I hope at some point a king or queen says the whole thing is silly and gets rid of it all. Charles won’t do that . William might. Harry probably would if he had the chance. Maybe William’s son could decide to get rid of it all. People say royals are a tourist attraction. I think plenty of people would visit without it. Does not hurt France, Germany, Italy, etc who no longer have king/queen. .
The British monarch has no power to amend the laws unilaterally. Maybe an heir might not want to be heir and will abdicate; but they don’t get to decide to abolish the monarchy.
That’s a decision for the British people to make through the democratic process, not one individual unilaterally.
They don’t get to decide to abdicate either. That requires an Act of Parliament to be effective.
They cannot unilaterally decide to stop being king or queen; the most they can do is refuse to discharge the functions of the office, which might well provoke a constitutional crisis which would probably result in their wish to abdicate being acceded to. If the heir and others in the line of succession also declined to serve, the upshot might be abolition of the monarchy. Either that, or Parliament would have to find a new royal family willing to take on the gig, which seems a fairly unlikely resolution to what would be a fairly unlikely problem.
In the end, there are very few politicians, let alone voters, who see much point in devoting parliamentary and ministerial time to unstitching it all and creating something different, when they could be getting on with all the other things they want doing.
Look at the trouble Brexit took (and is still taking). It wouldn’t just be a matter of saying “For Crown read President”, and it’s just not worth the bother.
The last thing the UK and the various Commonwealth countries that have the UK monarch as their monarch want is to end up with a president. That is a disaster in the making.
The system whereby there is a human as the root of power that has no role in running the country works rather well. You need a human as there is always the remote chance they need to take action to sort out a constitutional crisis. Hopefully only every century or so, but the presence of a human makes for stability.
The UK monarch has no power to change anything. Centuries of devolvement have seen to that. They act under the advice of the Prime Minister. As noted above, as an individual they can refuse to do the job. But they have zero power to change the nature of the job.
Getting a bit off topic- but I agree that the last thing the UK (or Canada) needs is replacing the monarchy. They are a window dressing formality for the real government - parliament and 10 downing - with a minor but not inconsequential role; they ultimately, as discussed in several threads here, do have a nuclear option to block parliament, which probably they would use only in the direst of situations unless overwhelmingly supported by the public. (“It’s a great trick, but I can only do it once”)
An elected head of state is usually a recycled politician - quite capable, as Israel and Italy have shown, of worse behaviour than the royals… Plus for being elected, may take a more selfish view of their powers or mandate to stick their nose in government business. Would the UK really want a “President Boris Johnson” as head of state 10 years from now?
The royals at least have (usually) been willing to live up to the burden dumped on them by inheritance. Along with the yacht and the Rolls and servants come 300 days a year of cutting ribbons and making speeches. It may be something politicians also seek, but at least unlike the royals they can do their 10 years or so and retire.
I dunno. There are more countries of which Queen Elizabeth used to be queen than there are countries of which she is still queen, so obviously lots of countries have found this particular constitutional reform worth the bother.
As for . . .
. . . the great majority - about 75% - of commonwealth countries don’t have the UK monarch as head of state, but instead have a president; in every case, a choice freely made. So all you’re really saying here is that the minority of Commonwealth countries which have chosen to retain the UK monarch as head of state don’t want to have a president, which is kind of tautologous; if they did want to have a president, then they wouldn’t be countries that have the UK monarch as their monarch.
It’s not clear why it would have been a disaster for them to make the opposing choice; the great majority of Commonwealth countries did make the opposing choice, and none of them ever found it so disastrous that they considered reversing it. Whereas there has been a steady stream of countries that initially adopt the UK monarch as head of state on independence, but later choose to become republics.
There are other options. For example, what if Canada patriated its monarchy? Just call in some minor Royal from somewhere and say, “You are now the occupant of the Maple Throne. These are your duties. Here are living quarters in Rideau Hall. Mind the huskies, dial 9 to get an outward line, and don’t forget to plug in the car.”
The easiest thing to do would be simply to declare that the Governor-General was head of state instead of the Queen. You wouldn’t even have to change the letterhead. This would avoid confusion from people expecting a president to be an executive officer instead of a figurehead.
So who appoints the Gov Gen in your proposal?
Yup, the change applies only to persons born after 28 October 2011. Succession to the Crown Act 2013 Which excludes Prince George, but it doesn’t make a difference for him.
Probably the Prime Minister, as is, de facto, already the case.
So that would require a constitutional amendment that:
1 abolished the monarchy;
2 makes the Gov Gen the head of state;
3 defines the tenure of the Gov Gen;
4 creates the office of the Prime Minister;
5 defines the powers of the Prime Minister, including the sole power to appoint the Gov Gen.
That’s an easy package of constitutional amendments to get through, especially since most of it would require unanimous consent of Parliament and all 10 provincial legislatures.
Easy-peasy!
Actually, it does apply to Prince George. He was born on 22 July 2013. As you say, it doesn’t make a difference for him, because he doesn’t have an older sister.
Not as a matter of law, no, but if the heir were just to leave the UK and say “I’m outta here!”, and refuse to exercise any of the monarch’s powers, they have effectively abdicated.
Yeah, at some point the Parliament/Government in the UK and the Realms would have to recognize there has been a constructive abdication and do something to make things more regular again.
That’s how Barbados did it. Their first president, Sandra Mason, was their last Governor-General.
There’s more to it than that. A huge amount of administrative and legal stuff, How the new President is to be elected. What staff they can have, what powers they will have and how they are to be funded.
That is just off the top of my head. I bet it would make Brexit look like a walk in the park.
A quick question about regnant/consort nomenclature.
Queen Elizabeth II is queen regnant, whereas Queen Camilla would be queen consort. What if Prince George married a woman named Elizabeth. Would that woman (the new queen consort) be known as Queen Elizabeth III?
I believe that only rulers get the Roman numerals. After all, Queen Elizabeth II’s mother (a Queen Consort) was also Queen Elizabeth, no numbers, and the reason that the current Queen is “II”, of course, isn’t her mother, but the first regnant Queen Elizabeth.
Indeed, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (her full title) is the obvious counter-example. Speaking of numerals, here’s an interesting bit: The numeral that a British monarch gets is the higher of the English and Scottish counts. So far, this rule has always applied with the effect that the English count got to make the call. It, however, there is ever another King James, it will be James VIII, after seven Jameses in Scotland (not counting the Old Pretender) and two in England.