Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Queen is dead. Long live the Republic.

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    The Queen is dead. Long live the Republic.

    It doesn't seem like there's any strong popular movement for abolition of the monarchy in the UK. But let us assume that Charles gets so unpopular and his sons so uninterested in kingship that the royal family and with them the entire British monarchy receives a major blow in public opinion. From one day to the other, the monarchy is abolished.

    1. How would this have to happen? Is it sufficient if the monarch declared the end of the Windsor reign? Could parliament decide unilaterally the end of the monarchy?

    2. More interestingly, what happens to the constituent states of the UK? Would Scotland secede? Northern Ireland be taken over by Ireland during all the disorder that follows? Or would it rather all be turned into a federal republic with the constituent states forming the regions?

    I think the former is more likely, with Wales sticking to England which becomes a unitarian republic. Commonwealth countries would obviously turn into republics on their own rather than chosing new monarchs.

    What outcomes do you expect of a potential abolition of the British monarchy? This is obviously speculative to the extreme, so spin away
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Maybe someone would sell the crown jewels at ebay.
    Blah

    Comment

    • #3
      There certainly would be "I sweated the face of Charles when he knew his throne was gone" T-shirts there.

      Comment

      • #4
        Maybe this thread can get more replies if I post a funny pic of Charles?

        Comment

        • #5
          A good method to get more replies is to use lots of and or smilies combined with hysterical tone
          Blah

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: The Queen is dead. Long live the Republic.

            Originally posted by Ecthy
            It doesn't seem like there's any strong popular movement for abolition of the monarchy in the UK. But let us assume that Charles gets so unpopular and his sons so uninterested in kingship that the royal family and with them the entire British monarchy receives a major blow in public opinion. From one day to the other, the monarchy is abolished.

            1. How would this have to happen? Is it sufficient if the monarch declared the end of the Windsor reign? Could parliament decide unilaterally the end of the monarchy?
            We've done it before. Though back then Parliament cut off the monarch's head, I think if it was the Will of the Parliament, the Crown would have to do as told or face a much more drawn out political battle.

            2. More interestingly, what happens to the constituent states of the UK? Would Scotland secede? Northern Ireland be taken over by Ireland during all the disorder that follows? Or would it rather all be turned into a federal republic with the constituent states forming the regions?

            I think the former is more likely, with Wales sticking to England which becomes a unitarian republic. Commonwealth countries would obviously turn into republics on their own rather than chosing new monarchs.
            Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England are in political union with each other. Ending the monarchy wouldn't remove this fact. There'd be no constitutional grounds for them to break apart since the Monarchy isn't what holds it all together.

            The Commonwealth Countries, on the other hand, are politically independent of the UK but are in personal union with the Crown. The Queen is not just the Queen of Great Britain but also, separately and at the same time, the Queen of Canada, the Queen of Australia, the Queen of New Zealand, etc etc. So if the UK were to end the Monarchy, whoever is on the throne would remain the head of state for the other Commonwealth nations until they decided to end the monarchy in their own country. They wouldn't have to choose a new monarch since their relationship to the Crown is independent of the UK's relationship to the Crown*





            *mostly. In some aspects like altering the line of succession, all Commonwealth nations must agree and change their laws accordingly. If this didn't happen for example, different people might have different rights to the throne and the personal union between the various nations and the Crown would split.
            Exult in your existence, because that very process has blundered unwittingly on its own negation. Only a small, local negation, to be sure: only one species, and only a minority of that species; but there lies hope. [...] Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence [and the] gift of revulsion against its implications.
            -Richard Dawkins

            Comment

            • #7
              Could one individual commonwealth country alter the line of succession for themselves and thus switch royal houses etc.?

              Comment

              • #8
                I think Oz should elevate the House of Steve Irwin to the throne.
                Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?

                It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
                The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ecthy
                  Could one individual commonwealth country alter the line of succession for themselves and thus switch royal houses etc.?
                  As far as my understanding of constitutional law goes, I don't see why not. After all, nations leave the personal union when they become republics, so I don't see why they couldn't leave it by picking a different monarch. Like if Canada decided to join in union with the Crown of Sweden.
                  Exult in your existence, because that very process has blundered unwittingly on its own negation. Only a small, local negation, to be sure: only one species, and only a minority of that species; but there lies hope. [...] Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence [and the] gift of revulsion against its implications.
                  -Richard Dawkins

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    In a potential republic on the British isles, would it stay in the same structure? The state of ngland would be granted factual hegemony in a constitution. There's just no example os so unevenly balanced a federal republican structure.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      I think it would be restructured, England cut into 3 pieces to have a somewhat balanced state structure.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        The name of the republic would be "United States of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or "Federal Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ecthy
                          I think it would be restructured, England cut into 3 pieces to have a somewhat balanced state structure.
                          A return to the Heptarchy or even the Saxon-Danelaw divide would balance England out.
                          Exult in your existence, because that very process has blundered unwittingly on its own negation. Only a small, local negation, to be sure: only one species, and only a minority of that species; but there lies hope. [...] Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence [and the] gift of revulsion against its implications.
                          -Richard Dawkins

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            House of Godwin

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Parliament can enact a law abolishing the monarchy, the monarch has not vetoed a bill since 1707 (I think).
                              Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
                              Douglas Adams (Influential author)

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X