Ostroeuropa wrote:Parliament can, and has before, up and decided to change who the monarch is, and who can succeed the monarch. The reason the queen is the queen is that a bill in parliament has designated Sophia of Hannover as the starting point for the British Monarchy, with male preference primogeniture as the line of succession.
This was ammended, by parliament, to be a gender neutral primogenture recently.
Parliament can up and decide to replace her.
While broadly accurate - at least considerably more accurate than the nonsense offered up by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States - this isn't quite right.
It's not true that Parliament designated Sophia of Hanover as the 'starting point for the British Monarchy'. It's entirely true that, by long precedent, Parliament can adjust and amend the succession to the Crown, as specified by the 1701 Act of Settlement and most recently demonstrated by the move to cognatic primogeniture (though note that this required the approval of all of the Commonwealth Realms, not just Westminster).
But the Act of Settlement didn't designate Sophia as the heir to the British thrones (thrones plural because this predates the 1707 Acts of Union); it instead specified that the succession had to be Protestant. While this made Sophia of Hanover the Heir Presumptive on the basis that she was the senior Protestant heir to the throne under strict agnatic-congatic primogeniture, she wasn't specifically named as such. Had a more senior representative of the Stuart line renounced Catholicism, they would have replaced Sophia - and subsequently her son George I - in the line of succession.