations for Edward VIII and James II are sufficiently different from the situation that would arise if Elizabeth or Charles abdicated that they aren’t reasonably parallel, so no grounds to consider them precedents. Parliament had to change the law in 1688/89 and 1936 because following the existing law led to untenable results (waiting for Edward to beget an heir, waiting for young James to return). For Elizabeth or Charles, however, just following the existing law leads to an heir already alive and resident in the UK.
And Parliament could indeed change the succession - there was apparently some talk in 1936 that there might be a skip in the succession, to the younger, but more glamorous and media-adapted, Duke of Kent. But there would be a presumption of consensus amongst the great and the good (Privy Council, Archbishop and party leaders) before anything got near formal legislation.