5 ms·

If he can withhold assent then he is somewhat responsible for the result. What would happen if he tried?

by progne 3y ago

quink 3y ago
End of the monarchy. No fanfare, no big drama, just OK, bye, we’ve got an election for president to organise. Especially after Brexit the British people have learned the lesson of fucking around for years when it comes to any change, this will happen with lightning speed and determination.
_fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
End of the British monarchy probably.
- anticensor 3y ago
  Welcome to the United States of Britain.
jeffparsons 3y ago
The monarchy might not last very long if it were to actually exercise much of its theoretical power. UK folks love their royalty these days as a kind of mascot, but I doubt they'd tolerate an interventionist king.
- morelisp 3y ago
  I mean, if we lose the law and the king, seems like win/win?
  - blibble 3y ago
    the result would be we'd end up with the law and William as king
dragonwriter 3y ago
If he practically can’t and acts only as a PR figleaf as long as he is King, he’s still responsible.
- wredue 3y ago
  If you think for a single second that the monarchy is going to do a single thing that might jeopardize their free, cushy, completely out of touch lifestyle, you are horribly horribly wrong. Philip had his fair share of completely out of touch gaffes, but even he wasn’t so stupid as to believe it wouldn’t ruin everything for him to exercise their “power”.
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    That doesn’t alter the point that he’s still responsible for the things happening in his name. Just because he’s selfish and doesn’t want to jeopardize the things his position brings him, doesn’t me he bears no responsibility or culpability. Maybe refusing royal assent wouldn’t change anything (it likely wouldn’t), he still assents and the law goes forward with his name on it.
    - sgjohnson 3y ago
      > That doesn’t alter the point that he’s still responsible for the things happening in his name. There's case law on this matter actually, coming from the trial of King Charles I. > The court challenged the doctrine of sovereign immunity and proposed that "the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern 'by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise'." So no, granting the Royal Assent doesn't happen in the name of King Charles III.
      - ncallaway 3y ago
        Sure, and when Biden vetoes something it’s happening by the Office of the President. It’s still happening by the hand and pen of President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. History can figure out who held the office when. Maybe we can’t sue either of them personally for those actions (which is what sovereign immunity relates to), but history can sure as shit remember which King took which actions. You think we don’t remember which George lost the American colonies, because it was the Office that lost the colonies?
arp242 3y ago
The joke is that he can do this, but once only as afterwards he will no longer have the power to do so. Realistically it will just be passed anyway one way or the other. e.g. the UK will become a republic, or they will bypass the monarch like they did in Belgium when the king refused to sign the abortion law (parliament declared the king "incapacitated" in which case the PM could sign things in to law, and a few hours later they declared him "capable" again – whether this really was keeping with the spirit or even text of the law is dubious, it's not in my reading, but no one really cared; the only reason Belgium still has a monarchy is because the king didn't object to this hack).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- salamanderss 3y ago
  He'd still be commander in chief of Canada's armed forces. There's that at least.
  - smallnix 3y ago
    The king of Belgium has anything to do with Canada?
    - salamanderss 3y ago
      Nah referring to England's king.
      - blibble 3y ago
        England hasn't had a king since the 1700s edit: for the ignorant (hello downvoters), this is a true statement. the last King of England was William III (who died in 1702) the Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707 with the Act of Union when it merged with the with the Kingdom of Scotland to become the Kingdom of Great Britain
        3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
blibble 3y ago
it depends on the circumstances essentially whether or not he'd be on the side of whoever won the next election (that would be swiftly triggered) if the same government was re-elected he'd be made to abdicate otherwise he'd be ok
- sgjohnson 3y ago
  > essentially whether or not he'd be on the side of whoever won the next election (that would be swiftly triggered) No. The only reason why the British monarchy still exists is because they are completely apolitical. If that changed, it would very quickly become a bipartisan issue to end the monarchy, irrespective of which side he’d support.
  - blibble 3y ago
    > No. a very similar scenario played out this way in another commonwealth realm in 1975 the monarchy endures
sgjohnson 3y ago
> What would happen if he tried? He would probably be either asked to abdicate, or it would be the end of the British monarchy altogether. It would cause a massive constitutional crisis in the UK where not only the monarchy would be called in question, but also the nobility (i.e. House of Lords)
kypro 3y ago
In the UK the police and military swear allegiance to the Monarch. So I think the true answer to this is that it really depends where loyalties lie. In the US you have the second amendment to protect you against the state, but in the UK we have the Monarch. In theory the Monarch could tell the government to get lost, but their ability to do that in practise would depend on whether the police and military would side with them. If Charles withheld consent for this he would probably be overruled in one way or another, but if it was about entering an unpopular war you could see how his consent would become much more important.
- salamanderss 3y ago
  Yes the military in Canada also swears allegiance to the monarch in the UK. So maybe he could order Canadian forces to attack the UK government when they try to abdicate him?
  - sgjohnson 3y ago
    > Yes the military it Canada also swears allegiance to the monarchy in the UK. Technically the military in Canada swear allegiance to the monarchy in Canada. The monarchy of Canada is legally completely distinct from the one in the UK. Or Australia. Or New Zealand. Or any other of HRHs realms and dominions. It’s just that they all share the same monarch and the rules of succession. It’s actually theoretically possible for Charles to abdicate the throne in the UK but still remain the King of Canada. Which would be utterly ridiculous and it’s not going to happen, but theoretically it could.
    - salamanderss 3y ago
      The monarchy of Canada is the monarchy in the UK. But yes you're right. Pedantically we are both accurate as I intentionally didn't say they swore to the monarchy of UK. In any case it's a distinction that leads to the same guy.
      - blibble 3y ago
a_techwriter_00 3y ago
A civil war happened the last time a King Charles broke with Parliament.
Affric 3y ago
(Without some truly insane set of circumstances) the biggest crisis since the abdication of Edward VIII. It would threaten the very continuance of the Monarchy. Charles can withhold consent in the same sense as he can shoot himself in the face.
catlover76 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Charles_III_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Charles_III_(film)

If he can withhold assent then he is somewhat responsible for the result. What would happen if he tried?

by progne 3y ago

If he can withhold assent then he is somewhat responsible for the result. What would happen if he tried?

End of the monarchy. No fanfare, no big drama, just OK, bye, we’ve got an election for president to organise. Especially after Brexit the British people have learned the lesson of fucking around for years when it comes to any change, this will happen with lightning speed and determination.

_fizz_buzz_ 3y ago

End of the British monarchy probably.

anticensor 3y ago
Welcome to the United States of Britain.

jeffparsons 3y ago

The monarchy might not last very long if it were to actually exercise much of its theoretical power. UK folks love their royalty these days as a kind of mascot, but I doubt they'd tolerate an interventionist king.

morelisp 3y ago
I mean, if we lose the law and the king, seems like win/win?
- blibble 3y ago
  the result would be we'd end up with the law and William as king

dragonwriter 3y ago

If he practically can’t and acts only as a PR figleaf as long as he is King, he’s still responsible.

wredue 3y ago
If you think for a single second that the monarchy is going to do a single thing that might jeopardize their free, cushy, completely out of touch lifestyle, you are horribly horribly wrong. Philip had his fair share of completely out of touch gaffes, but even he wasn’t so stupid as to believe it wouldn’t ruin everything for him to exercise their “power”.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  That doesn’t alter the point that he’s still responsible for the things happening in his name. Just because he’s selfish and doesn’t want to jeopardize the things his position brings him, doesn’t me he bears no responsibility or culpability. Maybe refusing royal assent wouldn’t change anything (it likely wouldn’t), he still assents and the law goes forward with his name on it.
  - sgjohnson 3y ago
    > That doesn’t alter the point that he’s still responsible for the things happening in his name. There's case law on this matter actually, coming from the trial of King Charles I. > The court challenged the doctrine of sovereign immunity and proposed that "the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern 'by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise'." So no, granting the Royal Assent doesn't happen in the name of King Charles III.
    - ncallaway 3y ago
      Sure, and when Biden vetoes something it’s happening by the Office of the President. It’s still happening by the hand and pen of President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. History can figure out who held the office when. Maybe we can’t sue either of them personally for those actions (which is what sovereign immunity relates to), but history can sure as shit remember which King took which actions. You think we don’t remember which George lost the American colonies, because it was the Office that lost the colonies?

arp242 3y ago

The joke is that he can do this, but once only as afterwards he will no longer have the power to do so. Realistically it will just be passed anyway one way or the other. e.g. the UK will become a republic, or they will bypass the monarch like they did in Belgium when the king refused to sign the abortion law (parliament declared the king "incapacitated" in which case the PM could sign things in to law, and a few hours later they declared him "capable" again – whether this really was keeping with the spirit or even text of the law is dubious, it's not in my reading, but no one really cared; the only reason Belgium still has a monarchy is because the king didn't object to this hack).

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
salamanderss 3y ago
He'd still be commander in chief of Canada's armed forces. There's that at least.
- smallnix 3y ago
  The king of Belgium has anything to do with Canada?
  - salamanderss 3y ago
    Nah referring to England's king.
    - blibble 3y ago
      England hasn't had a king since the 1700s edit: for the ignorant (hello downvoters), this is a true statement. the last King of England was William III (who died in 1702) the Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707 with the Act of Union when it merged with the with the Kingdom of Scotland to become the Kingdom of Great Britain
      - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

blibble 3y ago

it depends on the circumstances essentially whether or not he'd be on the side of whoever won the next election (that would be swiftly triggered) if the same government was re-elected he'd be made to abdicate otherwise he'd be ok

sgjohnson 3y ago
> essentially whether or not he'd be on the side of whoever won the next election (that would be swiftly triggered) No. The only reason why the British monarchy still exists is because they are completely apolitical. If that changed, it would very quickly become a bipartisan issue to end the monarchy, irrespective of which side he’d support.
- blibble 3y ago
  > No. a very similar scenario played out this way in another commonwealth realm in 1975 the monarchy endures

sgjohnson 3y ago

> What would happen if he tried? He would probably be either asked to abdicate, or it would be the end of the British monarchy altogether. It would cause a massive constitutional crisis in the UK where not only the monarchy would be called in question, but also the nobility (i.e. House of Lords)

kypro 3y ago

In the UK the police and military swear allegiance to the Monarch. So I think the true answer to this is that it really depends where loyalties lie. In the US you have the second amendment to protect you against the state, but in the UK we have the Monarch. In theory the Monarch could tell the government to get lost, but their ability to do that in practise would depend on whether the police and military would side with them. If Charles withheld consent for this he would probably be overruled in one way or another, but if it was about entering an unpopular war you could see how his consent would become much more important.

salamanderss 3y ago
Yes the military in Canada also swears allegiance to the monarch in the UK. So maybe he could order Canadian forces to attack the UK government when they try to abdicate him?
- sgjohnson 3y ago
  > Yes the military it Canada also swears allegiance to the monarchy in the UK. Technically the military in Canada swear allegiance to the monarchy in Canada. The monarchy of Canada is legally completely distinct from the one in the UK. Or Australia. Or New Zealand. Or any other of HRHs realms and dominions. It’s just that they all share the same monarch and the rules of succession. It’s actually theoretically possible for Charles to abdicate the throne in the UK but still remain the King of Canada. Which would be utterly ridiculous and it’s not going to happen, but theoretically it could.
  - salamanderss 3y ago
    The monarchy of Canada is the monarchy in the UK. But yes you're right. Pedantically we are both accurate as I intentionally didn't say they swore to the monarchy of UK. In any case it's a distinction that leads to the same guy.
    - blibble 3y ago

a_techwriter_00 3y ago

A civil war happened the last time a King Charles broke with Parliament.

Affric 3y ago

(Without some truly insane set of circumstances) the biggest crisis since the abdication of Edward VIII. It would threaten the very continuance of the Monarchy. Charles can withhold consent in the same sense as he can shoot himself in the face.

catlover76 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Charles_III_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Charles_III_(film)