Queen Elizabeth is 90. Should she have held power as Queen this long vs letting Charles rule?

[LSLGuy]

I agree that most of what I know of the UK constitution I’ve learned right here. And it amounts to precious little of the whole.

My original rebuttal was to folks upthread who seemed to be arguing that Charles would choose of his own volition to pass up being King in favor of the next generation. I was arguing the opposite; his volition would not run that way. Which is a different and largely unrelated question from whether the option to abdicate even exists as a matter of written or unwritten law.

I agree that the whole conversation about abdication has a decided air of fantasy or alt history about it precisely because (AIUI) that option is not provided for in the written laws, nor (much) in the recorded history.
With all that I’m not sure I follow your points. Not that I disagree with them; they were just a little too oblique for uber-literalist me to follow. Come again?

[AK84]

No provision for abdication in UK Constitutional Law? One simple Act of Parliament would change that. (As it does not affect the succession line to the crown, it would not necessarily be subject to the Statute of Westminister, the 1936 Act was consented to by the various Dominions, but I am unsure whether that was actually needed.)

[Bridget_Burke]

@LSLGuy

I agree that most of what I know of the UK constitution I’ve learned right here. And it amounts to precious little of the whole.

My original rebuttal was to folks upthread who seemed to be arguing that Charles would choose of his own volition to pass up being King in favor of the next generation. I was arguing the opposite; his volition would not run that way. Which is a different and largely unrelated question from whether the option to abdicate even exists as a matter of written or unwritten law.

I agree that the whole conversation about abdication has a decided air of fantasy or alt history about it precisely because (AIUI) that option is not provided for in the written laws, nor (much) in the recorded history.
With all that I’m not sure I follow your points. Not that I disagree with them; they were just a little too oblique for uber-literalist me to follow. Come again?

The whole “Charles should abdicate” movement comes from people who find him annoying. Tough. He’ll have no real power & can do no damage.

The Brits have chosen to keep their monarchy–hey, tourists love it. The succession rules are pretty clear.

[orcenio]

I’ll just drop this here for my fellow republican Canucks.[

A majority of Canadians now believe that when Queen Elizabeth II dies and Prince Charles ascends to the throne, Canada should cut ties with the monarchy.

A new poll, conducted by Ipsos on behalf of Global News, has revealed that 53 per cent of us think it may soon be time to bid farewell to the monarch as our head of state.

](http://globalnews.ca/news/3145545/majority-of-canadians-say-ties-to-monarchy-should-be-cut-when-queen-dies-poll/?sf48309323=1)William has done an expert job at ingratiating himself into the mentality of Canadians with his royal visits (how utterly “provincial”), but aren’t we above this silly colonial holdover?

Yes. I think I know the real answer, but humour me, eh?

[Northern_Piper]

@AK84

No provision for abdication in UK Constitutional Law? One simple Act of Parliament would change that. (As it does not affect the succession line to the crown, it would not necessarily be subject to the Statute of Westminister, the 1936 Act was consented to by the various Dominions, but I am unsure whether that was actually needed.)

It did change the line of succession, so Commonwealth approval was needed. The Act didn’t just remove Edward VIII. It excluded any issue he might have. While that possibility was pretty remote, given Wallis’ age, it was included in the Act.

[Northern_Piper]

With respect to Canada, the initial question isn’t “should we get rid of the monarchy?” Rather, the question is: “If we want to become a republic, what sort of republican structure do we want?”

• Do we want to have a weak, figurehead head of state, with the real political power still vested in the PM, like parliamentary republics such as Germany, India and Ireland?

• Do we want a mixed system, where both the head of state and the PM have power, like France and Poland?

• Do we want a congressional / presidential system like the US?

That’s the first issue that needs to be decided.

(My understanding is that the disagreement on this fundamental question is what scuppered the Australian republican referendum, even though there was a majority in d’avoir of ditching the Queen. There was no consensus on what would replace HM.)

Then, once that fundamental question is decided, we would have to agree on a selection method for the new head of state, and carefully delineate the powers of the new Head of State.

After that, we need unanimous agreement from the Commons. the Senate, and all ten provincial legislative assemblies.

Easy-peasy, lemon squeezie!

Then we can address easy issues, like world peace.

[Springtime_for_Spacers]

@AK84

…
Read up and understand government papers.
Meet with her PM every week
Meet with ambassadors and foreign dignities
Undertake foreign tours
All her domestic visits
Oh and work to solve major crises that might occur

What the monarch does is I repeat not a sinecure and is indeed fairly substantive work. When the Queen visits countries and meets with foreign dignitaries, she is conducting actual diplomacy and promoting British Industry and trade. Yes, she is following the policy as laid down by the Government of the day, however she is infact putting te case forward as well.

From memory she used to have 300 plus major engagement a year. How many 90 year old women can maintain such a schedule?

I agree she will never willingly step aside. But, questions as to role of aged monarchs are’nt likely to go away anytime soon. In 15-20 years or thereabouts Charles will be in the same position as she is today healthwise, hell past retirement age, he is already one major health crises away from being permanently unable to maintain his current scehdule.

I believe the idea is that Charles will take on more and more of the official duties. It shouldn’t be forgotten however that although this all sounds like a lot of work for a 90 year old she has no other work to do and a lot of help. No cooking, no cleaning, no shopping (unless she wants to) no driving (again unless she wants to) How many 90 year olds who have to cancel a journey to one of their homes due to a illness get a free helicopter trip up there the next day?!

[up_the_junction]

@Northern_Piper

With respect to Canada, the initial question isn’t “should we get rid of the monarchy?” Rather, the question is: “If we want to become a republic, what sort of republican structure do we want?”

• Do we want to have a weak, figurehead head of state, with the real political power still vested in the PM, like parliamentary republics such as Germany, India and Ireland?

• Do we want a mixed system, where both the head of state and the PM have power, like France and Poland?

• Do we want a congressional / presidential system like the US?

I’m guessing the third option is rhetorical, unless you’re hell bent on turning Canada into an intransigent democratic basket case.

[Northern_Piper]

Reading the papers in the red dispatch boxes is a major daily task. Yes, she signs off on them, but reports are she reads then carefully and sometimes quizzes the PM on them. Mastering those sort of details is mentally demanding, even for a mere 70 year old.

[Northern_Piper]

@up_the_junction

I’m guessing the third option is rhetorical, unless you’re hell bent on turning Canada into an intransigent democratic basket case.

No, not rhetorical.

I have heard people say that we should just elect the Gov Gen Mark II by popular vote, without changing any of the powers of the office. They didn’t seem to realise that giving the GovGen that kind of political legitimacy would fundamentally change our Constitution and bring it much closer to the US model.

I’ve also heard people say that we just need to elect the PM by a national popular vote, and then we wouldn’t need the Queen or the GovGen. They didn’t seem to appreciate that this would also be a fundamental change to the Constitution.

And these comments are coming from smart people that I respect. The drawback is that they start with the easy hypothetical (“Should we get rid of the Queen?”) rather than hard fundamental question (“What kind of republic do you want?”)

[Northern_Piper]

@Springtime_for_Spacers

I believe the idea is that Charles will take on more and more of the official duties.

The Queen can ask Charles and the other royals to take on more of the ceremonial duties.

She can’t delegate the true constitutional duties, like reading the state papers and meeting with the PM. The only way Charles could be given those duties is by a regency under the Regency Act.

[AK84]

[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
It did change the line of succession, so Commonwealth approval was needed. The Act didn’t just remove Edward VIII. It excluded any issue he might have. While that possibility was pretty remote, given Wallis’ age, it was included in the Act.
[/QUOTE]

Hmmm, yes that is true. If they do want to create a permanent mechanism for abdication, I have no doubt that politically and diplomatically speaking the UK Gov will apply ask the various Dominions to pass the necessary legislation even if legally it was deemed to be unnecessary.

Reading the papers in the red dispatch boxes is a major daily task. Yes, she signs off on them, but reports are she reads then carefully and sometimes quizzes the PM on them. Mastering those sort of details is mentally demanding, even for a mere 70 year old.

The Royal Household, even when the Sovereign is young and able tries to push as much work onto other members of the Royal Family as possible. Despite that Monarchs from Victoria onwards have complained of the seemingly never-ending workload. Its reading the red dispatch boxes contents. Its having to meet and greet with an endless parade of foreign dignitaries, go on tours to the four corners of the globe, undertake domestic visits, occasionally have to act the adult and “guide” recalcitrant politicians (rare but has occurred with every monarch since Victoria), world crises etc etc.

The active Royals also have a punishing schedule (one of the reasons they say Diana struggled and why they then broke Kate in gently) and when Charles acts in EIIR’s stead (when he is even legally able to) he is doing that in addition to what he is expected to do.

With respect to Canada, the initial question isn't "should we get rid of the monarchy?" Rather, the question is: "If we want to become a republic, what sort of republican structure do we want?"

• Do we want to have a weak, figurehead head of state, with the real political power still vested in the PM, like parliamentary republics such as Germany, India and Ireland?

• Do we want a mixed system, where both the head of state and the PM have power, like France and Poland?

• Do we want a congressional / presidential system like the US?

The Indians have done well to usually give the top job to some worthy. Otherwise the retired politicians starts getting delusions a grandeur.

[QUOTE=Springtime for Spacers]
I believe the idea is that Charles will take on more and more of the official duties. It shouldn’t be forgotten however that although this all sounds like a lot of work for a 90 year old she has no other work to do and a lot of help. No cooking, no cleaning, no shopping (unless she wants to) no driving (again unless she wants to) How many 90 year olds who have to cancel a journey to one of their homes due to a illness get a free helicopter trip up there the next day?!
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I am sure the burdens none of the duties of the Queen are as onerous as cooking, cleaning, shopping.:rolleyes:

[penultima_thule]

@LSLGuy

*He’s *the one who thinks he’s earned the prize; it doesn’t matter to him what anyone else might think.

Absolutely incorrect. What he thinks is irrelevant to the succession.
He is heir-apparent due to being the first borne son (now first borne child) of the current monarch. His birthright, his obligation.

If he doesn’t want to be crowned when ERII’s reign ends his option is to die before she does. [discounting coup d’eta and similar unpleasantness] If he doesn’t want to reign then he can abdicate. Which IMHO is profoundly unlikely.

[penultima_thule]

@Northern_Piper

With respect to Canada, the initial question isn’t “should we get rid of the monarchy?” Rather, the question is: “If we want to become a republic, what sort of republican structure do we want?”

Here, here! Now there’s a poster who really knows their onions. [looks for suitable hat to doff]

(My understanding is that the disagreement on this fundamental question is what scuppered the Australian republican referendum, even though there was a majority in d’avoir of ditching the Queen. There was no consensus on what would replace HM.)

Apart from me not getting “d’avoir” bit IMHO that’s also on the money.
Alongside the notion of fixing a system that’s patently not broken and replacing it with one (a popularly elected HoS) which has a lousy track record in all but one jurisdiction and the gloss currently seems to be off that one at the moment.

[Northern_Piper]

Thanks for the compliments!

Re “d’avoir” - my iPhone is apparently missing being in France and every so often puts in a French word even though I’m using English.

That was supposed to be “in favour” if I recall correctly.

[Bijou_Drains]

why does someone with no real power read all these papers that are important?

Tradition I guess? I assume these papers don’t include any secret defense information? Or maybe they do.

[PatrickLondon]

@Northern_Piper

She can’t delegate the true constitutional duties, like reading the state papers and meeting with the PM. The only way Charles could be given those duties is by a regency under the Regency Act.

She doesn’t have to read and master all the state papers and briefings, merely sign where asked. Likewise, she doesn’t have to see the PM every week; that’s a relatively recent conventional practice, but one that successive PMs have claimed to find useful. It would be perfectly practicable for the system to keep on working at least for a while with the permanent officials effectively masterminding the documents side of things while other members of the family turn out for the ceremonial occasions, just as there was cover for Woodrow Wilson’s incapacities, without needing a formal legislative declaration of a Regency.

Any sense of crisis would probably come only in relation to the State Opening of Parliament, and even then I think most parliamentarians would heave a sigh of relief if it were all simplified down to some brief invitation to the PM to announce the government’s legislative proposals for the coming year, rather than expecting a lot of pseudo-mediaeval flim-flam preceding HM’s reading of the (dry as dust) recital of the same list.

[penultima_thule]

@Bijou_Drains

why does someone with no real power read all these papers that are important?

Tradition I guess?

No, not tradition.

ERII is Head of State.
It is her government who are making all the big political decisions
Her assent is essential to enact any parliamentary bill.
I guess she could sign bills without reading and blow off meeting the PM each week but I don’t think that’s the way the Windsor operate.

[Baron_Greenback]

@Bijou_Drains

Tradition I guess? I assume these papers don’t include any secret defense information? Or maybe they do.

UK armed forces swear this oath:

I… swear by Almighty God (do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals (admirals / air officers) and officers set over me.

So I guess she’s in the loop on military stuff.

[RickJay]

@orcenio

I’ll just drop this here for my fellow republican Canucks.[URL=“http://globalnews.ca/news/3145545/majority-of-canadians-say-ties-to-monarchy-should-be-cut-when-queen-dies-poll/?sf48309323=1”]William has done an expert job at ingratiating himself into the mentality of Canadians with his royal visits (how utterly “provincial”), but aren’t we above this silly colonial holdover?

Yes. I think I know the real answer, but humour me, eh?

The real reason is that

1. What you are proposing requires significant amendment of the Constitution.
2. No one wants to do that because it would explode in flames of Quebec nationalism, Western alienation, Senate tinkering, Aboriginal demands for “consultation” and Christ knows what else, and
3. Point (2) above is much worse than getting rid of the monarchy is good. Getting rid of the monarchy would be a smart and useful symbolic move, but that’s really all it is. The Queen has no effect on Canada except to make coins easier to mint and sell more copies of “Hello!” magazine to old ladies.

It’s not worth saving the Governor General’s salary to risk another Meech Lake fiasco.