That’s close to what the Australian government proposed, and the Australian voters rejected.
@penultima_thule knows more than me about it.
What would have to happen for an upcoming British monarch to not be of House (Mountbatten-) Windsor?
Or at least, they don’t have to.
Princess Anne’s son goes by Peter Phillips.
His father is Mark Phillips.
Anne specifically requested that her kids not be given titles
A “Name” (Windsor, Phillips, Harkonnen) cannot be the same thing as a title. Like regarding those Mozzi and Hanover people which have been mentioned: their Houses/dynasties may be extant, but they have no noble titles because there is no such thing as an Italian or German Count or Prince.
That might be tough to do. The 1701 Act of Settlement is pretty explicit that Sophia, Electress of Hanover (and George I’s mother) was the legitimate heir; I thought that it also spelled out that only her descendants would be able to take the throne, though now I can’t see that, at least not in the excerpt on Wikipedia.
In any case, I suspect it would be tough for Parliament to come up with an excuse to name someone else the sovereign. And with something like 5,000 legitimate descendants, it’s not like they’ll run out of options any time soon.
Parliament includes the King.
If the King is not involved, it’s not Parliament.
The two houses, acting without the King, can’t do whatever they want and can’t pass a law, because they aren’t Parliament. By themselves, they don’t have the authority to amend an existing law of Parliament, like the Act of Settlement.
Not saying the two houses couldn’t do something to change the succession, like they did in 1688. But they’re not Parliament, and it would be a revolutionary action. They would need strong political support from the people to do so. Not saying that can’t happen; maybe at some point it will.
No, we rejected the presented republican model, and the alternatives because we couldn’t agree what powers the President should have vis-à-vis the Prime Minister. A rather more important question.
That model, known as the McGarvie model, was presented as a viable option and had some, but insufficient support. Indeed I am a card carrying member.
No. Australians wanted a less Presidential model. And in the aftermath of the republican high water mark, which was way back in 1999, the ARM movement is currently moribund and couldn’t win a chook raffle.
For those wanting the indulgence, my previous post on the Australian Constitutional Convention, 1998 and subsequent lost referendum.
Thanks for coming in. I knew I wouldn’t get it all right.
The bottom line for both Oz and Canuckistan is these two questions:
Q1: “Should we get rid of the monarchy and become a republic?”
A1: “Sure, sounds good, outmoded colonial institution, let’s go for it!”
Q2: “What do we replace it with?”
A2: “Ummm … can we get back to you on that?”
In a nutshell. 
I’ve seen several references in this thread to the “British Constitution” which is sort of problematical. There is not a single document called the “British Constitution”. It’s a corpus of written and unwritten law.
This would seem to allow some slop in “interpreting” the laws of succession.
One thing a lot of out-of-power monarchies have is when the claimant changes the rules of succession without approval of the no longer involved (if existing at all) legislative body.
I think people can play games with UK succession rules in a similar manner. Declaring old acts of succession invalid for some made up reason and so on. After all there is no supreme constitutional document that spells it all out.
It’s true that there’s not a single document called the British Constitution, but that doesn’t mean Britain does not have a constitution at all. It is spread across numerous statutes as well as unwritten conventions, but a body of law called constitutional law surely exists in the UK. And one of its central rules is the sovereignty of Parliament, which means nobody other than Parliament can invalidate an Act of Parliament - including those acts that define the succession to the throne.
If you are out of power, the only way to claim the throne is the hard way, by force of arms, or the harder way, gain the support of the people and of Parliament. But that goes for literally anybody.
Nope, that’s not how the British system works. An Act of Parliament is law unless and until Parliament amends or repeals it. The King has no power to repeal or amend a statute unilaterally.
The governing precedent for that is when King Charles I’s head landed in the basket.
I was talking about non-Royal powers in this particular aspect.
What would such non-royal powers be, or which non-royal actors are you thinking of who would, supposedly, annul the rules of succession? The courts? They’ve consistently held that they cannot strike down Acts of Parliament. There’s no UK equivalent to Marbury v. Madison. Granted, sometimes they play with it - in cases such as Anisminic, when they did not strike down an Act of Parliament that they didn’t like but interpreted it very narrowly. But the acts that govern succession are pretty unambiguous in their wording.
Yes, I agree with Schnitte. Please identify these non-Royal powers who can ignore an Act of Parliament in the British system?
But the king has to assent to what Pariiament agrees to. How is Parliament ever acting without the king if the king is required to just be a rubber stamp?
I was responding to the earlier discussion where the Commons and the Lords were equated to Parliament. Those two chambers, by themselves, are not Parliament. Parliament is made up of King, Lords and Commons.
Yes, the King normally grants royal assent. But what if he doesn’t?
The English precedent is the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The Commons and the Lords convened themselves, without a monarch, James II having fled. They voted to offer the Crown to William and Mary, to rule jointly. W&M accepted the offer, on the terms and conditions set out by the Commons and the Lords, and then became monarchs.
That was a revolutionary break, where the constitution was changed by the two houses acting without a monarch.
If the Commons and the Lords today voted for Britain to become a republic, and the King consents to that bill, that would be a constitutional change, but one within the scope of the existing constitutional framework.
But if the King refused royal assent, my guess would be that the Commons and Lords would proclaim the republic anyway, and assume sole legislative power. That would be a revolutionary break, changing the constitutional structure in a way contrary to the existing constitutional norms.
I believe when choosing a regnal name, the monarch can choose whatever name they want. It doesn’t have to be a birth name.