To point one, about the King of Belgium - I have no idea of their constitution. But the general principle in most constitutional monarchies is that the monarch is the servant of the people. So it doesn’t surprise me at all that the Belgian parliament, the elected representatives, are able to override the wishes of the King. The purpose of having a king is that the King is a ceremonial head of state.
And as I said, I have no idea about Belgium, but in the UK Parliament could pass a law abolishing the monarchy.
Point two, theoretically the UK military should obey orders from the Queen, and Gordon Brown is not part of the chain of command. But this is all theoretical. Because if the monarch ever does anything (like declaring war) against the wishes of Parliament, you can be sure that the next thing Parliament does would be to remove that power from the monarch.
That’s what’s important: Parliament controls the monarch, and not vice-versa.
Maybe this is a question for another thread, but is the Pope technically a monarch? I mean, he’s kinda elected and there’s no hereditary succession (usually). I always assumed the hereditary succession was what separated a monarch from a regular old run-off-the-mill despot.
It is certainly true that the executive can declare war without consulting the legislature, yes. I was answering the question of whether the monarch could unilaterally declare war. That’s an unequivocal “no”, I would say.
I suppose it’s just a different structure: the PM is part of the legislature, but you’re certainly correct that no act of Parliament is needed to declare war.
Not necessarily. Before William the Bastard (aka Conqueror) came and screwed things up, the king of England was elected by the council of wise men (Witangemot, IIRC), but he was king. It was not hereditary. Of course, other claimants sometimes didn’t accept their choice which was why King Harold the Saxon was fighting somewhere in the north when William invaded (I think it was against a different Harold) and then had to flee south to fight William. Even so, the story goes, he was winning when a lucky arrow hit him in the eye and killed him. Then the English troops fled and the rest, as they say, is history.
I think the hereditary principle was adopted to avoid these kinds of battles. Didn’t always work.
Just for the record, Canada had to go to the British parliament to get its consitution approved in the early 80s. They will never have to do that again, however. And parliament could abolish the monarchy (although the Governor General would have to proclaim it and, I suppose, could conceivably refuse).
Here is an interesting possibility. Suppose the British parliament decided to bypass Charles (because his wife is Catholic, say). Canada has its own rule of succession, so Charles could wind up King of Canada, while not of England.
But Canada uses the same rule of succession as the UK. The Act of Settlement 1701 is part of the Canadian constitution. It could conceivably be changed without the UK changing its own line of succession, but it would require a constitutional amendment.
It’s conceivable that the Queen could play a real role in politics if the UK ever got itself into a constitutional crisis like Australia did in 1975. The Governor-General made the decision to dismiss the Prime Minister and appoint the opposition leader as a caretaken PM. In the UK it would be the Queen in that role.
According to that Wikipedia article, there was a possibility that she could have been pulled into the Australian crisis without a choice in the matter.
“Kerr was unwilling to warn Whitlam that he was contemplating dismissing him, fearing that Whitlam’s reaction would be to advise Elizabeth II, the Queen of Australia, to remove him as governor-general instead - advice the Queen would be compelled by convention to follow.”
But isn’t that the very reason why it is possible for Canada and the UK to have a different King or Queen? If the UK did an act of parliament to skip Charles and go straight to William but Canada didn’t then presumably that 1701 act would make Charles the King of Canada by default when his mum dies.
This is the reason, so I’ve read, that it’s highly unlikely that Charles will be skipped. They really want to keep all 13 or so countries of the realm in sync and it would be major pain to get all to change their law.
He does. He picks his cabinet and judges, and he can propose and enact laws (subject to the veto of the National Council) Monaco is also the only European monarchy, as far as I know, that makes it a crime to publicly criticize the royal family.
I believe there is debate on this point. If the UK changes the Act of Settlement, does it automatically change the line of succession in the other realms or does it change it solely for the UK? I believe the change would only affect the UK, but some would disagree, and as I’m not a constitutional scholar my opinion is worth what it’s worth. Maybe Northern Piper could tell us more about the debate.
But why would he be skipped? He’s the legitimate heir and has spent all his life being groomed for the role. I find it unthinkable that he would be skipped, even if it didn’t require all realms to change their law (and sometimes constitution).
For Canada, it depends on the interaction between two different parts of the Constitution: the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Canada Act 1982.
First, there’s the Constitution Act, 1867. The first clause of the Preamble provides:
And then, s. 9 vests the executive power in the Queen:
So those two provisions, taken together, suggest that whoever is the King or Queen of the United Kingdom is automatically the King or Queen of Canada. That suggests that if the U.K. chose the succession, it would automatically change the succession in Canada as well.
On the other hand, there’s the Canada Act 1982, which patriated the Constitution. The key provision here is s. 2, which reads:
This was one of the key provisions of the patriation package, since it ended the British Parliament’s residual legislative authority over Canada. That suggests that regardless of any change to the British succession, only Canada can change the succesion to the Crown of Canada.
Obviously, it’s all hypothetical, but my instinct is that if the matter came to a court, the argument based on s. 2 of the Canada Act 1982 would prevail. Otherwise, the British Parliament would still indirectly retain the power to extend its laws to Canada, undercutting the basic purpose of the patriation of the Constitution in 1982.
UDS and I had a debate on this very point several years ago, comparing and contrasting the situations in Australia and Canada: When did Canada stop being part of the English monarchy?. We had to agree to disagree, since neither of us could make the other see reason.
Another interesting issue would be what would happen if Canada changed its order of succession. Suppose it was Ottawa that decided to declare Charles was ineligible to be the next King of Canada and Elizabeth’s heir for that title was William?
but that raises another point - can Ottawa, acting alone, change the royal succession for the Crown of Canada? there is a reasonable argument that such a change would require a constitutional amendment, with provincial consent, since the Crown is an integral part of the government of each province, not just of the federal government.
all just blueskying, since there are so many variables and uncertainty around the issue.
Yes. I speak with no authority, but I believe Australian voters rejected the idea. I don’t think it was that they just loved the Queen and didn’t want to see her go, but from what various Aussies have told be, it was more like the alternatives that were presented were unimpressive.
We had a civil war back in the 1600s which determined the precedence of Parliament over the Monarchy. But these days the Monarchy can be likened to an insurance policy. The Prime Minister is effectively an elected Despot. His or her power of patronage is near absolute. For the Monarch to refuse assent would cause a constitutional crisis, but the mere possibility has thus far been an effective check. Further, in times of crisis, the Monarch can step in and rally the Kingdom. Let’s say that London were to get nuked. Cabinet radioactive ash, opposition dead, QE2 & Charles dead. No problem! William becomes King and summons any surviving Privy Councillors - or appoints some more - to govern in his name until elections can be held and a democratic elected government can take over.
People* wanted an El Presidente appointed by direct, popular vote. No “Electoral Colleges”, no “Preferences”, a simple First-Past-The-Post vote for President (or Premier) of Australia. The system on offer was a complicated system based on the current system of elections, whereby people would vote for Members to represent them in Parliament (which is fine), but then the President would be appointed or voted on by the members of the party with a Majority in Parliament.
This was, of course, entirely unacceptable as a way of selecting a President. It’s alright for having a PM because there’s still two levels of oversight above that (The Governor-General and the Reigning Monarch), but since the buck would stop with the El Presidente, there was no way people (read: voters) were going to let the person who was actually in charge of the country get there without their personal say-so.
*Not me, I’m a Monarchist/Imperialist. I don’t want Australia to become a Republic, ever.
