They can’t retire but they can abdicate; it’s extremely rare, though.
Charles the I of Castille, V of Navarra, I of Aragon, V of Germany and lots of other numbers from other places did, about two years before his death. But he was almost immobilized by gout and wanted to have time to meditate and pray before the reaper arrived.
There’s cases in Spanish history of kings being forced to abdicate by parliament, kings being declared uncapable by parliament (Sancho el Craso of Navarra was one of them: he was so fat he couldn’t even walk, once he got his weight down to normal size he got the throne back but with the caveat that if he started inflating again off you go “and this time it’s forever”), kings abdicating but being told by parliament that they weren’t accepting it…
Who needs soap operas when you have history books.
[QUOTE=KrokodilIf the subjects got to pick the new monarch, the job would probably go to someone like David Beckham or Eric Clapton. The ruled aren’t wise enough to choose properly, so they’re not part of the process. I’m not saying this is a good thing, just that that’s how it is.[/QUOTE]
Hey, I’m starting to think you guys may be onto something over there. In 2004, our country had to choose between George W. “Warmonger” Bush and John “Spineless Ameoba” Kelly. Talk about a choice that shakes your faith in democracy.
You might have taken a look at John “Volunteered for Vietnam” Kerry, who was also on the ballot that year. I’ll admit neither of those two guys you mention sound very appealing.
The Canada Act was an Act of British Parliament. But the article is unclear whether the Queen signed the Canada Act or the Constitution Act(the corresponding bill in Canada) or both.
It’s only anti-democratic if your political system was founded upon rejection of monarchy in favour of democracy. In the case of England/the UK, democracy developed as a partner to monarchy. Republicanism is not the only form of democracy.
[Rilchiam]
Unpleasant? she shagged Charlie boy knowing full well he was married.
Admittedly Diana wasn’t the most beautiful woman on earth by any stretch of the imagination but she had something with CPB hasn’t.
CPB looks FAR worse than the average female never mind Briton.
Strewth, gimme a break here, she’s an ugly bastard for sure.
You don’t perchance fancy her do you
I’m not actively comparing the British monarchy to America’s model-- God knows we’re fucked up enough. I just feel that the symbolism of monarchy is shockingly anti-populistic for what is otherwise a fairly egalitarian society.
And more importantly, on the day she delivered that address, she was the finest woman on the face of the damned planet. I saw footage of her doing the broadcast, and she was so freaking beautiful. And not beautiful in a “I have a team of people making six figures to keep me looking this good” Princess Diana way. She just looked healthy, intelligent, young and earnest. And had a killer body, as has been noted.
I’ve seen a photograph of HRH Queen Elizabeth’s coronation portrait, and she was very beautiful.
I don’t consider Camilla attractive at all - she’s ugly and I don’t like the fact that she destroyed Charles’ marriage. But I never considered old what’s her name - the one Edward abdicated for - to be attractive either.
I’m not British and don’t remember the details, but when Charles married old horse-face wasn’t it made very clear that she would never be named Queen?
Wasn’t Diana shagging that other household cavelry guy James Hewitt and likely several other guys? It seems likely those events occured after Charles and Camilla were doing the dirty, but still…
IMHO Charles doesn’t have the character to be King, and he doesn’t have the respect of the people either. As mentioned earlier, the Monarchy will be on very rocky ground after Her Maj dies, and it must fall to a dynamic, younger, royal to forge a new monarchy for the 21st century. And Britain needs a monarchy: it is an essential bulwark against politicians abusing our democracy. The monarch can always say, “No.” This would prompt a constitutional crisis, of course, but the mere fear of it prevents excesses.
Charles is OK. A bit of a buffoon but an amiable one - a long way from being the worst or the dimmest royal of all time.
And Camilla’s not that bad-looking in a typical tweedy upper-crust sort of way (Though the wedding hat was a bit unfortunate. It looked like a suicidal pheasant had dived into her head.). She seems to have more brains than the late Di, too. Mind you there was *vegetation * that had more brains than the late Di…
In the past, neither of these two issues has stopped any number of crappy leaders from assuming their hereditary title. It’s the main problem with a monarchy in the first place.
Do you really believe this? When was the last time a British monarch contravened an act of the elected legislature? Do you really think anyone would care or act if she tried it today? Seriously; if QE II were to declare martial law tomorrow and order the army to seize all the members of Parliament, I would think the response would be her quick and quiet removal to a mental institution. I’m not British, obviously, but I thought of the modern monarch’s power as token at best.
Really, the only time when a British monarch is going to have to make a real decision is when it’s not certain which MP controls a majority in the Commons. That’s only likely to happen in two situations:
(1) When no party has a majority after an election.
(2) When a PM dies suddenly, and the PM’s party has no clear way of electing or choosing a leader.
Situation (2) used to happen with the Tories, but they now elect their leaders like normal political parties do.
But in any case, the potential PMs just have to put forward their case to the monarch that (with minor party support if necessary) they can command a majority. Then Parliament is convened, and their claims are tested. Charles may be a bit unpopular, but I suspect that he’s capable of carrying out this role.
In the other realms ruled by the British monarch, the main role is appointing a Governor-General on the advice of the monarch’s ministers in those realms. And that should not be a very difficult task either.
In situation (1), the monarch is going to have to do a certain amount of evaluating who has the
Previously it was the Lords that took the flack for this; now they’re largely just a bunch of appointed political hacks and failures. Occasionally they flicker into life.
The Monarch’s refusal of assent is quite real. That it hasn’t happenned shows one of the strengths of our system. It prevents the Prime Minister from becoming a dictator. The success of a refusal would depend on the people. A silly refusal, would, as you suggest, end with the deposition of the monarch; a popular refusal - say Tony Blair decided to expel all moslems - would lead to the fall of the government.
Anybody who knows anything about Australian history would agree that if anybody had a right to dislike the Queen, it would be the sacked former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam (the Queen’s boy the Governor-General did this in her name), and yet he describes her as “the greatest statesman in the world”. I don’t much care for Whitlam, but he’s right on this one. Queen Elizabeth is dowdy and boring, but she is intelligent, experienced, and does her job exceedingly well. Personally, were I a royal, I’d prefer to be a minor one, and not have the endless round of boring engagements, but Elizabeth remains extremely up to the task.
That said, I don’t mind Charles. I think that when he gets his shot at the top job, he’ll do it in his own style, and will indeed surprise people. It will be a short reign, and he will try to do it with the romance he seems to enjoy, but I don’t think he’ll do anything too over the top and eccentric.
I can’t help picturing a time in the future when it’s ten years into William’s reign, and he’s extremely loved, but also a bit of a hot shot party boy, and people will (even secretly) fondly remember the uneventful, yet flowery, reign of Charles. I think he’ll be a bit like Victoria in that. She apparently loved all the pomp and ceremony, and so will Charles. He’ll spend a few years going about in gold coaches saying “How do you do?” to commoners, giving out a lot of titles, and he’ll be good enough at it.
