Not going to happen. Parliament tolerates the monarchy only on the condition that the monarch doesn’t get involved in decision making. Any attempt by a king or queen to change that would lead in short order to the Republic of Britain.
Sorry, that was in reply to Zcrysis.
Not exactly: one of the reasons the Monarchy is still here is to prevent the Government going beserk. The Monarch can still refuse to assent to any legislation. This will provoke a constitutional crisis of course, but it is something both sides wish to avoid.
The problem is how. You couldn’t legislate the creation of the republic, as all legislation is passed by King [or Queen]-in-Parliament. You’re effectively forced to resort to a revolution of some sort. Considering there hasn’t been one in Britain since Cromwell its a far fetched proposition. As Quartz said this would cause a constitutional crisis, and the problem is that there is no way to resolve said constitutional crisis. The assent has only really become a formality under Elizabeth, previous monarchs were much more actively involved in the legislative process, and threatened vetoes on numerous occasions. The only solace in that situation is that the last actual veto occured almost 200 years ago.
The problem with the uncodified british constitution is that numerous powers still reside in the crown, in the form of royal perogatives, and these are exercised by HM ministers only with her consent. In formal situations these orders are actually effected by Crown in the form of an order-in-council acting on the advise of HM ministers. The crown can use these powers by itself again if it chose to. Typical examples are the royal assent, and the summoning and dissolution of parliament. If a monarch refuses to grant assent, and then being threatened by parliament, dissolved it, the monarch would have done nothing legally wrong. The trial in the court of public opinion would be much harsher, but if say Charles were to veto greater european integration or ID cards, he might suddenly find himself with a lot of supporters.
Charles sees himself as having an active role in the guidence of his country, and does not believe his mothers passive role is the proper position for the monarch. He doesn’t believe hes some god-guided divine right monarch or anything of that nature, but he does see the Crown as having an important duty to check parliaments extremes. Given such a role, I think the constitutional crisis is inevitable.
Charles, intriguingly, is the first person in well over a hundred years who will (presuming he survives his mother) take the throne having been trained from earliest childhood in the duties of the Monarchy.
While Edward VII was heir apparent from his birth, George V was Bertie’s second son, the first having died before Victoria died. Then Edward VIII abdicated after less than a year, leaving George V’s second son, another Bertie, to take the throne, unexpectedly, as George VI. And his daughter was something like eight when she became heiress presumptive to the throne.
Charles reportedly takes the job quite seriously, and spent a great deal of time in his college years and thereafter studying the life of George III, his assets and liabilities, including careful study of The Idea of a Citizen King, St. John’s essay which influenced George III profoundly.
Perhaps Charles will actually be a “not bad at all, really” King, if not a downright “well he’s doing a rather nice job of it, isn’t he?!” King.
I have no idea; though my siblings are fonder of the idea of William becoming King, I’m not convinced this would be such a good move (constitutional/legal battles notwithstanding). My perception is that William would become more of a media property than even his mother was, and that can’t be good for a reigning Monarch. I might be a lone voice on this one, but I’d actually like to see the next Monarch become more involved politically - certainly not to any extreme, but definitely moreso than our current head, Liz. It’ll be interesting, at any rate - assuming Lilibet doesn’t outlive Charles (and why King George vs King Charles, out of curiosity? Admittedly my own knowledge of my native history is a smidge lacking and thus any input would of course be greatly appreciated).
Charles I was beheaded by parliament for high treason, and Charles II spent a considerable time in exile before becoming King after the end of Cromwells dictatorship. Its just not been a very auspicious name for english kings.
Curious American checking in here. I don’t know how Charles will do as King; I lost all respect for him a while ago. I don’t want to hijack this thread, but how do you feel William will do when he becomes King?
I think that’s one of the reasons he wants to go by George. (Much as the previous George chose “George” so as not to go by his first name, Albert, which Queen Victoria had said she did not want any future king to go by; and as his mother, Queen Mary, chose that name rather than her first name, Victoria.)
If a King has lost even the right to change his own name without parliamentary consent then he may as well just give up the crown right now and invest in large tracts of land.
I’m pretty sure he can choose his own regnal name. And they do own large tracts of land, the revenue from which is turned over to the British government.
Actually, the Royal family does in fact own quite a bit of stuff that isn’t really the property of the government, including some very lucrative real estate in downtown London. Even if you were to take away all the things that are “owned by the monarch but really by all of Britain if you know what I mean,” Elizabeth and her brood would be incredibly loaded. Just the private trust funds for William and Harry are in the tens of millions.
So suppose Britain (I guess it wouldn’t be the ‘United Kingom’ anymore, would it?) decides to get rid of its monarchy.
Would that affect Canada or the other Commonwealth realms? Would Canada have a homeless King? Or would the GG get booted out of Rideau Hall?
I don’t think anyone’s certain. Since we’re a separate crown, theoretically the former British monarch would remain King or Queen of Canada until such time as the gummint decided to amend the constitution and make Canada a republic – which wouldn’t necessarily happen right away (it doesn’t seem quite right that another country could force our hand right that, does it?)
Reminds me of when the King of Portugal relocated his capital to Rio de Janeiro, owing to various unpleasantness in the home country.
If that happens, and William does a decent job, then I guess you could say that Charles already HAS made a pretty good King…
I humbly withdraw my previous assertion that we (Canada) are an autonomous collective… er, not under the authority of the monarchy. God save the Queen.
all grouchy now 