I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this operated as a factor. Barbados has made noises about becoming a republic. Australian culture has a strongly egalitarian trend with a definite republican tendency. Public discussion of the monarchy might well get tangled up in various Caribbean nations with arguments over the merits of still allowing appeals to the JCPC (and vice versa). And discussion in any country might easily get tangled up with any dissatisfaction with the party of government.
In 1936 the Irish government used the abdication of Edward VIII as an opportunity to abolish the office of Governor-General, and to otherwise all but eliminate the formal role of the monarchy within the constitution.
Discussion of gender-neutral succession would also inevitably open up discussion of the various religious restrictions, which in turn must surely open up for discussion the relationship between the state and the Church of England…
AV referendum - upcoming half-arsed vote on changing the voting system
Cameron & Clegg - respectively, the current Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
OK, thanks.
But what is a “half-arsed vote”? We’ve recently switched to Instant Runoff Voting (Ranked Choice Voting) for local elections here – is it anything like that?
Yeah, there’s ranking of preferences in the AV system, with lower ranked candidates dropping out until someone has > 50%. I’m no expert, however. I meant “half-arsed” in that it isn’t a fully proportional representation system, which was the original plan.
As I understand it, IRV and AV are different names for exactly the same thing.
It’ll also be a half-arsed vote because I doubt many people really care about it or even understand the issues involved. It’d be like having a referendum in the US about whether the $2 bill should be scrapped.
The Liberal Democrats (the UK’s third largest party) have traditionally argued that the present stupid electoral system be replaced with some form of proportional representation. Last year they ended up in an improbable coalition with the Conservatives. Inevitably part of the price the Conservatives had to pay was to agree to a referendum on changing the voting system… but they weren’t prepared to compromise so far as to adopt any form of PR, so we’re stuck with only having AV on offer. I doubt most people even realise there’s a distinction between AV and PR, especially given the spurious assertions generally being made by the official “No” campaign.
We now return you to your scheduled thread!
I’ve only just found out that the way the ballot papers are redistributed from the pile for an eliminated candidate is more complicated to explain than I’d realised. It’s hardly surprising that nobody seems to explain it properly!
Quote:
As far as Charles, succession and murder goes, I’m 99 per cent sure he’d lose his succession rights. I don’t know about his heirs, though.
The problem is that a King can not be tried in a British court of law - and the second the Queen dies, at his hand or in any other fashion, Charles would become King AT THAT INSTANT. Therefore he could never be convicted.
Well he wouldn’t be the first King Charles to wind up deposed and on trial in an ad hoc court. Parliament has shown on several occasions that it decides who sits on the throne, and has deposed monarchs. It wouldn’t even take a special act of Parliament to declare him unfit and appoint a regent (ala George III), current law allows any three of the following people to declare the monarch incapacitated and trigger a regency; the royal consort, the Lord Chancellor, Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales, and the Master of the Rolls. Presumably Parliament would then pass a more permanent act dealing with the situtation.
I think Parliament would indeed have to pass a special Act à la George III, as the Regency Act only applies in the case of “infirmity of mind or body”, or when the Sovereign is “not available for the performance of [the royal] functions”. I can’t see a judge being persuaded that “not available” includes someone who is physically around and mentally capable! Even if he were an axe-murderer.
Incidentally, I’ve just noticed that they’ve not updated the legislation to take into account the creation of the Supreme Court. I can’t imagine that there’s a particular reason for this; it seems more likely to be yet another symptom of the sloppy way that the Constitutional Reform Act was put together.
It was in the 1974 Guiness Book of Records. I believe it was a bomb explosion at their residence, although I can’t remember the details. However the presumption that the elder person died first was the deciding factor. (Shortest peerage, or something of the sort.)
The same was done in Norway EXCEPT the Crown Prince was grand-fathered in, so even though his sister was older, he’d still be Crown Prince. His daughter, however, as the elder child, will inherit the throne, rather than her younger brother.
As was mentioned upthread (damn my being away from the Dope for a while!) what happened in Nepal. I would have thought Nepal would be one of the last places to go Republican, but once that happened, I figured it was just a matter of time (and was surprised it didn’t happen sooner).
Helluva wedding gift …
Interestingly, when harry joined the Army, he was known as Officer Cadet Wales - Wales being the last name, even though his last name (when it is needed, as a titled royal, he doesn’t have one) is Mountbatten-Windsor or Windsor. I guess if you don’t have a last name, and you’re high up in the line of succession, you can take any damn last name you want.
I remember this too, and thought the same thing. I guess it was something that the Queen would have liked to have, but hasn’t been made law. I guess the Queen doesn’t automatically get everything she wants, despite being the frickin’ Queen.
Why would the Queen be bothered? She’s already Queen and wouldn’t have been affected by this change anyway, and neither would her children or grandchildren except in the extreme unlikely instance that Charles and his children all die.
Uhhh, maybe she does have a concern for women’s representation in such things (being a woman). Sure, it won’t do any difference now, but it’s bound to come up some time.
Henry VIII issued a couple of Succession Acts, first delaring Mary and Elizabeth bastards, and then returning them to to the line of succession, after his son Edward. So in 1544, the King was able to set, at least to some degree, the line of succession to follow him.
How about today? With the decreased power of the throne, who has the ability to change the line of succession? Could Elizabeth II decide that Prince Charles should be skipped, and appoint William as the heir apparent? Would that take an act of Parliment?
No matter who has the ability, are there set situations in which this may or must be done?
Parliament has shown on several occasions that it decides who sits on the throne, and has deposed monarchs. It wouldn’t even take a special act of Parliament to declare him unfit and appoint a regent (ala George III), current