I’m no royalist either, but it annoys me when the monarchy is seen as an English institution, as if James VI and his kingdom had been conquered by the English.
I became particularly beetroot-like a few years ago when there was a controversy over Princess Anne singing “Flower of Scotland” at a rugby match; this was seen as “betraying the memory of her ancestor Edward I” or some bollocks. What about the memory of her other ancestor Robert the Bruce?
A further quick question: I saw a little bit of a tv program over the weekend that looked back at the Queen Mother’s life (hey, I was too lazy to find the remote and change the channel). The programme claimed that the Queen Mother was the last Queen of the Commonwealth who also held the title of Empress. Is that correct?
Until 1948, she was married to the Emperor of India (in addition to his other titles). For some reason, George IV didn’t get around to removing that title from himself until the year after India and Pakistan became independent countries. So the dear departed Queen Mother would have been the last empress of India.
That’s right. We chatted about it last fall in this thread.
**
So if I understand correctly, Canada (not to mention Tuvalu) has veto power over any change in succession? Or does the fact that this is merely the preamble of the rather than the body, give the UK parliament a way to weasel out? Anyway, isn’t it impossible for the UK parliament to act unconstitutionally? I know, so many questions.
Ok, one more, lest any one hijack take precedence: If those radicals in Westminster insisted on William’s firstborn daughter becoming queen, while the other stodgy Commonwealth realms recognized Bill’s secondborn (a son), would it be a case of might makes right for Guernsey’s constitutional crisis?
“These are deep waters, Watson.”
I don’t know that there’s a clear answer to the question. My take on it is that ultimately, each Commonwealth country has the power to decide for itself:
a) whether it wants to keep the monarchy;
b) the associated legal issues around the monarchy, including the law of succession.
The Statute of Westminster sets out the constitutional convention dealing with the succession: that all the Commonwealth countries should agree on any changes. But if push came to shove, any Commonwealth country could go it alone. Canada could, in theory, make Justin Trudeau the King of Canada. If Canada did so, it might jeopardise its standing in the Commonwealth, but that would be a decision for Canada to make.
So, I would say that it’s not that each country has a veto on any changes to the succession; it’s that for the monarchy to continue to be the unifying symbol of the Commonwealth, each country should agree to any changes to the succession. If all the Commonwealth realms except for Tuvalu agree to change the terms of the succession, but Tuvalu insisted on keeping the current order, then the question would be: do we change the order, and lose Tuvalu as a member, or do we not change it, keep Tuvalu in, and hope the Tuvaluians change their mind in the future?
It’s quite possible for a Commonwealth country to be a monarchy and to have its own monarch, not the Queen of the UK. Tonga is an example.
In theory it’s possible for Canada or Australia or whoever to make a law altering the succession to the Canadian or Australian throne so that someone might become king or queen who did not become king or queen of the UK – say, Princess Ann instead of Prince Charles. But it’s at least possible that Princess Ann would decline to accept, and in any event it seems a very unlikely step. The only possible reason why Canada or Australia might want a member of the House of Windsor on the throne is to preserve a link with the UK/the Commonwealth, i.e. a common monarch with the UK and other Commonwealth countries. If they decide they don’t want to do this, the obvious course of action is to become a Republic or, if they really, really want to remain a monarchy, to find a native monarch.
I, for one, support this last option. These days a monarch is an excellent tourist draw and I know I’d get on a plane to go see the court protocol of a dinkum Aussie king.
Of course, I can’t imagine the Aussies would go for hereditary succession. Maybe it would be possible for them to set up a periodic royal lottery. Any Australian citizen could win a term as the monarch with a scratch-off ticket.
“Scratch, scratch, scratch.”
“Bloody hell! Oi, Sheila, we’re off to Surfer’s Paradise. I’m the King!”
[Surely, the Australians wouldn’t put the Royal Palace in Canberra–who would take the heavy burden of the crown under those conditions?]
Nah, with such a random method you might end up with a dull, boring king. What would be the point?
I favour the selection of Dame Edna Everage.
I’ve actually heard when she were to leave the post (by whatever means), Charles has considered directly abdicating to William without ever wearing the crown himself. True?
Esprix
Abdication involves giving up the birthright of your heirs, too, so that would be daft. Besides, once you start messing around with the rules of succession, you could end up unravelling the whole thing.
Talk of skipping generations comes from the press, not the Palace. Why would the Queen want to “retire” and pass the crown on? That would be pointless - if her duties get too much for her, then Charles can take over most of them without becoming King. In fact, he can take over pretty much all of them if he is made Prince Regent. Remember that when George III went a bit bonkers, his son took over his job but was not made King.
This is correct - Mary (mother of George VI, i.e. the Queen Mum’s mother-in-law) kept the title of Queen Mary following the death of her husband, George V.
Haven’t you heard - Her Maj has given birth to an heir. It was only 50 years ago, mind you, so the news might not have got around yet.
But if Prince Philip outlived the Queen, then he would remain known as the Duke of Edinburgh.
Then I suppose I chose the wrong word, but I’m sure you understand my meaning. Surely upon Queen Elizabeth’s death, Charles has the option of saying, “No, thanks - here, give it to William instead?”
Esprix
It’s possible - Parilament can, when needs be, declare whoever they want as King. But like I say, messing around with succession rules is dodgy.
Of course, the Queen could end up outliving Charles anyway; just look how long her Mum went on for.
And, as I’ve pointed out in previous threads, it is extremely unlikely, at this stage, that the Queen would wish to see Prince William become king. The Queen was only 26 when she succeeded and still had a young family. It has plausibly been suggested that she would have preferred to have waited until she was a bit older before succeeding. As it is, William is even younger and unmarried. The pressures on him are bad enough without giving him ‘the top job’ just yet.
All the indications are that the Queen intends to continue in the job until she dies. One view is that she regards her coronation oath as a sacred vow before God which can only be ended by death. This is, of course, pretty much how the oath was traditionally interpreted. More prosaically, there are, as I suggested above, no pressing practical reasons for her to abdicate in favour of someone else. Few would now begrudge her going into semi-retirement by reducing the number of her public engagements, but that would not be abdication and she would still be Queen in name and in practice.
The only real argument in favour of an abdication is that it would give Charles a shot at becoming king before he turns into an old man. That however presupposes that he is desparate to become king. As Charles himself has pointed out in the past, he would, if anything, have less influence as king than he has as Prince of Wales. At present he can voice his opinions on a wide range of subjects in a way that he won’t be able to do as king. His mother might have her weekly chats with Tony Blair, but what Charles can say in public on, for example, the current state of British farming often has a bigger impact.
The Royal Family’s long-term game plan is obvious enough. Now that the Queen Mother is dead, the Queen can unambiguously assume the role of national matriarch who enjoys the quiet respect of most of her subjects. As there are some (a small but vocal minority) who still assume that Charles’s accession will be controversial, there is little point in bringing it forward. Far better to wait for events to take their natural course, especially as few would want to question the suitability of the new king if his accession took place amidst national mourning for his mother. (The death of the Queen Mother is providing wonderful PR for the monarchy and it is likely that the death of the Queen would do the same.) Charles would then, as king, have the perfect chance to prove his critics wrong.
Allow me to beat this dead horse once more. The prevailing theory at present is that each Commonwealth realm can set its own rules for succession should it choose. However, outside of the UK, I doubt any have actively set up any such formal law or process. So what action must be taken in each country to affirm their recognition of the monarch? How, for instance, did Ottawa recognize the Queen in 1953? A congratulatory letter from the PM? A resolution in Parliament?
Suppose, for instance, that Elizabeth abdicates. Charles becomes King. Shortly after, it comes out that Elizabeth stepped down as part of a complex scandal which deeply involved both Elizabeth and Charles, but also resulted in the UK choosing the loonie over the Euro as its currency. Outraged MPs in Westminster depose Charles and annoint the untainted William. Canadians, or the other hand, stand firm in their support for Charles. Most other members of the Commonwealth, wanting nothing to do with this scandal, are happy to have William.
What must be done in Wellington or Canberra to recognize and accept William as their new monarch? And is it correct that Ottawa technically needs do nothing extraordinary for its recognition of King Charles to continue? Finally, if Charles chooses to step down as monarch, it’s been noted that he is king of each of these various countries. Must he step down from each of them individually? Could he choose to abdicate in all countries but Canada and maybe a couple island vacation spots?
Two comments:
If for some reason everyone in succession died until you were left with Zara, would she be forced to change her name before assuming the throne? Brits seem to have a hang up over non traditional names. Are there any laws that bar a royal couple from giving their child a name that hasn’t been used 14 times already in their family alone, like “Monique” or “Dax”? Even “Lauryn” or “Keith” would be a radical deviation at this point.
I am so glad I don’t live under a monarchy. This is confusing as hell. (But interesting.) Is it true they don’t have to pay income tax?
The monarchy tends towards traditional names, but only because it’s a traditional institution. Also, when a monarch with a particular name takes the throne, that name gets a general boost in popularity - “Elizabeth” was a pretty obscure Biblical name until Elizabeth I’s time; now it’s a traditional English name. So, no, there is no formal barrier to “Queen Zara”.
AFAIR, the Queen currently pays income tax, but by a voluntary arrangement; most of the minor royals don’t, in fact, receive payments via the Civil List, but live off the income from family estates (Prince Charles, I believe, derives his income from the Duchy of Cornwall). The monarchy really isn’t all that pricey to run; it costs about £30 million a year - which is not much when you’re talking government expenditure, though there are many who say it’s £30 million that could go to more deserving causes…
The queen and monarch still have considerable power. They choose not to exercise it.
For good reason. In th 80’s (I believe) she was Queen of Fiji. The local Fijians were now a minority in their own country and lost the elections to the decendents of Hindu immigrants. The Fijians invalidated the elections, the Queen quite uncharacteristicly (Sp?) interferred and well…now Fiji is a republic.
The Queen also caused a minor flack in the 80s when asked if she would step down she replied no, this is not the Netherlands.
Question though. I read back when the heir had to be legitimate (those wacky royals were apparently FUN). Is this still true
Don’t they also have to be Anglican?
The queen and monarch still have considerable power. They choose not to exercise it.
For good reason. In th 80’s (I believe) she was Queen of Fiji. The local Fijians were now a minority in their own country and lost the elections to the decendents of Hindu immigrants. The Fijians invalidated the elections, the Queen quite uncharacteristicly (Sp?) interferred and well…now Fiji is a republic.
The Queen also caused a minor flack in the 80s when asked if she would step down she replied no, this is not the Netherlands.
Question though. I read back when the heir had to be legitimate (those wacky royals were apparently FUN). Is this still true
Don’t they also have to be Anglican?
And if we make Justin Trudeau King, I want to be Duke of Toronto and Lord of the Islands.
I will rule the Greater Toronto Area from my estate in Rosedale, and bang some sense into local affairs… funding transit, schools, and housing, if necessary, from the profits of the off-shore banking haven I will establish on the Lesle Street Spit.
Take that, Mel*! 
*Mel Lastman, Mayor of Toronto