The Queen is Dead

[Physics Guy]

I am Canadian, though I have lived in several countries including the United States, and now live in Germany. As a reservist in the Canadian Armed Forces I swore allegiance to "Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, and her heirs and successors according to law." When I was commissioned she reposed especially trust in my courage, loyalty, and integrity; the scroll was signed for her by her Governor General for Canada, but my father's otherwise identical older document bears her own "Elizabeth R".

I definitely prefer having an apolitical head of state, over the American or French presidential systems. I like the idea that the nation is more than the current government's policies, while still letting the current majority will of the citizens determine those policies.

I concede the point that there is some value in letting the formal head of state have some measure of power, that can be wielded in urgent cases, as a final firewall against dictatorship or genocidal popularism or something. In my mind, though, the hereditary monarchy of the house of Windsor actually is such a firewall. If he really felt he had to, Charles III could refuse royal assent to any law of the United Kingdom, or direct his Governor General for Canada to refuse royal assent to any Canadian law. That absolute veto power is technically still there, for these unelected officials.

It is never exercised in practice because actually exercising that power would only precipitate the abolition of the monarchy, and everyone knows that. That wouldn't happen without one last serious second thought, though, for the sake of all those centuries of tradition.

I think that this is actually a significantly thicker firewall than any presidential veto. A king who vetos a fascist law, knowing that it will only cost him his crown, will at least force an authoritarian government to admit that it does not actually represent tradition, or order, or the nation. That's something—especially when all the military officers in monarchical countries have sworn oaths to the monarch, not the government.

A royal veto can only be used once, but for that very reason, it's a powerful ultimate measure. Its value depends on the personal integrity of these hereditary monarchs, who are by definition born into the ultimate elite. On the other hand, though, monarchy began as an alliance between the commons and the crown against the nobles. When push comes to shove, monarchy is actually anti-elitist, because at the level of royalty, celebrity is nothing special: a monarch has to demonstrate that they aren't just another elite, but something much more, because they truly represent common people.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I concede the point that there is some value in letting the formal head of state have some measure of power, that can be wielded in urgent cases, as a final firewall against dictatorship or genocidal popularism or something. In my mind, though, the hereditary monarchy of the house of Windsor actually is such a firewall. If he really felt he had to, Charles III could refuse royal assent to any law of the United Kingdom, or direct his Governor General for Canada to refuse royal assent to any Canadian law. That absolute veto power is technically still there, for these unelected officials.

It is never exercised in practice because actually exercising that power would only precipitate the abolition of the monarchy, and everyone knows that. That wouldn't happen without one last serious second thought, though, for the sake of all those centuries of tradition.

I think that this is actually a significantly thicker firewall than any presidential veto.

That’s really interesting. My wife and I were just talking about this! Bottom line, we came to the same conclusion as the highlighted portion above.

- Doc

[Chap]

I concede the point that there is some value in letting the formal head of state have some measure of power, that can be wielded in urgent cases, as a final firewall against dictatorship or genocidal popularism or something. In my mind, though, the hereditary monarchy of the house of Windsor actually is such a firewall. If he really felt he had to, Charles III could refuse royal assent to any law of the United Kingdom, or direct his Governor General for Canada to refuse royal assent to any Canadian law. That absolute veto power is technically still there, for these unelected officials.

It is never exercised in practice because actually exercising that power would only precipitate the abolition of the monarchy, and everyone knows that. That wouldn't happen without one last serious second thought, though, for the sake of all those centuries of tradition.

I think that this is actually a significantly thicker firewall than any presidential veto.

That’s really interesting. My wife and I were just talking about this! Bottom line, we came to the same conclusion as the highlighted portion above.

- Doc

I think a monarch of the House of Windsor is unlikely to take the existential risk of refusing to sign any law, however unpleasant it may be.

Please note, however, that if a proposed law in any way touches on their private interests, they have had never had any hesitation in asking for changes and exceptions through the mechanism known as 'King's Consent':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent

King's Consent

Not to be confused with Royal assent.

In the UK and certain other Commonwealth countries, King's Consent[a] is a parliamentary convention under which crown consent is sought whenever there is a proposal to bring forward legislation affecting the crown's own prerogatives or its interests (hereditary revenues, personal property, or other interests). In the United Kingdom the practice also extends to matters affecting the Duchy of Lancaster.[3] Under a similar convention, Prince's Consent must be obtained for matters relating to the Duchy of Cornwall.[3]

King's Consent is entirely distinct from Royal assent (which is the final, formal approval by the monarch of a bill, once passed). The granting of King’s (or Prince's) Consent occurs at a much earlier stage in the proceedings, and operates as a consent for parliament to debate the proposed bill.[4] In modern times, following the tenets of constitutional monarchy, consent is always granted or withheld as advised by government.
According to Erskine May in 1851, the practical advantage of Queen's Consent was that it enabled the crown to protect its rights without having to resort to blocking a bill after the event by refusing royal assent. More recently, however, there has been criticism of the crown being consulted on the content of forthcoming bills, and "given the right and opportunity to shape prospective legislation".[5] Critics allege that even though the crown may never formally withhold its consent contrary to government advice, the procedure is nevertheless being used to vet and change draft bills before they reach parliament. One report noted that it was "almost certain that some bills were changed before introduction in order to address concerns about crown consent".[6][7]

An important point is being ignored in this discussion: the UK urgently needs a written constitution, to replace the outdated and toothless 'conventions' and 'understandings' that (since Johnson revealed his true nature as a mendacious narcissist with a posh accent) have been shown to be useless as a means of protecting the rights of the citizen.

Then it would be the constitutional duty of an elected head of state to object and block any such law until the Supreme Court (we have one of those, not yet subject to open politically appointment) had ruled on the matter.

[Gunnar]

Chap, how much sentiment is there in the UK to sooner or later phasing out and eventually bringing an end to the Monarchy? How do you feel about it? Are you ok with continuing the Monarchy, or do you think it is becoming neither necessary nor desirable?

[Physics Guy]

I think a monarch of the House of Windsor is unlikely to take the existential risk of refusing to sign any law, however unpleasant it may be.

You might be right. I can hardly say that I know these people. I was once part of about a thirty-second conversation with the Queen Mum, in which we all agreed that there were quite a few Scottish regiments in Canada. And I once got to overhear one of my brothers admit to Princess Diana that his uniform was uncomfortable. That's the extent of my personal acquaintance with the Mountbatten-Windsor clan.

It seems to me, though, that their choice is never going to be between being royalty and being common shmoes who have to get jobs. It's going to be between being royalty and being Kardassians. On the one hand that means that the royal Plan B is still going to be pretty cushy. Edward VIII gave up royalty for comfortable ex-royalty; Harry is doing that now. On the other hand I think it means that if you're royalty then it's probably really important to you for that to mean something, because otherwise you're just another rich celebrity. I reckon the royals must fear that the way normal people fear becoming poor. So maybe indeed I'm just being naïve, but I figure that a Windsor actually would be quicker to throw away the crown and become a rich and famous political hero like Greta Thunberg with a huge trust fund, at least in some extreme circumstances, than a mere appointed or elected head of state would be to do something analogous.

The modern royal family derives a lot of its legitimacy from George VI having stayed in London during the Blitz. The Windsors are pretty canny about taking risks for long-term pay-offs, I think. I'm not certain they'd really risk rejection by a Nazi-like popular fascism, but with the potential pay-off of another century of security once the nation came to its senses, I think they might have more incentive to oppose a temporarily popular tyranny than a political appointee would. That kind of play has worked for royalty in Spain, at least for two generations.

[Chap]

Chap, how much sentiment is there in the UK to sooner or later phasing out and eventually bringing an end to the Monarchy? How do you feel about it? Are you ok with continuing the Monarchy, or do you think it is becoming neither necessary nor desirable?

On this, please see my earlier post:

viewtopic.php?p=2800632#p2800632

It'll be there for a good while yet. But the times, they are a-changin' (though slowly).

[Gunnar]

Chap, how much sentiment is there in the UK to sooner or later phasing out and eventually bringing an end to the Monarchy? How do you feel about it? Are you ok with continuing the Monarchy, or do you think it is becoming neither necessary nor desirable?

On this, please see my earlier post:

viewtopic.php?p=2800632#p2800632

It'll be there for a good while yet. But the times, they are a-changin' (though slowly).

Thanks, Chap! That definitely answered my questions. I apologize for not having already seen it and read it. Almost every time I read one of your posts I find something interesting that leaves me better informed than before I read it. I'm embarrassed that I somehow overlooked that one. You always have something worth my while to read it!

[Moksha]

I suspect the British Monarchy will be around longer than the LDS Church. I feel less confidence in the lifespan of American democracy than the Monarchy or the Church.