On English Royalty

Factual Questions
41

IIRC specifically Elizabeth would not consider retiring simply because of her uncle (and tradition). She supposedly had a very negative view of someone inheriting a massive obligation and duty, then bowing out when it became an impediment to personal desires. To a certain extent she allegedly blamed Edward for the stress it dumped on her father, which contributed to his early death. That, and being raised in an earlier tradition than today.

It was a major step when Benedict retired from the papacy, something that had never been done for centuries. Times are different today. Especially, people can live longer. today with modern nutrition and modern medicine. Even Queen Victoria, old and failing and extremely long-reigning monarch, only lived to 81.

42

Do royals even need to have sound opinions these days? In the UK?

My thinking is a regency would be largely anachronistic at this stage. It implies the monarch has the legal authority to do anything on their own except try to smile for the camera (optional) and give a speech someone wrote for them from time to time. If someone can’t handle those minuscule responsibilities, then having a “regent” in their stead doesn’t really have the same ceremonial “umph” as a proper King or Queen.

In short, for ceremony that demands a King or Queen, you want a King or Queen, not some scrap of paper Regent.

43

That’s well beyond my ability to offer an opinion, much less a FQ answer.

It is a potentially very interesting and informative discussion for another thread.

44

Fair. As a matter of law, it seems the Regency Act of 1937 was forward looking enough to account for regency in the event of incapacity of future monarchs, not just dealing with the “crisis” (such as it could be considered one) of the time.

45

He’s very confused by windmills.

46

I know I don’t need to tell you this as a Canadian lawyer, but I’d point out that even an Act of the UK Parliament would likely not suffice - they’d want to avoid a split between the British crown and the crowns of the other Commonwealth kingdoms, so identical legislation would be needed in all realms, as they did in 2013 to abolish the male preference in the line of succession.

47

It’s a fair point, but the counter argument would be the Regency Act 1937*. At that time, the British monarchy was already purely ceremonial with only nominal powers, and yet a regency was seriously considered as an option.

*): Nitpick: No “of” in the short titles of British statutes to precede the year.

48

Oh aye - I was just tying to keep it simple. :wink:

49

To all intents and purposes*, the Regent is the monarch.

*[which take up more time than just the odd smile, wave and someone else’s speech - quite a lot of paperwork, meeting and greeting ambassadors (theirs and ours) and various senior officials, hosting and making state and other visits for diplomatic schmoozing, investitures, reception and garden parties]

50

Edward VIII. He excluded his descendants in his Instrument of Abdication. It was put into effect by Parliament the next day by His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936.

51

As an American living in America these days, I disagree with this. IMHO, the monarchy serves a useful purpose. Separating the head of state (HoS) from the head of government (HoG - an unfortunate acronym, but whatcha gonna do?) has value. Over the past 15-20 years, we (USA) have had multiple instances of athletes who won a championship refusing to appear with the HoG because ‘politics’. This is silly, but understandable because when the HoS and HoG are the same person, politics is, in the modern world, inevitably involved. In a separated system, you may hate the HoG’s guts, but the HoS is just someone you want your picture with.

Also (and this may be particular to the UK system), the HoS can act as the national conscience. Assent is assumed because, if not, there be constitutional dragons. BUT, what if Parliament has gone so far off the rails that constitutional crises is the better outcome? The US is rapidly becoming a case study in the exercise of effectively unrestrained power in a modern world. Would that there was a King/Queen to go, “maybe we should think about this first”. If nothing else, if King Charles (and QEII in spades) goes “hang on”, the country will have to have a long introspective conversation and that’s hardly ever a bad thing.

The problem of course, is that this assumes the K/Q in question is themselves a good person - dedicated to the service/survival of the State and its citizens - who takes those responsibilities seriously. The UK seems to have been especially lucky in this regard during modern times - Edward and Andrew not withstanding.

52

I have nothing further to say on that matter in this thread.

53

My post was probably a bit of a hijack in an FQ thread. I honestly thought we were in IMHO, but my fault for not checking. Mea culpa.

54

And that’s the point — Parliament put it into effect. Edward’s Instrument of Abdication, on its own, signed only by him, would have had no effect at all, either to terminate his own tenure as monarch or to exclude his hypothetical future descendants from the line of succession.

Which means that there was no point in Edward signing the Abdication at all, unless he already knew that Parliament would ratify it. Which means that he had to sign it on terms that the government had already agreed to commend to Parliament. Which means that we can’t assume that the exclusion of Edward’s descendants was inserted on Edward’s initiative; it could have been something he had to include in order to get buy-in from the government.

SFAIK the option of Edward abdicating but his descendants not being excluded from the succession was never considered, either by Edward or by the Government. In the discussions that preceded the abdication, both sides seem to have taken it for granted that Edward’s abdication, if it were to happen, must also extend to his descendants.

55

Simpson was IIRC likely too old for children. However, Edward had plenty of time to pull a Henry VIII if the mood struck him, so the future hiers could not otherwise be ruled out.

I presume part of the provision would have been the interesting issue (sorry) if Simpson had gotten “with child” and, after eduring an abdication crisis, would Britain then have to decide whether a child of a legal mariage to a divorced woman would be considered legal/acceptable in terms of the succession. Best to rule it out.

56

Under the Act of Settlement, the crown goes to the heirs of Sophia, Electress of Hanover (who died in 1714), so long as they are Protestant. In 1936, Edward was the senior heir, which is why be became king.

In 1937 he was still the senior heir, even though he ceased to be king.

Suppose Edward had a (legitimate, Protestant) child, and then died in 1940. That child would then be Sophia’s senior heir, and could object that they had a better claim to the throne than George VI. Or, they could wait until George died, and then claim that they had a better right to the throne than Elizabeth. And the claim would be correct; not only would that child have a better right to the throne than either George VI or Elizabeth, but all of that child’s (legitimate, Protestant) descendants would have a better right to the throne than any descendant of George VI, for ever.

Nobody wanted that. Hence, if Edward was to abdicate at all, the line of succession had to be altered to exclude not only him but also all his descendants.

They found this out the hard way when they deposed James VII and II, and gave the crown to his daughter Mary (along with William) and, if they died with surviving children (which happened) to James’s next daughter Anne. James died in 1701 just before Anne came to the throne. After a few years it became apparent that Anne, too, was likely to die without any surviving children, and the next person in line for the throne, beyond any doubt, was James’s only surviving son, also James, who was of course a Catholic.

Hence, the Act of Settlement, to resettle the throne on Sophia, the sister of James VII and II, who, conveniently, was Protestant. To avoid this problem arising again, if any future monarch was to be displaced, whether by abdication or deposition, everyone understood that the displacement would have to extend not only to the monarch personally but also to the descendants of the displaced monarch (unless the monarch was being displaced in favour of his own descendant, obviously).

57

I sort of agree with this, especially with the idea that it can be useful to separate the functions of a head of state who’s apolitical and purely ceremonial from the head of government, who actually runs things. In the UK, this set-up developed sort of by accident, as a result of a centuries-long process of restraining royal power, which was extensive at the outset. But other countries, such as the parliamentary republics of Europe, have since set up their constitutions like that by design.

58

To pull a Henry VIII, he would have needed to obtain a divorce or annulment of his marriage to Wallis Simpson and remarry, and I doubt he’d have got that - the attitude of the Church of England towards divorces (especially in the royal family) was the root cause of the crisis in the first place. Charles pulled it off (without having children with his second wife, though), but that was seventy years later.

59

This. Whatever the merits of separating the head-of-state and head-of-government positions, you don’t need a monarchy to access them. In fact the great majority of states that separate the head-of-state and head-of-government functions are republics with a ceremonial president, not monarchies.

(If the US had acheived independence from the UK at a later date, when the UK monarchy had become largely ceremonial, the US too might have a ceremonial president and a head-of-government responsible to Congress.)

60

Ah, but if you take the view that the marriage of Edward and Wallis was fundamentally illegitimate, because she had a husband still living, then if that marriage were anulled and Edward married a wife with no awkward living husbands, there would be no question over the legitimacy (legally or, um, religiously) of the offspring of that marriage.