4 ms·
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
by 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 agoYes 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 agoThe 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> The monarchy of Canada is the monarchy in the UK. they're not, they're different sovereign entities that have the same office holder and follow the same rules of succession (from the Act of Settlement) in the same way a single person can be a director of multiple different companies
- salamanderss 3y agoThe head of monarchy of Canada is residing in the UK. Being a monarch of UK isn't same as being monarch in UK. The Canadian monarch is in the UK, this is fact. >y're different sovereign entities that have the same office holder and follow the same rules of succession (from the Act of Settlement) Brother he lives in the same place cause he's the same guy. He's in the UK.
- blibble 3y ago> The head of monarchy of Canada is residing in the UK. Being a monarch of UK isn't same as being monarch in UK. The Canadian monarch is in the UK, this is fact. this "argument" makes no sense whatsoever
- salamanderss 3y agoIt only makes no sense if you don't understand the monarch of Canada is in the UK, and thus is monarch in but not necessarily of UK. (But really the same dude and mostly defended as separate as some sort of weird commonwealth saving of face about your nation swearing allegiance to the guy who's the monarch of UK)
- dragonwriter 3y ago> The monarchy of Canada is the monarchy in the UK No, its technically a separate monarchy that happens to have the same current monarch and current rules of succession.
- 3y ago
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Or any other of HRHs realms and dominions. HRMs [edit: just HMs] realms and dominions, actually.
- sgjohnson 3y agoActually just HMs, if we really want to be that pedantic. :)