I wasn’t saying that they were blocking parliament, but were using the reserve powers, independently of the premiers, and in the BC case, actually refusing the advice tendered by her premier.
His brother Takahito (aka Mikasa, after a title granted to him by his father in accordance with the Japanese custom of not using people’s personal names) was. Not only Hebrew but Middle Eastern studies more generally. The author name under which he was published in the West was “H.I.H. [His Imperial Highness] Prince Takahito Mikasa”.
Heh. There are not going to be any imperial highnesses or princes in any journal I’m editing. You are free to make up a name from scratch, though (but no Sargon the Great Deum Gratia, please.)
But technically, they were following parliamentary protocol and tradition. Tradition says that when the primary winner fails to round up a majority confidence in a reasonable time after an election, that the next largest party gets to try, and so on down the line until nobody is left and there is no hope of any party getting a vote of confidence. Tradition also says that it is unreasonable except in extreme circumstances to have back-to-back elections. Indeed, in situations where the government has been threatened to fall, the general rule of thumb I always saw discussed in the press is that at least 6 months, or sometimes around 9 months, between elections. (After all, this is Canada, not Israel). Otherwise, the opposition gets a chance to form a government.
actually refusing the advice tendered by her premier.
There’s nothing in the rules of politics that say a premier can’t give bad or incorrect “advice” to advance their own cause. (indeed, we expect no less) The parliamentary tradition is that the GG or LG can turn it down if it runs contrary to accepted tradition.
In 2008, PM Harper avoided facing a non-confidence vote by having the GG prorogue parliament. Otherwise, 2 months after an election, the opposition coalition would have most certainly been asked to form a government instead. General wisdom was that the PM was within his rights to ask for prorogue (any repercussions would be political not constitutional), but would not have been within his rights to ask for an election if he were defeated, instead of giving the opposition a chance. (Intimations in press were that he would demand an election and the GG would be within her rights to refuse)
When I talk of “nuclear option” I mean using the powers of the office in a way that defeats the purpose and spirit of democracy. The GG at the time, Ed Schreyer, admits that when Trudeau (the other one) was ramming through the new constitution without buy-in from some provinces or the opposition, he (Schreyer) contemplated refusing to sign it into law. The tradition is the GG does not block legislation.
Similarly, there was a constitutional crisis in Australia in 1975 where the GG basically fired and replaced the prime minister. This is something the GG or crown technically has the power to do but by tradition does not stick their nose into. It apparently did come close to ending the concept of a governor general, a true “nuclear option”.
They also agreed to enact the rules of succession as official law in their countries,because the succession laws of the UK could be said to be common law in the countries involved…
Oh yeah, there is another type of queen called Dowager Queen. This refers to a Queen consort or Queen regent, who effectively becomes Queen regnant as the accepted Monarch… … China had an Empress who could be called in English “Dowager Empress” , she was consort, and then regent for her son but then took the full power herself., deposing her own son.
Your definition of dowager is incorrect. A dowager is the widow of a regnant, like Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.
in an SF series, I used to read the UK had dissolved the monarchy and had a “lord protector” would that title actually be used again?
That’s the title Oliver Cromwell used.
Yup, the use of “lord protector” in some SF stories as the title for the leader of a fictional republican Britain comes from Cromwell, who styled himself thus. In reality, his Commonwealth government wasn’t any less monarchical than the monarchy he had overthrown - Cromwell held the office for life, was explicitly given power to choose his own successor, and used this power to nominate his son. So a monarchy in all but name. But nominally it was a republic, and that’s where SF writers get the idea for this title.
The title Lord Protector was used in medieval England when the king was underage, and someone had to be appointed to rule until he became an adult.
Is that different than a regent?
Not really. The Lord Protector was always just one person, whereas a regency can be vested either in an individual or a group (a regency council, for example).
After Cromwell used the title “Lord Protector”, that seems to have eclipsed the older sense of a Lord Protector as someone who governs on behalf of the king, rather than instead of any king. So the next time the occasion arose - when George III was ill - his son was referred to as the Prince Regent, not as the Lord Protector.
When Henry VI of England came to the throne in 1422 as an infant, his uncle Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, acted as his Lord Protector in England while his uncle John, Duke of Bedford acted as his regent in France. So at that stage the titles may have been more or less interchangeable.