ForumGarden

spot;538500 wrote: It's a question of precedent. The last time it was done it was called the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and it wasn't a lawful constitutional action by the people doing it, as the name indicates. The time before involved cutting King Charles the First's head from his shoulders and refusing to have a replacement, that experiment lasted just over ten years. I'd say that it would take a revolution to unseat the reigning monarch.

Parliament has the right of veto over royal marriages, which is what they employed to put the Duke of Windsor into an impossible position with regard to that American divorcee he was infatuated with. He abdicated, you'll remember, he wasn't fired because there was no lawful mechanism which allowed parliament to fire him.


Interesting, I wonder what would happen if Parliament decided that it was going to get rid of the system, or if the popularity of the Monarchy went downhill catastrophically with the general population, it seems to be kinda uncharted waters really. But the British system (really I mean the English system) has been developed over the years in such a way that it is inately conservative and hard to change, and yet absorbs all these very big changes such as the civil war, the act of union, the glorious revolution, the empire, and the end of empire quite easily once they happen, thats why its been around so long. I suppose this is why that have such problems trying ever to reform the house of lords, they are afraid of opening up all sorts of problems, and why these EU issues are so vexed in Britain (aside from the fact that most people don't like the idea anyway). Interesting.

Galbally;538543 wrote: Interesting, I wonder what would happen if Parliament decided that it was going to get rid of the system, or if the popularity of the Monarchy went downhill catastrophically with the general population, it seems to be kinda uncharted waters really.I don't think it is, really. It falls within a pivotal moment where what were traitors to the crown succeed and become loyalists in the new regime. People who were loyalists until that moment are at risk of attainder afterwards. Treason's still very much a current statute, and attempting to overthrow the constitution or damage the monarchy is its centre-ground.

Republics have citizens. Britain has a Monarch, and its population are Subjects of the Crown - again, I'm sticking to central tenets of the constitution here. Those Subjects have rights and they have duties, just as citizens elsewhere have rights and duties. One of the absolute duties of each Subject is loyalty to the Head of State. Attempting to change the Head of State is a disloyal action (until such time as it succeeds, of course).

Are we using the same hymnsheet here?

spot;538577 wrote: I don't think it is, really. It falls within a pivotal moment where what were traitors to the crown succeed and become loyalists in the new regime. People who were loyalists until that moment are at risk of attainder afterwards. Treason's still very much a current statute, and attempting to overthrow the constitution or damage the monarchy is its centre-ground.

Republics have citizens. Britain has a Monarch, and its population are Subjects of the Crown - again, I'm sticking to central tenets of the constitution here. Those Subjects have rights and they have duties, just as citizens elsewhere have rights and duties. One of the absolute duties of each Subject is loyalty to the Head of State. Attempting to change the Head of State is a disloyal action (until such time as it succeeds, of course).

Are we using the same hymnsheet here?


Well, yes, I understand perfectly and it seems quite clear, I suppose my point is that it seems that many people seem to believe in Britain that the status of the monarchy is absolute and backed by 1,000 years of precedent, but this is not actually the case, its been changed several times, and still managed to survive and even prosper, which is one of the great strengths of the system, to absorb the inevitable shocks that time brings. I would suggest that the idea that change could not happen again, and quite abruptly should circumstances dictate it, are unfounded, as the English (particularly) are above all other things, a pragmatic people, and always have been. I mean obviously, I myself am not a monarchist at all, but again, I'm not a rabid jacobin either, I quite admire the evolutionary nature of much of the British system, and in the breech is seems to work more often than not, so proof is in the pudding, but there are lots of things about it I am not into either, as a matter of taste and perspective, but its not my call. Does that clarify my perspective?

Galbally;538594 wrote: Does that clarify my perspective?Absolutely. Bang on, metaphors and all. Definitely the country could discuss change, there is a thread of British constitutional practice about governing with the consent of the governed after all since, as you say, cabals occasionally find the right moment in history to effect an abrupt change.

Given that the alternative to an hereditary Head of State holding all of the key overrides to the Offices of State is an elected or appointed temporary figure with far less restraint on using the power he has in the time available to him, I'm wary of abandoning the status quo. Be damned to that, I say. Let well alone. Whether Rupert Murdoch has the influence to sway a referendum on the issue is anyone's guess. It's far too easy to deride a Prince of the Realm on personal issues and ignore the consequences of republicanism.