6 ms·

The land in particular is considered the Crown Estate, and the agreements that relinquish control of the land to the government are voluntarily enacted by each

by judge2020 4y ago

The land in particular is considered the Crown Estate, and the agreements that relinquish control of the land to the government are voluntarily enacted by each monarch. Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision, since King George III did not sell or actually give up the land; it still belongs to The Crown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

skissane 4y ago
> The land in particular is considered the Crown Estate, and the agreements that relinquish control of the land to the government are voluntarily enacted by each monarch. Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision, since King George III did not sell or actually give up the land; it still belongs to The Crown You are ignoring one of the important unwritten rules of the British system – there's a lot of things which the Monarch "voluntarily" agrees to which aren't really voluntary. If a Monarch started refusing, it would trigger a constitutional crisis, the likely outcome of which would be that the law would be changed to make it no longer "voluntary". King Charles III has immense powers on paper, but if he ever tried to actually wield them – with the possible exception of highly unusual circumstances, such as a constitutional crisis not of his own making – he would soon find himself deprived of them. It reminds me of a conversation a friend of mine once had with an emergency room doctor whilst in the midst of a mental health episode – Patient: "Am I free to leave?" Doctor: "Well, I haven't sectioned you, so right now you are legally free to leave – but if you try to leave, I will section you, and then you won't be legally free to leave". That may seem like a bizarre comparison, but I think in many ways it is an accurate one.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- AndrewDavis 4y ago
  See Australia. - The Govenor General is appointed by the Monarch as their representative. The government recommends a candidate. There is nothing (as far as I'm aware) to force the monarch to appoint the individual versus anyone they want. This would be a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor General has kinds the same powers as the monarch. Legislation requires "royal ascent l" to become law (similar concept to the US president signing bills passed by congress). The Govenor could reject the bill, but that'd trigger a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor General holds similar powers to the executive of the US (using them as an example because if you are on an England speaking site you probably have some familiarity of the US system via media). But based on recommendations from the Prime Minister defers these powers to different ministers. Commonly referred to as a Portfolio. Eg how we a minister for defence, immigration etc etc. Failure to follow government recommendations would trigger a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor general can sack government and trigger an election. The closest Australia has been to constitutional crisis was the time this power was exercised with the sacking of Gough Whitlam. (note this is all based on my memory and understanding from classes in high school long ago)
  - vkou 4y ago
    The situation in Canada is the same, but there is one situation where the GG's power is significant, and does not trigger a constitutional crisis. Determining whether or not a minority government is dissolved, and an election is held, or if a ruling coalition can be allowed to form. In 2008, right after the election the GG did the ruling minority of Tories a pretty big favor by refusing to accept a non-confidence vote by a majority coalition, and instead, proroguing parliament for the benefit of the ruling minority party... Absolutely insane. (That this question is left to the whim of one unelected person.)
    - markdown 4y ago
      It's actually really sane. Elected individuals are almost always corrupt... you really can't be elected anymore without owing lots of people favours. An unelected, non-political individual who is above it all results in a more stable democracy.
      - martopix 4y ago
        Populist take aside, this is somewhat true. In Italy there has been talk of electing the president directly, but I think that would be a terrible choice. Currently, he is elected by parliament, and this (surprisingly) has worked mostly well. The president ends up being an older well respected politician who takes a neutral role. If they were elected by a public election, there's no way you could have a neutral figure.
        skissane 4y ago
        > If they were elected by a public election, there's no way you could have a neutral figure. Ireland proves that isn’t true. The Irish system works by allowing the public to choose the President, but having tough nominating criteria. Anyone overly political or controversial is not going to get through the nominating process, and so won’t be able to run. The nominating process produces a shortlist of 2-6 respected figures, and the public gets to choose which one they respect the most. If Italy adopted the same system as Ireland, including the same tough nomination requirements, there is no reason why Italy couldn’t get the same outcome.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  That’s true, but there’s a lot that a monarch could get away with, and building a mansion on crown estate land is probably one of them.
  - skissane 4y ago
    In the 21st century, I don't think the monarch can "get away" with anything unless the Prime Minister is willing to let them "get away" with that thing. And some Prime Ministers (especially Tory ones) would be more than happy for the monarch to have a nice new mansion. But if there is a Prime Minister who says "no, don't do that!", the monarch has to do as told. In a public fight between the PM and the monarch over "should the monarch be allowed to build a new mansion", absolutely the PM is going to win. For British Republicans, such a fight would be a dream come true, since it would instantly move Republicanism from the political fringes to the mainstream.
    - Veen 4y ago
      That's true, but PMs are motivated not to "embarrass" the monarch if it can be at all avoided. It would be a very unpopular move, as it was when Boris Johnson "advised" the late Queen to prorogue Parliament during the Brexit period. The PM would almost certainly come out worse unless the monarch really was up to something quite bad, and building on Crown land mightn't be bad enough.
- t0mas88 4y ago
  The same is true for the Dutch royal family. Technically the king appoints the ministers / secretaries of state and has to sign every law before it becomes official. Practically he signs the things the elected government wants him to sign. If he starts to take a direct political stance on things they would remove his powers. The constitution can be changed by a 2/3rd majority in parliament, a king that starts to "use" his powers would be opposed by far more than 2/3rd of parliament regardless of their political affiliations.
  - jongjong 4y ago
    If the king had an appetite for risk, he could replace the governor of the bank of England with someone he controls, print however much money it takes to bribe parliamentarians to pass whatever laws he wants. Thanks to big corporations and their political meddlings (lobbying), most politicians today aren't selected for their virtues. It's likely that they can be bought.
    - _fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
      If he tried that he wouldn't be king anymore before even one pound was printed.
- User23 4y ago
  > King Charles III has immense powers on paper, but if he ever tried to actually wield them – with the possible exception of highly unusual circumstances, such as a constitutional crisis not of his own making – he would soon find himself deprived of them. If he had sufficient popular support from the armed forces and a enough of the general public he might manage it. The likely outcome though would be a considerable loss of support.
- hnfong 4y ago
  I agree with most of what you said. Having spent more time thinking about political systems than I should, I'd say that this arrangement probably isn't a unique to the Brits (or their past colonies), but rather a universal political fact. In general, words aren't worth the paper they're written on, unless they conform with the political reality. There's no monarch in the world that could actually exercise their powers on paper unless they also have the political clout to back them up. The uniqueness of the British system is how weak the monarchy has gotten over the years, and how acutely aware they are about the situation. England's monarchy comes from a really long line of succession, due to the relative ease of defending an island from invaders. Monarchs that rule by right of conquest are generally strong and authoritative, their heirs becoming less so for each succession. (Japan shares this trait and hence the political system is somewhat similar) And then, the near-death experience during the 1600s made the British monarchy even weaker, and more conscious about the dangers of angering the common mob. And so they invented the idea of constitutional monarchy, that is somehow "just like" the other democratic republics, except without the regicide part :) Before this democracy thing became popular, it used to be cool for monarchs to proclaim to have more power than they actually had in political reality. After revolutions and regicides became a thing in Europe, they started to do the opposite and claimed to have less power than they had on paper. But what I'm trying to say is, many monarchs (whether British or not) historically had little real power anyways, and would have most likely would have triggered constitutional crises if they disagreed with their ministers (or the powerful elites). I think the re-imaging of the British monarchy as mentioned above is truly ingenious, and while I took my sweet time deconstructing it, I still think it's an amazing narrative. I'd classify it as "anti-republicanism propaganda", but it's brilliant nonetheless. Note: used to be a British subject before 1997. Hah.
_fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
> Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision and by that immediately end the monarchy itself. The UK is funny like that. The king signs all the laws and could refuse in theory, but if he does he wouldn't be king anymore.
- youngtaff 4y ago
  But the Monarch’s lawyers get to review laws at an early stage so they can object / get then changes before the law is passed It’s how laws that exempted the Monarch from race discrimination laws, why leaseholders in the Duchy of Cornwall can’t buy their freeholds etc.
  - rcxdude 4y ago
    Yeah, an outright assertion of power from the monarch would not go well, but the soft power they wield is still pretty extreme.
- nly 4y ago
  The constitution of the UK is unwritten. If the king tried it would be for the courts to decide on the legality.
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    That would run into the same problem Parliament ran into with the trial of Charles I: The root of all authority in the UK is the Crown. By challenging the authority of the Crown, the court is challenging its own authority to challenge anything. Of course, that argument didn't really work fantastically with Charles I.

skissane 4y ago

> The land in particular is considered the Crown Estate, and the agreements that relinquish control of the land to the government are voluntarily enacted by each monarch. Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision, since King George III did not sell or actually give up the land; it still belongs to The Crown You are ignoring one of the important unwritten rules of the British system – there's a lot of things which the Monarch "voluntarily" agrees to which aren't really voluntary. If a Monarch started refusing, it would trigger a constitutional crisis, the likely outcome of which would be that the law would be changed to make it no longer "voluntary". King Charles III has immense powers on paper, but if he ever tried to actually wield them – with the possible exception of highly unusual circumstances, such as a constitutional crisis not of his own making – he would soon find himself deprived of them. It reminds me of a conversation a friend of mine once had with an emergency room doctor whilst in the midst of a mental health episode – Patient: "Am I free to leave?" Doctor: "Well, I haven't sectioned you, so right now you are legally free to leave – but if you try to leave, I will section you, and then you won't be legally free to leave". That may seem like a bizarre comparison, but I think in many ways it is an accurate one.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AndrewDavis 4y ago
See Australia. - The Govenor General is appointed by the Monarch as their representative. The government recommends a candidate. There is nothing (as far as I'm aware) to force the monarch to appoint the individual versus anyone they want. This would be a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor General has kinds the same powers as the monarch. Legislation requires "royal ascent l" to become law (similar concept to the US president signing bills passed by congress). The Govenor could reject the bill, but that'd trigger a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor General holds similar powers to the executive of the US (using them as an example because if you are on an England speaking site you probably have some familiarity of the US system via media). But based on recommendations from the Prime Minister defers these powers to different ministers. Commonly referred to as a Portfolio. Eg how we a minister for defence, immigration etc etc. Failure to follow government recommendations would trigger a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor general can sack government and trigger an election. The closest Australia has been to constitutional crisis was the time this power was exercised with the sacking of Gough Whitlam. (note this is all based on my memory and understanding from classes in high school long ago)
- vkou 4y ago
  The situation in Canada is the same, but there is one situation where the GG's power is significant, and does not trigger a constitutional crisis. Determining whether or not a minority government is dissolved, and an election is held, or if a ruling coalition can be allowed to form. In 2008, right after the election the GG did the ruling minority of Tories a pretty big favor by refusing to accept a non-confidence vote by a majority coalition, and instead, proroguing parliament for the benefit of the ruling minority party... Absolutely insane. (That this question is left to the whim of one unelected person.)
  - markdown 4y ago
    It's actually really sane. Elected individuals are almost always corrupt... you really can't be elected anymore without owing lots of people favours. An unelected, non-political individual who is above it all results in a more stable democracy.
    - martopix 4y ago
      Populist take aside, this is somewhat true. In Italy there has been talk of electing the president directly, but I think that would be a terrible choice. Currently, he is elected by parliament, and this (surprisingly) has worked mostly well. The president ends up being an older well respected politician who takes a neutral role. If they were elected by a public election, there's no way you could have a neutral figure.
      - skissane 4y ago
        > If they were elected by a public election, there's no way you could have a neutral figure. Ireland proves that isn’t true. The Irish system works by allowing the public to choose the President, but having tough nominating criteria. Anyone overly political or controversial is not going to get through the nominating process, and so won’t be able to run. The nominating process produces a shortlist of 2-6 respected figures, and the public gets to choose which one they respect the most. If Italy adopted the same system as Ireland, including the same tough nomination requirements, there is no reason why Italy couldn’t get the same outcome.
nicoburns 4y ago
That’s true, but there’s a lot that a monarch could get away with, and building a mansion on crown estate land is probably one of them.
- skissane 4y ago
  In the 21st century, I don't think the monarch can "get away" with anything unless the Prime Minister is willing to let them "get away" with that thing. And some Prime Ministers (especially Tory ones) would be more than happy for the monarch to have a nice new mansion. But if there is a Prime Minister who says "no, don't do that!", the monarch has to do as told. In a public fight between the PM and the monarch over "should the monarch be allowed to build a new mansion", absolutely the PM is going to win. For British Republicans, such a fight would be a dream come true, since it would instantly move Republicanism from the political fringes to the mainstream.
  - Veen 4y ago
    That's true, but PMs are motivated not to "embarrass" the monarch if it can be at all avoided. It would be a very unpopular move, as it was when Boris Johnson "advised" the late Queen to prorogue Parliament during the Brexit period. The PM would almost certainly come out worse unless the monarch really was up to something quite bad, and building on Crown land mightn't be bad enough.
t0mas88 4y ago
The same is true for the Dutch royal family. Technically the king appoints the ministers / secretaries of state and has to sign every law before it becomes official. Practically he signs the things the elected government wants him to sign. If he starts to take a direct political stance on things they would remove his powers. The constitution can be changed by a 2/3rd majority in parliament, a king that starts to "use" his powers would be opposed by far more than 2/3rd of parliament regardless of their political affiliations.
- jongjong 4y ago
  If the king had an appetite for risk, he could replace the governor of the bank of England with someone he controls, print however much money it takes to bribe parliamentarians to pass whatever laws he wants. Thanks to big corporations and their political meddlings (lobbying), most politicians today aren't selected for their virtues. It's likely that they can be bought.
  - _fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
    If he tried that he wouldn't be king anymore before even one pound was printed.
User23 4y ago
> King Charles III has immense powers on paper, but if he ever tried to actually wield them – with the possible exception of highly unusual circumstances, such as a constitutional crisis not of his own making – he would soon find himself deprived of them. If he had sufficient popular support from the armed forces and a enough of the general public he might manage it. The likely outcome though would be a considerable loss of support.
hnfong 4y ago
I agree with most of what you said. Having spent more time thinking about political systems than I should, I'd say that this arrangement probably isn't a unique to the Brits (or their past colonies), but rather a universal political fact. In general, words aren't worth the paper they're written on, unless they conform with the political reality. There's no monarch in the world that could actually exercise their powers on paper unless they also have the political clout to back them up. The uniqueness of the British system is how weak the monarchy has gotten over the years, and how acutely aware they are about the situation. England's monarchy comes from a really long line of succession, due to the relative ease of defending an island from invaders. Monarchs that rule by right of conquest are generally strong and authoritative, their heirs becoming less so for each succession. (Japan shares this trait and hence the political system is somewhat similar) And then, the near-death experience during the 1600s made the British monarchy even weaker, and more conscious about the dangers of angering the common mob. And so they invented the idea of constitutional monarchy, that is somehow "just like" the other democratic republics, except without the regicide part :) Before this democracy thing became popular, it used to be cool for monarchs to proclaim to have more power than they actually had in political reality. After revolutions and regicides became a thing in Europe, they started to do the opposite and claimed to have less power than they had on paper. But what I'm trying to say is, many monarchs (whether British or not) historically had little real power anyways, and would have most likely would have triggered constitutional crises if they disagreed with their ministers (or the powerful elites). I think the re-imaging of the British monarchy as mentioned above is truly ingenious, and while I took my sweet time deconstructing it, I still think it's an amazing narrative. I'd classify it as "anti-republicanism propaganda", but it's brilliant nonetheless. Note: used to be a British subject before 1997. Hah.

_fizz_buzz_ 4y ago

> Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision and by that immediately end the monarchy itself. The UK is funny like that. The king signs all the laws and could refuse in theory, but if he does he wouldn't be king anymore.

youngtaff 4y ago
But the Monarch’s lawyers get to review laws at an early stage so they can object / get then changes before the law is passed It’s how laws that exempted the Monarch from race discrimination laws, why leaseholders in the Duchy of Cornwall can’t buy their freeholds etc.
- rcxdude 4y ago
  Yeah, an outright assertion of power from the monarch would not go well, but the soft power they wield is still pretty extreme.
nly 4y ago
The constitution of the UK is unwritten. If the king tried it would be for the courts to decide on the legality.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  That would run into the same problem Parliament ran into with the trial of Charles I: The root of all authority in the UK is the Crown. By challenging the authority of the Crown, the court is challenging its own authority to challenge anything. Of course, that argument didn't really work fantastically with Charles I.