So let’s say the UK Parliament passes a bill abolishing the monarchy. What would happen if the Queen refused to give her assent to such a law? Technically she still has that right even if the right hasn’t been used in generations.
Ask Charles the First or Charles the Second. (Deposed and executed; deposed and replaced.)
Seriously: if Parliament were serious about abolishing the monarchy, the monarch’s opinions would be utterly notwithstanding. The Queen would nullify the legislation, and the P.M. would smile, proclaim the legislation in force, and the matter would be over and done with.
I believe you mean James the Second (and Seventh) there, rather than Charles the Second.
This is assuming that the proposition was in the government party’s manifesto at the preceding election. If not, it could all get more complicated.
I doubt the Queen would even withhold assent. I’m sure a younger member of her family wouldn’t, and let’s be honest she’s not long for the world and tremendously popular–she’ll never face such legislation in her lifetime. Her son or grandson, not raised prior to WWII by people born in the 19th century probably wouldn’t even feel it appropriate in the modern era to publicly oppose Britain becoming a Republic.
Their family maintains significant personal wealth, so they’d be fine either way. I don’t think they’d be able to legally take the Crown Estate (whose revenue they haven’t been able to directly claim in generations) and obviously none of the Crown palaces and properties, but they’d still be an old money family with tens of millions of pounds in net worth–and much of it tied up in pretty safe assets. Some of their private assets I suspect are probably quite expensive, for example I doubt they could maintain Balmoral at its current level as a private home, but maybe I’m mistaken and Balmoral turns a profit.
Bit of a digression, but the Norwegian royals are rather fed up with having to live in ancient, poorly insulated buildings from previous centuries as part of a job they never applied for. They’d much rather have somewhere modern to live. I do remember the King replying to people grumbling about the royal palace being renovated at the publics expense (from memory):
“Either it is my property or it isn’t. If it is my property, it goes on the market tomorrow. Nice big place, centrally located with a huge garden. It’d sell instantly. And my family would move into something modern and comfortable.
If it isnt my property, its enough that I’m compelled to live there, I am damn well not going to pay for it as well!”
I would not be surprised to find the younger UK royals holding a similar opinion.
There would be a mild constitutional crisis as the country continued to be divided between monarchists and republicans.
Eventually democratic process might well bring back the monarchy to the UK.
Of course, the monarch isn’t just the monarch of the UK, but also of many other countries.
So QE2 and Parliament would both field armies?
Ultimately it depends how the British people feel. You know people love to claim that the monarchy would be abolished tomorrow if she withheld Royal Assent but I doubt that would happen if Parliament wanted to give 10 Billion Pounds to Grandma Polly’s House for Wayward Pussies.
Arrgh! That’s the second time I’ve done that! (And the first time, it was in print!)
Thank you! You’re quite right.
I’ve got 10,000 pikemen, 2,000 horse, four culverins and a bombard, and 200 guys with matchlocks. I’ll meet you at Naseby Thursday next.
(What are they called, anyway? Matchlockers?)
Musketeers.
It’s possible, but I suspect that given the significant spending (something like £30m) on the monarchy I imagine most of the Crown Palaces have large “historic/formal” areas which are kept fairly uncomfortable (but nice looking) by modern standards for the various tours, formal events and etc, and then large and nice “apartments” for the royal residents that meet with modern standards.
I’d think it’s similar to the White House, the first floor of the White House, has several rooms open to tours and the rest are used for formal affairs, diplomatic receptions and etc. This part of the house is like a museum, and wouldn’t necessarily be super comfortable to live in if you’re used to modernity. But the second floor, which is never open to the public (albeit it’s obviously been photographed and such) has the living quarters of the First Family. These quarters are stately and nice, but also have modern amenities. Many of the First Families have made the private dining room on the second floor as close as possible to a “normal” family dining room to try and promote family dinners/normalcy (I believe both the Clintons and Obamas did this, the other recent Presidents all had adult children by the time they entered the White House.) The sitting rooms and private living rooms of the second floor also have modern amenities.
British palaces are a different beast than the White House; the White House residence has 132 rooms of which around 10-15 (depending on particulars of the First Family) are private rooms for the President and his family. That’s a huge house. But Buckingham Palace has over 700 rooms, Windsor Castle has almost 1,000, Sandringham House has something like 250-300 rooms, and there’s several other palaces British Royals actively live in (Clarence House and Kensington Palace which house permanent homes for several highly ranked members of the Royal Family–the Prince of Wales in Clarence House and the Duke of Cambridge in Kensington Palace, with his brother Harry occupying a smaller apartment in Kensington Palace), and residences like Holyrood Palace which the monarch is only in for special occasions.
The huge number of rooms, and the large amount of tourist interest these buildings attract mean that most likely small sections of these palaces are pretty comfortable modern living, the rest are geared for special occasions and tourists. I mean with Kensington specifically, we know that when William and Kate moved in they were given an apartment with 20 rooms, that was renovated at a cost of $7m or so. That represents only a small section of the total palace, but even for a wealthy family that’s more than enough room for day to day life.
I think the simple fact is the British monarchy is a very different animal when it comes to constitutional monarchies. Most simply do not invest in it so heavily, I don’t doubt that the monarchs of Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden probably make do with far more spartan arrangements. I suspect some of the Middle Eastern oil monarchies probably make do with more. I’m not too sure on the Japanese Imperial Family, I do know that because of the vast value of Tokyo real estate the Imperial estate is worth a fortune, but I’ve no idea how nicely accommodated it is.
It would really depend on the context. If the monarchy had grossly violated the constitution and the general will of the people was clearly for abolition, I imagine the monarchy would be forced to assent - formally or informally - as it has no friends left.
but if it were a government seeking to force change through purely on a majority, at a whim, at an opportunity, in the face of public opinion, the monarch would probably feel justified in resisting. I doubt they would resort to arms, as the second they do that I bet their public sympathy would evaporate. But there could be a critical mass of officials who could refuse to comply with a government that hasn’t got Assent to an unpopular law.
Ultimately it’s so hypothetical anything we say will be fanciful.
Sounds dubious. If your memory isn’t just severely off it seems like something that could only have been spoken by the current monarch in obvious jest.
Ok if the scenario presented is too unlikely, what would happen if Scotland voted for independence and the queen, on the advice of her counselors, refused assent.
Well the way the previous referendum worked was this: the UK Parliament passed a one-off motion giving special dispensation to the Scottish Parliament to enact legislation normally outside its remit, namely, to legislate for a referendum on independence. This Act set up the referendum and IIRC pretty much assured that whatever result was returned would have the same authority as if it had been made by an Act of Parliament.
So basically the legislatures gave the electorate a blank cheque and said ‘whatever you choose, we will uphold’.
So the Queen would have to have stopped it before then.
Good thing I opened this thread to read through it.
I almost moved it to Cafe Society, unopened, as a discussion of George Clinton vs Freddie Mercury.
Speaking of alternate histories… or rather, what ifs.
The question in the OP is the trigger for GB Shaw’s The Apple Cart, available here from Project Gutenberg Australia. Back to reality, in his case the removal of the monarchy wasn’t parliamentary, but Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha has been head of state of Bulgaria twice: as king in is childhood and as prime minister once the Wall fell.
I can’t picture the Duke of Cambridge going into politics if it’s not as part of the family business (he just looks too much like an accountant, sorry and nothing against guys who look like accountants), but hey, Henry might…
She (or a future he) is the monarch of sixteen countries. Only if Britain was the last of the sixteen to go the dubious republican route my own nation has chosen would the monarch have no friends left.
I think a lot would depend on what her remaining prime ministers advised. However, I do agree with you that assent is likely. The monarchy would need to win back Britain with honey, not vinegar.
Why are they compelled to live there? I find it hard to believe the Norwegian royals can’t afford to buy and live wherever they want and turn the palace into a museum if they don’t want it.