She’s monarch of sixteen sovereign, independent nations, though. She may have friends in Her other Realms, but they have no business dictating to Britain its constitutional makeup - if Britain opts to become a republic and the rest of the Commonwealth is determined to keep Her as Queen, then that’s what will happen. If, say, Canada and Australia demanded the UK keep the Queen, I think local opinion would not take kindly to such interference.
(and I say this is a proud monarchist)
Politically I’m not 100% sure it’d go down like that though, Westminster has stayed out of it when other Commonwealth countries have dropped the monarchy (Barbados is in the process of doing this at present, and I predict Australia will in the next 10-15 years); but I think there’d be a bit of a double standard at play if it were reversed. I think the rest of the Commonwealth that still retains the monarchy would expect at least a degree of coordination and consultation before Westminster ended the British monarchy.
Yes, it wouldn’t be a simple or straightforward process. There had to be consultation over the revision to the laws of succession (i.e., to allow a first-born daughter to succeed).
Bringing up the Commonwealth is interesting. The UK Parliament abolishes the monarchy but the other Commonwealth countries don’t. Where does she go?
She goes on a world tour staying in each location for a few months at a time.
You’re going to want a few sakers while you’re at it…
I have a suspicion the monarch would still primarily reside in Britain, where their vast personal holdings are concentrated, but would definitely spend more time abroad. I don’t know about the entire Commonwealth but I know Canada keeps two decently nice places for her use, albeit she rarely uses them.
Gotta love renaissance bombardry!
Such opinion could be fairly described as neo-colonialism.
and
etc., etc., etc.
The relationship between the House of Windsor and independent commonwealth nations is none of the beeswax of British republicans.
Someone can correct me, but isn’t the monarchy rather popular in Bermuda? Perhaps the UK going republican would result in Bermuda becoming an independent constitutional monarchy. If the British don’t take kindly to this, I guess they could go to war. But I’m going to say they wouldn’t.
It would be up to the judiciary to decide whether Parliament has the power to abolish the monarchy. The prevailing opinion is that Parliament does not have the power to do so.
I’m confused, are you saying that my opinion is neo-colonialist, or that a foreign country attempting to stop the UK becoming a republic would be neo-colonialist?
I would imagine the UK (or UR) would not be interested in imposing republicanism on a democracy.
Not so sure about that. Parliament is sovereign, and British practice is that the courts do not interfere with Parliament in any way. The courts didn’t get involved in this question in 1642, 1649 or 1690, or over the Hanoverian Succession, so I think that it would be enough for the Parliament to simply declare a republic.
My uneducated guess would be that they like it less than a British passport.
Becoming a republic but retaining the monarchy for British possessions overseas would be pretty bizarre, though. I guess if it worked with hanging…
Under the Canada Act 1982, no British law passed after April 17, 1982 has any effect in Canada. So if the British Parliament passed a law abolishing the monarchy, that law would not affect Canada. There would still be a British monarch for the purposes of Canadian law, unless and until Canada abolished the monarchy using the amending formula set out in the Constitution Act, 1982.
It’s exactly the same principle as the hanging example. The UK Parliament has abolished hanging for the purpose of UK law, but that law doesn’t apply to the other Commonwealth realms. Each of them is an independent country and decides for itself whether to abolish hanging or not.
She’s 200 years old. How tough can it be to slap some cuffs on her and toss her into a cell in the Tower?
It’s a process, I’d imagine abolition of the House of Lords would come first.
Isn’t it the courts’ role to decide whether Parliament’s bills, etc… are legal or not? Or, in lieu of a formal, written constitution, is it one of those situations where what’s legal is what Parliament says is legal, and the courts have to go along with that?
Put differently, if Parliament passed a law requiring all Muslims to wear a green crescent on their clothing, couldn’t the courts countermand that as illegal? Or am I thinking of things way too much as seen through the lens of the relationship between the Supreme Court and Congress here in the US?
Yeah, you are thinking too much of the Supreme Court’s role in the US. In the UK, if I am not mistaken, whatever Parliament says is legal is legal (of course it has to be assented to by the monarch).
Hasn’t this discussion gone on long enough without someone referring to the “Constitutional Peasant” scene from Holy Grail? :dubious:
Oh. :o
Not in the UK, no. That’s a very American-style attitude to courts.
It’s been a principle of the UK’s uncodified constitution since at least 1689 that laws should not be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of Parliament.
If, under a law passed by Parliament, the courts were specifically permitted to rule on legislation, and if the court pointed out a legal irregularity, it would be up to Parliament to set things right by passing amending legislation, not the courts to strike it down.
If the UK Parliament passed an Act requiring all Muslims to wear a green crescent, then I would imagine the courts would declare it incompatible with the Human Rights Act and with the European Convention of Human Rights…but it remains the law, and is fully enforced until Parliament repeals or amends it.
The only recent case I can think of where a UK law was struck down by a court was R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, but that was EU law with a specific provision permitting it, and if I’m not mistaken the UK Government was obliged to repeal the law through Parliament, rather than the courts invalidating the law themselves.