Can the British monarchy renounce its constitutional role?

[reprise]

I don't mean can an individual monarch abdicate, or can someone in the line of succession renounce their right to succeed to the throne. What I mean is can the royal family by some mechanism say "we no longer wish to be involved in any way in the government of the UK or the commonwealth, ever" thereby renouncing both their privileges and their responsibilities - or is this something that can only be achieved by the citizens of the UK and commonwealth nations voting to become republics?

[mummymonkey]

I think the monarch isn't able to make changes to the monarchy. That would have to be done by parliament.

[WildCat]

Why on earth would they want to? It's good to be the king! :D
They can't just go around lopping off heads anymore, though apparently they are allowed to spear the occasional dik-dik.

[fhios]

Originally posted by reprise
I don't mean can an individual monarch abdicate, or can someone in the line of succession renounce their right to succeed to the throne. What I mean is can the royal family by some mechanism say "we no longer wish to be involved in any way in the government of the UK or the commonwealth, ever" thereby renouncing both their privileges and their responsibilities - or is this something that can only be achieved by the citizens of the UK and commonwealth nations voting to become republics?

I'm no authority on monarchy, of course. I've happily spent my whole life as far away from such stupidity as possible. Still, there would have to be some means, if nothing else, for the "betters" (ha!) to pose a crisis of government, such as by unanimous abdication to name the most obvious but least likely possibility, rendering the government unable to create anyone the king or queen.

Perhaps a few abdications after a blanket banning of permission to let anyone be created king or queen? That's as far as my thinking takes me. Does anyone else have further ideas?

[headscratcher4]

Not a constitutional lawyer...especially when it comes to the British monarchy, but isn't, ultimately, what we call the British Constitution (not a written document so far as I understand it) originate in rights and powers granted to the crown to Peers, Parliment, etc. (yes, like the Magan Carta and as a result of the Glorious Revolution,etc. rights, priveledges and powers at times extracted by force and duress, but nonetheless powers granted by the Monarch).

In short, aren't all British rights under the Constitution the result of "give-aways" by the Monarch?

Would some one who is an expert in British Constitutional law explain to me why the Monarch can't take them back...i.e. I assume if they were once the "property" of the Monarch, and property at a time when the Monarchy was a grant by god of an absolute right, why can't that right be taken back by the Monarch -- I realize it is unlikely unless some sort of Francoist purge takes place, but I am interested in Constitutional theory.

[Tony]

What I want to know is, can the monarch return to its historic role as absolute rule of Britain?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony
What I want to know is, can the monarch return to its historic role as absolute rule of Britain?

Only if a very large slice of the British public wills it, even then that very large slice will have to fight a tooth and nail civil war against the rest.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Not a constitutional lawyer...especially when it comes to the British monarchy, but isn't, ultimately, what we call the British Constitution (not a written document so far as I understand it) originate in rights and powers granted to the crown to Peers, Parliment, etc. (yes, like the Magan Carta and as a result of the Glorious Revolution,etc. rights, priveledges and powers at times extracted by force and duress, but nonetheless powers granted by the Monarch).

In short, aren't all British rights under the Constitution the result of "give-aways" by the Monarch?

Would some one who is an expert in British Constitutional law explain to me why the Monarch can't take them back...i.e. I assume if they were once the "property" of the Monarch, and property at a time when the Monarchy was a grant by god of an absolute right, why can't that right be taken back by the Monarch -- I realize it is unlikely unless some sort of Francoist purge takes place, but I am interested in Constitutional theory.

Well, I too am not a constitutional lawyer but basically there were three major stages in the restriction of the powers of the monarchy. Magna Carta, the glorious revolution and also a third document whose name and age escapes me (I think it was around 12-13th C. ), will google.

It may be correct to say that Magna Carta was a "give away" but the whole raison d'etre for these restrictions is that the monarch had to get in good with the barons and later with the commons. Succesive monarchs were forced to the realisation that without the support of the higher echelons of the feudal system, they would find it very hard to raise the armies they needed to go around buggering up the Irish and the French etc...

All of this has just been extended in the modern era to the extent that the monarch is really just a figurehead/tourist attraction.

[Zep]

Not a lawyer either, and, indeed, a republican Ozzie. But I wouldn't want to see the British monarchy go, personally.

I seem to recall that there is a more recent Act of British Parliament that applies here: The Succession Act, or something? In effect, it is the rules of how the monarchy succeeds, i.e. how the position is passed on down to the next ruler and so on, and who is next in line to the throne. I would imagine that this would be the starting point for "ending the monarchy" - change this Act to read, "After the current ruler dies or abdicates, there will be no further monarchs" or some long-winded words to that effect. I wonder if the Queen would endorse it - I think she has to!

[Tony]

How much power can the monarch potentially command?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony
How much power can the monarch potentially command?

In theory a hell of a lot ie. the Queen can declare war without reference to parliament. In practise, that wouldnt happen though.

[reprise]

Certainly it's possible for Commonwealth countries to remove the monarchy from their political process by constitutional changes. I was just wondering what happens in a situation where the monarchy itself doesn't wish to remain a part of the political process but the voting public wishes to retain the monarchy. There must be some process by which the monarchy can terminate the agreement (please, before Charles gets the throne), but I can't imagine what it might be - other than refusing to give Royal assent to legislation or some other form of "civil disobedience" which will ultimately make retaining the monarchy so unworkable that people will be glad to let it go.

IIRC, the most recent change to the succession laws were made in order to provide for the eldest child inheriting the throne irrespective of gender, starting with the generation after William and Harry.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


In theory a hell of a lot ie. the Queen can declare war without reference to parliament. In practise, that wouldnt happen though.

Technically, it is our Governor-General who is the C-i-C of the Australian Defence forces, not the PM or the Parliament.

[Zep]

And the G-G is "the Queen's representative" here in this country and so acts with her authority.

I did but see her passing by... Thanks, Bob.*


*Historical Oz political joke.

[reprise]

Is Australia unique in the Commonwealth in respect of our states having their own individual relationships to the monarchy (which would be unaffected by a change to our constitution removing ERII as our national head of state)?

[Shaun from Scotland]

The right to enact legislation is the sole prerogative of the Monarch. No law may be passed without her consent, although in practice no Monarch has defied Parliament since 1707.

Which begs the question, if Britain voted to abolish the Monarchy in a referundum, what would happen if the Queen refused to enact the decision?

Republic now!!

my second favourite website (http://www.britishrepublic.org.uk/)

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland:
The right to enact legislation is the sole prerogative of the Monarch. No law may be passed without her consent, although in practice no Monarch has defied Parliament since 1707.

Which begs the question, if Britain voted to abolish the Monarchy in a referundum, what would happen if the Queen refused to enact the decision?

Wasn't that the basis of the constitutional crisis with Edward VIII in the '30s? The government of the day could put a lot of pressure on him not to marry Wallis Simpson, but ultimately couldn't force him to toe the government line?

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by headscratcher4

>>Not a constitutional lawyer...especially when it comes to the British monarchy, but isn't, ultimately, what we call the British Constitution (not a written document so far as I understand it) <<

Wish some learned Britain could explain how a nation can operate under a Constitution that is not written? If it is not written, how can anyone be sure of what it says?

-- Rouser

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by headscratcher4

>>Not a constitutional lawyer...especially when it comes to the British monarchy, but isn't, ultimately, what we call the British Constitution (not a written document so far as I understand it) <<

Wish some learned Britain could explain how a nation can operate under a Constitution that is not written? If it is not written, how can anyone be sure of what it says?

-- Rouser

It's best not to think of it like the US Constitution. A pretty good, short, sharp explanation of it is here (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2295/crowninf.html)

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Wasn't that the basis of the constitutional crisis with Edward VIII in the '30s? The government of the day could put a lot of pressure on him not to marry Wallis Simpson, but ultimately couldn't force him to toe the government line?

Indeed yes. But more fundamental than that was the basic attitude to divorce. The fact that Edward was the head of the Church of England, which forbade divorce, was obviously a problem. But in a Constitutional sense, what was more important was the fact that Parliament refused to grant Mrs Simpson any title. There simply was no precedent under English law for the wife of the King to have no title, or official capacity. The fact that Parliament could not force him to do anything was solved by his abdication. Now, if he hadn't abdicated, there's an interesting question.....

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Indeed yes. But more fundamental than that was the basic attitude to divorce. The fact that Edward was the head of the Church of England, which forbade divorce, was obviously a problem. But in a Constitutional sense, what was more important was the fact that Parliament refused to grant Mrs Simpson any title. There simply was no precedent under English law for the wife of the King to have no title, or official capacity. The fact that Parliament could not force him to do anything was solved by his abdication. Now, if he hadn't abdicated, there's an interesting question.....

The abdication crisis was actually a pivotal moment in Irish constitutional development. Prior to that the British monarch was in a way the Irish head of state, and a governor general was resident in Dublin. The government of the day took the chance to pass various laws removing all ties to the crown, paving the way for a changed constitution in 1938 that provided for an Irish president. The Republic of Ireland was ultimately declared in 1949. If you think the British constitution is a rather enigmatic concept, then you should read up about Irish constitutional development.

[The Mad Linguist]

One thing that site Shaun gave fails to mention is that the "Royal Prerogative", which gives the Queen very strong powers, is actually wielded by the PM these days. So the PM can for instance declare war without consulting parliament.

I think the amount of power wielded by the monarch is a moot question. The Queen has lots of power but she can't wield it, if she tried to wield it the government would take it away. The fact that she chooses not to try to wield it allows her to keep it. It's a funny old business.

I don't think any individual monarch could end the monarchy, though. Even if they abdicated and persuaded their family to do likewise, an heir could still be found, since the family is vast (all the remaining crowned heads of Europe being interrelated). It might be a Norwegian, but it would be an heir. I suspect that only Parliament could end the monarchy...

Of course, if the monarch did abdicate and did so issuing the strong recommendation that no new monarch be crowned, it's always possible parliament would do as they were told.

For my money, the easiest way to think of the British constitution is as being inseparable from the laws of Britain. The constitution == the sum total of all the laws currently in force.