UK Politics - Taking the Land Rover to Heaven

[Spockydog]

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

But it’s also been pretty off the table since Diana died. It also really isn’t just his decision 

He is heir to the throne. Who has the power to force him off it?

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Spockydog said:

What are you on about? He is heir to the throne. Who has the power to force him off it?

It’s not like we are living in the Tudor times it’s an almost purely symbolic monarchy. Charles would have almost no power and the government could easily make enough threats to convince him not to do it, or I suspect even force him not to.

[Spockydog]

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It’s not like we are living in the Tudor times it’s an almost purely symbolic monarchy. Charles would have almost no power and the government could easily make enough threats to convince him not to do it, or I suspect even force him not to.

So, nobody then.

ETA: And from what we've heard recently about their interference in UK lawmaking, our pet lizards are not as symbolic as we are all led to believe.

 

[mormont]

29 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

But it’s also been pretty off the table since Diana died. It also really isn’t just his decision 

It really hasn't been off the table at any time. Charles has continued to be the heir to the throne, and opposition to him inheriting has been scant - the odd purely speculative remark by a newspaper columnist or an opinion poll or two, which fluctuate with the headlines.

You're right that it isn't just his decision, in that it isn't a decision at all. Charles is legally the heir and will inherit. It would take an Act of Parliament to pass the throne to William. Nobody's going to do that in the face of Charles publicly protesting. It would be a PR disaster for the monarchy, particularly if it happened immediately after Liz dies.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibilty that Charles could be pressured into agreeing or at least not making a fuss. But who is going to do that? His mother shows no signs of doing so and it doesn't really fit with what we know of her view on her own reign, which is that you don't abdicate, being monarch is not a job, it's a duty conferred on you by birth. I doubt William wants to have that fight. The PM? I don't think Charles would take that well.

No, much as monarchists might prefer William to take over and save the institution (compromising the principles of what monarchy actually is, as Liffguard points out), I think by far the most likely outcome at present is King Charles.

ETA - by far the better bet for monarchists is Charles predeceasing Liz, which isn't likely but isn't off the table...

[Spockydog]

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

ETA - by far the better bet for monarchists is Charles predeceasing Liz, which isn't likely but isn't off the table...

I reckon she'll be gone within the year.

 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

I reckon she'll be gone within the year.

 

predicting  someone's soon to be death is really in poor taste.

[Spockydog]

46 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

predicting  someone's soon to be death is really in poor taste.

SMH. This isn't 1535. And in case you hadn't noticed, Betty's death and what happens after it is what everyone is discussing in this thread right now.

Also, it is a well known fact that when couples have been together for such a long period of time, the widow/widower rarely lasts long after their partner has passed.

And as much as Henry VIII might have hated it, part of being head of this absurd, archaic, monstrosity of an institution (along with the mind-blowing levels of privilege) involves plebeian speculation over when you might die. 

/pearlclutching

[Spockydog]

6 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Stephen Fry or Attenborough for the win? 

Helen Mirren. Less training required. 

[Heartofice]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

It really hasn't been off the table at any time. Charles has continued to be the heir to the throne, and opposition to him inheriting has been scant - the odd purely speculative remark by a newspaper columnist or an opinion poll or two, which fluctuate with the headlines.

You're right that it isn't just his decision, in that it isn't a decision at all. Charles is legally the heir and will inherit. It would take an Act of Parliament to pass the throne to William. Nobody's going to do that in the face of Charles publicly protesting. It would be a PR disaster for the monarchy, particularly if it happened immediately after Liz dies.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibilty that Charles could be pressured into agreeing or at least not making a fuss. But who is going to do that? His mother shows no signs of doing so and it doesn't really fit with what we know of her view on her own reign, which is that you don't abdicate, being monarch is not a job, it's a duty conferred on you by birth. I doubt William wants to have that fight. The PM? I don't think Charles would take that well.

No, much as monarchists might prefer William to take over and save the institution (compromising the principles of what monarchy actually is, as Liffguard points out), I think by far the most likely outcome at present is King Charles.

ETA - by far the better bet for monarchists is Charles predeceasing Liz, which isn't likely but isn't off the table...

Of course automatically the crown goes to Charles. The only way it doesn't is if Charles decides he's going to pass on it. The question is whether Charles would go against popular opinion, and probably against the opinion of most of the royal household and take up the crown. You'd say his mother would be against him abdicating, but we don't know that, but we do know that her main priority has been about maintaining the status and security of the Royal family. 

Putting Charles in charge could jepordise the whole setup, mainly because he's just too unpopular, and so is Camilla. You'd don't want to get on the wrong side of those people with their Princess Diana mugs. Also continuity is going to be important and seeing as he's already 70 then he doesn' have long left either. You could say that's all the more reason to let him have his day in the sun but it could easily feed over into a general apathy towards William if they have to do another big ceremony in 10 years time. 

The point also is that the entire royal apparatus really isn't just about the decision of one person, as much as it is made out to be. We all know that on paper the Queen has a lot of power, but in reality she has almost none and is seriously discouraged from ever using any of it. It's all a fascade. If the whole palace apparatus and government felt that Charles being King would damage the monarchy and Britain then there is simply no way it would happen. Charles would probably be threatened with god knows what, some sort of restructure that means he loses land and prestiege or whatever, they'd find a way to convince him not to do it. And as pigheaded as Charlie might be, I don't see him going through with it just to get his nose on some coins. 

[Maltaran]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

If the whole palace apparatus and government felt that Charles being King would damage the monarchy and Britain then there is simply no way it would happen. 

While this is what did for Edward VIII, Charles simply being old and unpopular is not going to make the government take such a radical step. Now if Andrew was the heir then maybe it would happen depending on what more comes out about him and Epstein, but Charlie hasn’t done anything controversial enough for that to happen.

[HexMachina]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Helen Mirren. Less training required. 

I'm sure they already hired Imelda Staunton

[mormont]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Of course automatically the crown goes to Charles. The only way it doesn't is if Charles decides he's going to pass on it.

Or, as I say, an Act of Parliament would work. It'd set a pretty awful precedent for the monarchy, though: there's little point in even a hereditary monarchy if Parliament can just skip the line of succession whenever they feel like it.

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The question is whether Charles would go against popular opinion, and probably against the opinion of most of the royal household and take up the crown.

In Charles' career in public life, he never really gave a damn about public opinion or the opinion of the Royal household - except that one time, when he was told he couldn't marry Camilla and gave in to pressure to marry a 'more suitable' alternative. That did not work out very well for him.

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

You'd say his mother would be against him abdicating, but we don't know that, but we do know that her main priority has been about maintaining the status and security of the Royal family.

I don't really see how those things are maintained by her forcing Charles to agree to give up the throne. As has already been pointed out more than once, there's a very good argument to the effect that skipping Charles because the public aren't keen is itself a threat to the stability of the monarchy. What if William's eldest is a jerk and the younger is more popular? What if one of their cousins is more popular still? Maybe we could have some kind of public vote on who should inherit the role of head of state? That sounds like a really good way to secure the position of the hereditary monarchy...

[Fez]

21 hours ago, felice said:

Why have a head of state at all? It's a purely ceremonial position these days.

Every country has a head of state, and in parliamentary systems that person is usually not the head of government. That way there can be someone to accept the appointment and the resignation of the head of government; even if they don't have any power to actually change the outcome.

In practical terms it wouldn't make much of a difference if the PM was also the head of state, but you do need someone in the role; to be the official representation of the country at state dinners and such.

But you don't necessarily want a separate elected head of state and an elected head of government unless you have a constitution that very clearly lays out what powers each one has. Otherwise you can start getting into issues where one or the other starts getting some feature creep. The times when France's President and Prime Minister have been from different political parties you see some of this.

[Ran]

Per YouGov polling, Charles is at 46% popular, 28% undecided, 27% unpopular. It seems to me that on succession, the undecideds will probably break towards him out of sympathy and whatnot, putting him over 50% popular. If he keeps himself out of trouble, continues measures like reducing who gets funding in the royal family, I really don't see his being king as an existential crisis for the monarchy.

[Denvek]

It won't be an existential crisis, but the difference in popularity between Brenda and Charlie will mean that talking about British republicanism will become more acceptable, even if actually doing anything about it is still not worth any politician's time.

[Heartofice]

23 minutes ago, Ran said:

Per YouGov polling, Charles is at 46% popular, 28% undecided, 27% unpopular. It seems to me that on succession, the undecideds will probably break towards him out of sympathy and whatnot, putting him over 50% popular. If he keeps himself out of trouble, continues measures like reducing who gets funding in the royal family, I really don't see his being king as an existential crisis for the monarchy.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/will-prince-charles-make-a-good-king
 

A majority also believe that Charles will not make a good king 

[Ran]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/will-prince-charles-make-a-good-king
 

A majority also believe that Charles will not make a good king 

All it takes is his being just fine for that opinion to start changing, though. I suspect a lot is just inertia.

(Also, 33%  is not a majority. The undecideds are really sky high here.)

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, Ran said:

All it takes is his being just fine for that opinion to start changing, though. I suspect a lot is just inertia.

(Also, 33%  is not a majority. The undecideds are really sky high here.)

The trend line is not going in his favour and I don’t think it would take much to accelerate it

[Ran]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The trend line is not going in his favour and I don’t think it would take much to accelerate it

Near as I can tell it's all due to Harry and Meghan, no? A problem which I think will be less problematic in the long run now that they have moved off to California. 

What exactly is your position? Are you hoping for an end to the monarchy, or are you okay with it existing but believe it won't survive Charles as king?

The big thing, again, are the massive undecideds. This will change and so long as he doesn't sprout horns or some such, they should break in his favor.

[felice]

49 minutes ago, Fez said:

Every country has a head of state, and in parliamentary systems that person is usually not the head of government.

Technically yes, but it being someone other than the head of government is largely a vestigial holdover from pre-democratic times.

49 minutes ago, Fez said:

That way there can be someone to accept the appointment and the resignation of the head of government; even if they don't have any power to actually change the outcome.

Why not just announce it to the media? Having a person to carry out a purely symbolic "acceptance" is hardly vital. Or if you really want to keep the ritual, have a lottery to select a random person to accept on behalf of the people, or have parliament employ someone for the purpose.

49 minutes ago, Fez said:

In practical terms it wouldn't make much of a difference if the PM was also the head of state, but you do need someone in the role; to be the official representation of the country at state dinners and such.

Sounds like a role for an ambassador, if the PM is too busy to attend themselves.

49 minutes ago, Fez said:

But you don't necessarily want a separate elected head of state and an elected head of government unless you have a constitution that very clearly lays out what powers each one has.

Yeah, having both with actual power seems like a really bad idea to me. And I'm not keen on directly electing the head either, as in presidential systems.