Elizabeth II appointed fourteen prime ministers (and inherited one, Churchill, from her dad). If subsequent PMs average about as long a tenure as Truss, Charles will surpass EIIR in July 2024 (and the next general election isn’t required to be called until January 2025).
(Technically, she appointed 15; Harold Wilson had two separate tenures. Another 45 days would mean Charles surpasses her in Sept 2024, still in plenty of time.)
If he really wants to have fun, he could unilaterally declare that nobody has the ability to command a majority in the House of Commons and force a general election. Start (and possibly end) his reign with a bang.
Would he be legally competent to take such a measure? (I know that the UK doesn’t have a written constitution and often these matters are blurry)
The Conservatives just won a hotly contested vote in the Commons that had a three line whip, so a confidence measure. No basis for the King to declare the govt doesn’t have confidence of the Commons.
Sorry, what does a three line whip mean?
Originally it meant that the vote in question was underlined three times in the business paper they receive each week. It is probably an email these days. Party discipline is much stronger in the Westminster system; defying the three-line whip is tantamount to secession from the party, temporarily at any rate.
No, not now. But it’s pretty chaotic and you can see the Tory party tearing themselves apart in short order. I am 99% kidding but there is a substantial popular demand for an election and and a decent argument that if the Tories are going to go against their manifesto then they’re not legitimate; this is the grey area in which a constitutional monarch has some actual power (although if he used it, it might well be the end of that power).
Ref the three-line whip, it seems rather unclear to the UK Doperati whether the whip was actually in effect for the vote. It seems to have been in place earlier in the day, then withdrawn, then hastily reinstated perhaps too late to be effective?
The relevant bit of the discussion picks up about here:
Peering into that less-than-clear water looking for clarity on whether this was a validly binding vote of confidence is IMO a mug’s game. Although I graciously and utterly defer to your far, far greater knowledge on all matters of UK & Canadian governance.
The week is yet young.
I do respect the many UK & Canadian folks who’ve suggested that any attempt by Charles to execute the overtly political act of dissolving Parliament would be the end of his reign, if not of the very monarchy itself. Almost(?) regardless of the severity of the situation that might have led to such a momentous decision.
From my distant observation post it seems like one of the key functions of the Monarchy is to be able to break the sort of impasses Britain may soon come to, where the clowns have comprehensively taken over the car and are driving with evident malice towards the cliff.
There were certainly moments in Trump’s first term where I’d wished we had somebody normally sitting benignly above the vulgar brawl we call politics but also with the power and respect to shout “You! Out of the pool!” and have it stick once things get / got too outré.
But when you decide who this person would be through generic lottery, you run good odds of ending up with a Trump or a Trump Enabler in that role. Instead of ordering the clowns out of the car, your ruler might order everyone who isn’t a clown out.
Of course that is the risk. Over the long haul of world history, a risk that has matured way too many times for anyones’ comfort.
At the same time, I doubt too many Britons thought QE2 was much of a risk for that particular failure were push come to shove in UK politics. I’m not close enough to the situation to know how they think / feel about Charles, but my bet is the apple has landed not too far from the tree, albeit a bit downhill.
The tradition is that heads of state don’t attend. (The famous exception in 1953 was Queen Sālote, but that was because Tonga was sort-of a British protectorate.) The line-up of foreign dignitaries will therefore be nowhere near as impressive as that at the Queen’s funeral. It will be more spouses, heirs, vice-presidents etc. The heads of government will be mostly those from Commonwealth countries.
Speaking as a Yank who strives to gain a bit of working knowledge from the SDMB both about the UK parliamentary system and about the game Mornington Crescent I find it easy to forget which thread I am in.
Just keep in mind that the express train to Tooting Bec is out of service whenever a three-line whip is in effect, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an unmarried Protestant or at least three opposition MPs are in Nidd.
True.
But as long as a majority of the MPs elected by the people vote to keep the Government in office, there is no constitutional crisis. It may be a political crisis, but that is for the elected MPs to resolve, not His Majesty.
What would trigger a constitutional crisis would be if the King were to dissolve Parliament when a majority of the elected MPs supported the government. (or alternatively, if the King refused to dissolve Parliament if a majority of the elected MPs voted non-confidence in the Government).
As long as a majority of the elected MPs have confidence in the government, that is the will of the people through their representatives, even if the majority is making what some may say is a phenomenally bad choice. It is not the function of the monarch to intervene and override the majority of the democratically elected MPs.
At the moment, there is no impasse. The Government has the confidence of the House of Commons.
I’m afraid that’s true, as clearly bad as it is for the UK in the short term.
You’ve forgotten the Beckington Accords of 1973. What you say is true under a Labor government, but the Tories are in charge now. So, it’s Shepherd’s Bush that is out of service, unless the Home Secretary was born in Luton in which case it’s Shepherd’s Bush Market. As there isn’t a Home Secretary at the moment, the situation is, currently, unresolved. Best to treat them both as out of bounds.
And I’ll stop and show myself out…
Do I still have to move my brother’s clothes to the lower peg?
No no no. You only have to move your brother’s clothes to the lower peg if you are NOT getting your hair cut, and he is the guest of another boy who has ALREADY written his note home. It’s perfectly simple. Now go and get your chit signed.
Is this going to be on the test, sir?
Anyone who’s done a tour of Buckingham Palace will note that the state rooms open to the public are the absolute opposite of cheap. The royal living quarters aren’t open to the public, but you can be sure they’re just as extravagant as the deceased Queen would have wanted them to be.