Elizabeth II / Charles III megathread

[Ifreann]

The Irish Presidency has been pretty great. It's an almost entirely ceremonial role and we've managed to always fill it with people who aren't embarrassments.

But we seem to have an awful lot of Tory voters.

There is that, but consider, a Tory president with no real power could only embarrass the country, not also run it into the ground. You could have had Boris giving pompous speeches and throwing posh parties without him having to negotiate Brexit.

[Continental Free States]

But we seem to have an awful lot of Tory voters.

There is that, but consider, a Tory president with no real power could only embarrass the country, not also run it into the ground. You could have had Boris giving pompous speeches and throwing posh parties without him having to negotiate Brexit.

In this scenario, you'd still have Boris (or someone like him, I don't know) as the chief executive though? If anything, you'd get a Boris to humiliate the country, and another to screw it up by negotiating Brexit. Then again, it's not like Britain alone doesn't have a history with monarchs humiliating the country through poor conduct.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

But we seem to have an awful lot of Tory voters.

There is that, but consider, a Tory president with no real power could only embarrass the country, not also run it into the ground. You could have had Boris giving pompous speeches and throwing posh parties without him having to negotiate Brexit.

If Boris was president without power (a fantasy) you'd have Priti Patel as prime minister.

[Ifreann]

There is that, but consider, a Tory president with no real power could only embarrass the country, not also run it into the ground. You could have had Boris giving pompous speeches and throwing posh parties without him having to negotiate Brexit.

In this scenario, you'd still have Boris (or someone like him, I don't know) as the chief executive though? If anything, you'd get a Boris to humiliate the country, and another to screw it up by negotiating Brexit. Then again, it's not like Britain alone doesn't have a history with monarchs humiliating the country through poor conduct.

Obviously abolishing the monarchy wouldn't magically solve Britain's problems. But nor would it somehow turn Britain into America or Russia.

[Rusozak]

I love that Charles hasn't even been King for two days after waiting 70 years and everyone's already talking about dissolving the commonwealth realms and abolishing the monarchy.

[Harjanika]

I love that Charles hasn't even been King for two days after waiting 70 years and everyone's already talking about dissolving the commonwealth realms and abolishing the monarchy.

???

[Continental Free States]

I love that Charles hasn't even been King for two days after waiting 70 years and everyone's already talking about dissolving the commonwealth realms and abolishing the monarchy.

It's not really a secret that in many of the commonwealth realms, it was Queen Elizabeth that people didn't want to go, rather than the institution of the monarchy, and King Charles III wasn't exactly the most popular when he was still Prince of Wales.

[Ifreann]

I love that Charles hasn't even been King for two days after waiting 70 years and everyone's already talking about dissolving the commonwealth realms and abolishing the monarchy.

Well of course it does. What better time than at the accession of a new king to observe that having a king is pretty cringe.

[Vassenor]

So someone on Coventry Council decided changing all the variable message road signs on the ring road to show memorials was a good idea.

I mean it’s not like people need road signs or anything.

[Ifreann]

So someone on Coventry Council decided changing all the variable message road signs on the ring road to show memorials was a good idea.

I mean it’s not like people need road signs or anything.

And wasn't it her husband who was more into ignoring road signs?

[Iskanistan]

There is that, but consider, a Tory president with no real power could only embarrass the country, not also run it into the ground. You could have had Boris giving pompous speeches and throwing posh parties without him having to negotiate Brexit.

In this scenario, you'd still have Boris (or someone like him, I don't know) as the chief executive though? If anything, you'd get a Boris to humiliate the country, and another to screw it up by negotiating Brexit. Then again, it's not like Britain alone doesn't have a history with monarchs humiliating the country through poor conduct.

Wouldn the title be likely Lord Protector as it was during Cromwells Commonwealth as opposed to be President?

[Thermodolia]

Not really. All treaties with the indigenous people are held through the crown not the government. And many Māori are concerned that the government might not honor those treaties while at current they have to or get smacked down by the monarch

This really isn't a big deal as it's made out to be, unless the Commonwealth countries have a strange version of lawmaking that eludes us mortals. Replacing references to "the Crown" with "the State/Republic/People/Nation" or whatever suffices. We've figured out state succession and even state cessation—I think a transition from monarchy to republic is definitely doable without so much as touching the proverbial boat.

Sure but the treaties where made directly with the monarch so the current assumption is that if they dissolve the monarchy then so to the treaties as the monarch not the nation signed the treaties.

[The Archregimancy]

Why? She doesn’t have any political power. The crown’s role is symbolic.

Not entirely symbolic.

That was a crisis arising from the interpretation of specific provisions of the Australian constitution, which is an independent written document that has no direct relevance to the UK constitution. The way those events almost 50 years ago unfolded also meant that it's inconceivable that any future Governor General would attempt to assert the reserve powers of the Australian Crown (which is constitutionally an entirely separate institution from the British Crown) in the same manner.

The subsequent release of the relevant letters also showed that the Governor General acted without informing the Queen of Australia.

[Forsher]

Not entirely symbolic.

That was a crisis arising from the interpretation of specific provisions of the Australian constitution, which is an independent written document that has no direct relevance to the UK constitution. The way those events almost 50 years ago unfolded also meant that it's inconceivable that any future Governor General would attempt to assert the reserve powers of the Australian Crown (which is constitutionally an entirely separate institution from the British Crown) in the same manner.

The subsequent release of the relevant letters also showed that the Governor General acted without informing the Queen of Australia.

To be fair, that was wholly a conversation about Australia.

[Forsher]

And also, the great thing about having an elected official is that you can vote them out at the next election.

That you can vote them in is, however, a fatal flaw for heads of state. Either abolish the concept entirely or do literally anything but give them their own independent mandate/power base... literally anything.

[Ifreann]

Not entirely symbolic.

That was a crisis arising from the interpretation of specific provisions of the Australian constitution, which is an independent written document that has no direct relevance to the UK constitution. The way those events almost 50 years ago unfolded also meant that it's inconceivable that any future Governor General would attempt to assert the reserve powers of the Australian Crown (which is constitutionally an entirely separate institution from the British Crown) in the same manner.

The subsequent release of the relevant letters also showed that the Governor General acted without informing the monarch.

Which means that this crisis cannot be held against Queen Elizabeth personally, sure, but nonetheless does go to show that the crown's role in Australian politics is not entirely symbolic. If it is inconceivable that a similar crisis might occur again, that is because such a crisis is a very real possibility and as such is well guarded against.

[Perikuresu]

Which means that this crisis cannot be held against Queen Elizabeth personally, sure, but nonetheless does go to show that the crown's role in Australian politics is not entirely symbolic. If it is inconceivable that a similar crisis might occur again, that is because such a crisis is a very real possibility and as such is well guarded against.

I too would piss my pants if the Governor General kicked Albo off his PM-ship and gave it to Peter Dutton

But then he was also the one that covered up the previous Prime Minister's secret appointments to 5 influential cabinet positions without the Ministers of these positions knowing

[Forsher]

That was a crisis arising from the interpretation of specific provisions of the Australian constitution, which is an independent written document that has no direct relevance to the UK constitution. The way those events almost 50 years ago unfolded also meant that it's inconceivable that any future Governor General would attempt to assert the reserve powers of the Australian Crown (which is constitutionally an entirely separate institution from the British Crown) in the same manner.

The subsequent release of the relevant letters also showed that the Governor General acted without informing the monarch.

Which means that this crisis cannot be held against Queen Elizabeth personally, sure, but nonetheless does go to show that the crown's role in Australian politics is not entirely symbolic. If it is inconceivable that a similar crisis might occur again, that is because such a crisis is a very real possibility and as such is well guarded against.

No, I don't think it is, and rightly so. The only argument for a Head of State is that you need the exercise of their powers to be a Sword of Damocles roulette. If you know who can act and what will happen if they do, then you can subvert the constitution not despite the but because of the clarity. If you don't know if anything will happen and who'll actually suffer if it does, then you continue to exploit your certainty.

Which is probably why they didn't just strip the GG/Sovereign of those powers in the aftermath. For example, I don't think the British Crown has those powers but the Australian one does... even now.

OTOH there's an argument that the Dismissal explains why ScoMo was able to hoard ministerships which, given how people talk about it, is a counter-example per my theory.

[The Archregimancy]

That was a crisis arising from the interpretation of specific provisions of the Australian constitution, which is an independent written document that has no direct relevance to the UK constitution. The way those events almost 50 years ago unfolded also meant that it's inconceivable that any future Governor General would attempt to assert the reserve powers of the Australian Crown (which is constitutionally an entirely separate institution from the British Crown) in the same manner.

The subsequent release of the relevant letters also showed that the Governor General acted without informing the monarch.

Which means that this crisis cannot be held against Queen Elizabeth personally, sure, but nonetheless does go to show that the crown's role in Australian politics is not entirely symbolic. If it is inconceivable that a similar crisis might occur again, that is because such a crisis is a very real possibility and as such is well guarded against.

No, not really.

I'll concede that I only lived in Australia for six years, so would happily defer to any actual Australians on this point (and while I met Gough Whitlam in 2003, we didn't discuss 1975), but everything I know about the 1975 crisis, its aftermath, and the understanding of Australia's constitution that's subsequently been developed on this point, a repeat of 1975 - which was itself a one-off in more than 120 years of Australian federation - would be impossible because no Governor General would be permitted to intercede in such a manner against the advice of the Crown's ministers.

Also, forgive me for pointing this out, but 'If it is inconceivable that a similar crisis might occur again, that is because such a crisis is a very real possibility' is poorly phrased as both logic and rhetoric.

[The New California Republic]

The State Funeral of Her Majesty The Queen will take place at Westminster Abbey on Monday 19th September.

Prior to the State Funeral, The Queen will Lie-in-State in Westminster Hall for four days, to allow the public to pay their respects.

[Fahran]

In responding to the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, said "The Queen embodied the most noble values of British society. Throughout her extraordinary reign she conducted herself with grace, dignity and humility, and was a global role model for distinguished leadership and selfless devotion to society. In an ever-changing world, she was a rock of stability and a champion of timeless values."

While she was not my sovereign, my heartfelt condolences are with both her family and the citizens of the Commonwealth countries in their time of loss.

On a personal level, I can't remember a time when she wasn't the Queen. She's exemplified courage and service throughout her time as both a princess and later as a monarch, serving in the fight against the unabashed evil of the Nazis, presiding over decolonization, and acting on every public occasion with grace and quiet dignity. She didn't take sides in political scuffles and this tact served to unify those who loved and looked up to her.

She was almost a century old and a tangible link to the events of the United Kingdom's past, with all the heroism and controversy that evokes. And I do not think any country could have asked for a better symbol or head of state. BDE.

[Fahran]

I love that Charles hasn't even been King for two days after waiting 70 years and everyone's already talking about dissolving the commonwealth realms and abolishing the monarchy.

It's more than a little crass.

[The Alma Mater]

I love that Charles hasn't even been King for two days after waiting 70 years and everyone's already talking about dissolving the commonwealth realms and abolishing the monarchy.

It's more than a little crass.

Why? Quite a significant part of the planet does not like Britain - and as Piers Morgan so eloquently stated "the Queen embodied Britishness". She falls and in the eyes of its enemies an opening is presented.

[Fahran]

Why? Quite a significant part of the planet does not like Britain - and as Piers Morgan so eloquently stated "the Queen embodied Britishness". She falls and in the eyes of its enemies an opening is presented.

Because behavior of that sort is ghoulish. The woman hasn't even been interred yet. They can keep the unwarranted giddiness to themselves for a couple days and show a little tact in the meantime. Gloating about the death of beloved figures is... not even a winning political strategy. It just makes such people look like asses.

[Marnrio]

A thousand posts of this megathread and we are having a good mega-conversation about the UK.