This.
And moreover, this hypothetical is spinning in a way that Baldwin and his party would continue, through two elections, to remain steadfast. I think it likely they may decide, “fuck it, the gov’t has to function, we’ve got to get back to work; this Hitler fellow seems like a douche.”
In which case the king keeps his throne.
There are plenty of precedents for the removal of monarchies which (a) are formally the fount of all legal authority, but (b) do not enjoy popular support and confidence. We don’t know the exact process by which a British king who persistently refuses to accept the advice of a government, or a success of governments, with a democratic mandate would be removed, but it’s a racing certainty that he would be removed. In this particular instance, he removed himself, presumably recognising that, however unpleasant it might be, it would be much more pleasant than any of the alternatives.
They would make it up as they go along, just as they did in 1688. 
See the above summary for the way they got rid of James, without following the accepted legal norms.
One option might be to pass a bill declaring that Edward, like James, had broken the social covenant between the monarch and the people, by his continued opposition to the clearly expressed will of the people through the elections and the Commons. That bill could then be presented, not to the King, but to the Lords Commissioners for granting Royal Assent. (the monarch hasn’t personally granted assent to bills since Victoria’s time; the Lords Commissioners do it for the monarch). If the Lords Commissioners grant Assent, then the bill becomes law.
The Act of Settlement says that the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England, but doesn’t say how that requirement is enforced. If the Archbishop of Canterbury were to declare that Edward’s conduct put him out of communion, as a religious/doctrinal judgment of the Church, then it may be the duty of the Privy Council to declare him out of office by the terms of the Act of Settlement.
That’s certainly one way to deal with that issue. If the substantive law declares that communion with the Church is essential, then there has to be some procedure to enforce it, and a decision by the Privy Council, on the motion of the person who has a majority in the Commons, certainly seems plausible.
Really? You think that the government would just accept that Edward can defy Parliament, contrary to two centuries of steady reductions in the King’s role and the dominance of the Commons?
I agree with you, mostly. I’m having trouble with it being a “racing certainty” that the king would be removed over THIS issue.
Churchill was sympathetic to the marriage, perhaps he would’ve been willing to form a gov’t. He wasn’t known for his party loyalties.
Obviously, the King did abdicate; so it is certainly reasonable to cite that as evidence that he felt he must. But I wish he hadn’t.
Defy Parliament how? Parliament can’t forbid the marriage.
And is the king’s wife the fight Parliament is going to pick? They may just refuse her royal titles and be done with it.
He can remove his father’s archbishop and appoint his own before he even marries her. Problem solved. He is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Maybe not but the people may have thought that the Commons are overstepping their bounds telling the King who he can or cannot marry. We hear about how David would have been out in a heartbeat for ignoring the advice and consent of his counselors but to the typical UK citizen is that important enough to FORCE a monarch out. Suppose Albert refuses to recognize the Parliament’s Act removing Edward VIII (thus denying Royal Assent). Do we have Baldwin conducting his own Saturday Night Massacre of the Royal Family? Does Baldwin and the Tories shave their heads and march on Buckingham Palace?
So as a colonist I ask the United Kingdomers that if Edward VIII forced their hand do you really think the Commons would have forced him out AND the vox populi would be OK taking the drastic step of forcing out the King over a quim?
How did it work out for James II? He insisted to his dying day that he had never abdicated and he was still the King. But Parliament said he had abdicated and William was the new King. And the people began obeying King William instead of King James.
Like I said above, you’re not a King if nobody else think you’re King.
This thread is great, so I’m not complaining, just trying to clarify again if indeed, my OP understanding is clear, and that that understanding is not correct:
The most recent posts have gotten into the nitty-gritty of the removal of the King (I’m staying with “removal” because I don’t know the exact meaning of “depose”). Anyway, with this merry revival of James II, and the tenor of the immediately preceding debate on how it might have happened with Edward, I believe my understanding was in error, and, equally interesting, I misunderstood how Brits and language users in this field think:
When “you” above and others__including OP Wiki cite_–speak of “the end of the Monarchy,” what is meant is “the end of the Windsor Monarchy,” and does not imply “the end of this whole weird King/Parliament thing which has lasted seemingly forever.” (Again, bearing in mind that Parliament could do such a complete nuclear thing, by means I have no idea of, and which can be discussed in a separate thread.)
Am I correct?
Once the debate moves from “Should the King marry Wallace?” to “Can the King refuse to follow advice given by the Prime Minister, who has the confidence of the Commons?” it’s not likely Baldwin will blink.
And if it goes to the polls, who’s going to campaign for Edward? The Conservatives, descendants of the Tories, are the ones who traditionally favoured a broad prerogative (See Bolingbroke.) If they’re opposing the King on an issue of the King’s power, there’s not likely to be any one else who will support the King.
the Liberals are the descendants of the Whigs, who stayed in power for most of the 18th century on the Whig theory of the Constitution, which emphasised the domination of Parliament over the King. They’re not suddenly going to switch on such a fundamental issue and say the King can ignore advice from the PM
Labour? heck, they’ve probably got some republicans amongst them, and certainly aren’t going to support the King against the people.
Right, the government has to function: which means that the King has to take advice from the elected government. And if they know they’re going into a period of great international tension, the last thing they want is a King who may suddenly not take their advice, because he thinks Hitler isn’t such a bad fellow.
Now you’re proposing that he not only refuse advice from the PM, but he suddenly interferes in the independence of the Church for his own personal benefit.
The more he acts like a medieval monarch, personally exercising his powers, the more opposition he will generate.
Well, first the blade pierces the epidermis, then the dermis, then… oh, wait, that’s the French process.
Seriously: If it came down to it, the British Army isn’t under his control. It will kill him if he absolutely forces the issue. If you look back through history, what was the process for Edward V being denied the throne? Parliament declared him illegitimate and he was likely murdered by his uncle. Was that a regular process of law? Of course not. It happened just the same.
Think about what would have happened had Edward VIII ascended to the throne and had been found out as an active Nazi collaborator. Do you seriously imagine a Churchill government would have waited a hot minute to execute His Royal Hitlerite and install George VI?
Let’s note a couple of things:
By all the info we have, the large majority of the British people opposed Edward and Simpson marrying and most were adamant about it. Churchill didn’t, but in the 30s he was a totally isolated figure hated by most Conservatives (too much of a malcontent) and Labour (too anti-socialist). Every other major politician, both in the UK and the Dominions, opposed the marriage.
Since Baldwin would have almost certainly won an election fought on the marriage issue, if the King still decided to marry Parliament would have either stripped him of power or just outright deposed him. And does anyone seriously think anyone would have backed Edward in a fight with an elected government?
“Parliament couldn’t stop the marriage”. Well of course it can, since they wrote the laws that defined marriage. For centuries you had to have a parliamentary act to divorce; why not for a marriage?
I’m not a Briton. But my understanding is that any talk about changing the monarchy nowadays is aimed at eliminating the institution of the monarchy rather than replacing the Windsor dynasty with a different family. There’s no movement to put Franz of Bavaria on the throne.
Historically, however, it’s been the other way around. Most monarchic changes in British history have been about changing dynasties with only one attempt being made to abolish the monarchy.
Because that’s not how Acts of Parliament work; for a bill to become law, it must have the Royal Assent. Parliament can’t pass a law in and of itself. Presumably, a monarch would withhold his Assent from any bill that criminalized his marriage, making it impossible for him to be charged with violation of that law.
And if it passes a law saying that it can do that?
I guess my problem in any of these threads of the UK monarch vs Parliament is what limit is on Parliament controlling what the monarch can or cannot do? I can’t believe that James II’s situation is even being compared to Edward VIII’s. James II being deposed occurred less than 30 years after the Commonwealth and at the core was Papism in England and James running away to France. Edward’s was a marriage issue and he was not self-exiled at the time.
So let’s say the PM “advises” QE2 to not wear hats in public. If she refuses it’s a Constitutional Crisis and Parliament deposes her? Seriously?
Never. Marriage was always linked to politics for the British Monarchy (which formally started in 1707 with the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain), and for the English and Scottish monasteries before it. The wrong marriage in the era when the Kings had real power could’ve resulted in the Barons/Earls disliking the monarch enough that it’d cause serious problems. It could also result in problems with other monarchs of other realms.
Yes, if the PM thinks that hat-wearing is important enough. The PM does not give advise to the monarch on trivial matters of her personal conduct: he has better things to do with is his time, and in any case he wouldn’t want to needlessly annoy his monarch.
However, if hat-wearing was symbolic of some religious issue, it might be important enough to give advise on. Suppose there was a British king who insisted on always wearing a turban as Sikhs do. That might annoy his Sikh subjects, thinking he is disrespectful of their religion; and it might annoy his Christian subjects, thinking he had converted to Sikhism. Then it would be proper for the PM to give advice on hat-wearing, and for there to be a constitutional crisis if the adice were not followed.