Well, it would be a niusance, certainly, to have to devote your time and attention to fundamental constitutional reconstruction simply because it has suited the people of an entirely different country to reconstruct their constitution.
But that’s a choice made when you decide to maintain a constitution dependent on the constitution of another country.
They wouldn’t have to debate whether they wanted a link to the Windsor monarchy or not; that possiblity would be pretty much off the table. What they’d have to debate is how to restate the role of the head of state in terms of the sovereignty of the people. They might choose to debate whether to give the head of state a new title (although “Governor-General” isn’t incompatible with republican government; the states of the American union all have Governors, after all), and they might choose to debate whether to alter the role of the head of state, or alter the relationship between the head of state and the head of government, but they wouldn’t have to enter on those questions if they weren’t disposed to.
There’s more than one Parliament now. The most recent change in law regarding the monarchy went through twelve parliaments altogether. Some of them might be persuaded in a more urgent situation that their legislative involvement is not strictly necessary, but that wouldn’t be possible in all of them.
Parliament still spends roughly a month dissolved before the election. There simply is no Parliament during that month. The same is the case for all the other parliaments that might need to be involved. Assuming twelve parliaments, about a month of dissolution at the end of each parliament, and an average term of four years, you’re looking at a couple of months each year where such legislation would find itself delayed.
I don’t know about other Commonwealth countries, but here in the UK, there is still government while the Commons is prorogued, and the Lords are still there.
Sorry to nitpick, but during an election period both the Lords and Commons are dissolved. Prorogation occurs between annual sessions where both Houses still exist but are not meeting.
There was more than one Parliament back in '36. Under the Statute of Westminster, the legislation effecting the abdication of Edward VIII couldn’t take effect in the Dominions without the consent of the Dominion concerned. Some Dominion governments took the view that they could give consent by executive action; others did not, and in the event there was legislation in Australia, the Irish Free State and South Africa.
The recent UK legislation altering the succession to the throne likewise required the consent of the Commonwealth realms. This was effected by legislation in Australia (which required legislation by each of the Australian state parliaments as well as the federal parliament), Barbados, Canada, New Zealand, St Kitts & Nevis and St Vincent & the Grenadines. The other Commonwealth realm’s constitutional arrangements enabled them to consent without legislation. The entire process took something like three-and-a-half years from the agreement to proceed until final implementation.
And that was just for a change in the rules of succession. A more fundamental change like, say, abolishing the monarchy would almost certainly require legislation in all Commonwealth realms.
I’m sure it wouldn’t fly politically, but Tuvalu’s constitution allows it to keep on going with the President of Britain becoming the sovereign of Tuvalu. It would be like Andorra, I guess. (I think the section* allowing that is meant so that a regency seamlessly applies to Tuvalu, but the wording is quite broad. I’m imagining an enemy army conquering Britain and its commander finding out that he has become King of Tuvalu.)
*“any person exercising the whole or the relevant part of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom…in accordance with the law in force in England”
I don’t know why Charles would not be right for the job. By all accounts he is a very bright fellow and has spent his entire life in preparation for succeeding his mother. I expect as the Queen’s health declines, he will take over more and more of her ceremonial duties so that when he finally becomes king, people won’t see much of a difference. As for abdication, no way. Edward VIII left such a sour taste that makes such a thing unthinkable for the foreseeable future.
You pretty much have it there. During his life he’s demonstrated that he’s not the right person for the job. He’s a pensioner now, and has failed the interview. As for abdication, that has worked well in the Netherlands, and he would be abdicating for the right reasons rather than the wrong ones.
My question is though if Charles continues expressing his opinion in public when he becomes king will parliment be willing to put up with it? If they do then the King suddenly has expanded his constitutional powers. If they don’t what option do they have if he refuses to step down?
Not really “expanding his constitutional powers” if he expresses an opinion - “goes beyond recent convention and risks weakening respect for his position” would be closer to the mark. Opinions, however and wherever expressed, can be ignored. Ministers would most likely resent any increase in badgering or nagging on particular issues, ordinary members of parliament would probably enjoy any excuse for outrage: but at what point there would be a critical mass or tipping point of exasperation among the Establishment is anybody’s guess. Probably never - what did for Edward VIII was a fatal combination of vanity, the risk that he might naively (and more dangerously, inconsistently) try to run his own foreign policy, and laziness over the traditional things he was expected to do but didn’t feel like doing at any given moment (his obsession with Mrs Simpson was a convenient lightning conductor for all of that). Charles isn’t that stupid.
The boundary would be open opposition to a particular Government policy proposition or bill before Parliament, open partisanship as between parties, and seeking to engage directly with public opinion on a matter of controversy coming before parliament. Merely seeking to promote his enthusiasms would only be an issue if it got across those limits.
They would probably do nothing. If he’s deemed incapable of doing his job a regency is a possibility - that is, he would remain nominally King while someone else does the job, most likely William. Abolishing the monarchy is vanishingly unlikely as a response to a minor squabble, as no-one has a particularly good suggestion of what to replace it with. It would take years of debate, and probably a referendum, before abolition became remotely feasible.
The primary job of the British monarch is to stand around looking ornamental when and where the British government tells him/her to. When the PM wants a royal to take a state visit to South Korea, or look formal in Serbia, or show up for the State Opening of Parliament in London, Charles has always been willing to take a state visit to South Korea, or look formal in Serbia, or show up for the State Opening of Parliament.
The second job of the British monarch is to appear as a representative of fairly non-controversial charitable endeavors. The Prince’s Trust is one of the larger charities in the UK, and seems to be pretty highly regarded for its work with disadvantaged youth. His involvement with breast cancer charities, wildlife conservation groups, the Clydesdale Horse Society, various ballet societies, military associations, etc., etc., etc., are very rarely particularly newsworthy, but they get him quite a lot of mostly favorable publicity among customers and connoisseurs of those particular groups.
Being always non-controversial is somewhere well down on the list of job duties. As long as he gets the big ones right, his apprenticeship is not a failure.
And abdication has a different resonance in the UK as it does in the Netherlands. 1936 casts a long shadow, but so does the different nature of the royal duty. The British monarch is crowned in an explicitly religious ceremony, with duty to God being a key component; there is nothing at all analogous in the Dutch accession process.
The PM has no obligation even to give an ear to the monarch’s advice, never mind follow it. Smart PMs pay attention when somebody with long experience and no desire for the PM’s job gives advice, but nothing says a PM has to be smart.
Because the monarch is the person with the most continuity, likewise the monarchy. Brenda’s been in the job 65 years. She’s seen much before. This is her country. Both Charles and William have had educations in statecraft right from the start. William more successfully than Charles, ISTM.
Sadly true. But the monarch will be there to pick up the pieces.
Perhaps an analogy is in order: just as the Prime Minister is the parent, so the Monarch is the grandparent.
But that emphasizes the monarch’s VISIBLE role as the symbol of continuity, the person who shows up looking ceremonial and ornamental as required. What actually goes on during the PM’s visits to the palace is much less important.
If the PM shows poor judgment and obtains lousy results, the monarch has no formal ability to do squat to pick up the pieces; it will be the PM’s successor who has that job. The monarch can give some speeches, visit the parties afflicted, open a memorial and make sympathetic noises–that’s the monarch’s job, and that’s a job Charles has been doing for decades. Formulating the policies to rectify the situation is NOT the monarch’s job.
If any current Prime Minister doesn’t seem to be paying attention to what Elizabeth is saying, she can pull out the big guns: “You know, this reminds me of a conversation I had with Winston Churchill when he had your job…”
If the job requires a person with particular qualities, then perhaps.selecting the candidate for the job by who slid out of who’s vaginas first might not be the best idea.
Hereditary monarchy means you deal with the prat you have, not the prat you wish you had. If the national mascot needs to be popular, or smart, or not a prat then maybe switch to some other method.of choosing that national mascot.