Timeline for If the elected UK parliament falls into disarray, can the reigning monarch take over?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 31, 2018 at 15:49 | comment | added | Steve Melnikoff | "she is de facto in a constitutional monarchy even if she isn't de jure in one." It could be argued that the UK is a de jure constitutional monarchy, in the sense that even the monarch is bound by the rule of law, and her powers are limited by custom and statute. | |
| Dec 31, 2018 at 15:47 | comment | added | Steve Melnikoff | "custom puts most of her powers into..." not just custom: statute as well. For example, the Fixed-Term Parliament Act removed the right of the monarch (in practice, the Prime Minister) to dissolve Parliament whenever she liked. | |
| Dec 31, 2018 at 15:39 | comment | added | o.m. | @Orangesandlemons, they Brits are rightly proud of their democratic traditions. And in recent centuries they say that the Queen does reign but not rule. | |
| Dec 31, 2018 at 15:10 | comment | added | user19831 | @o.m. equating supporting mass genocide and invading other countries with going along with the Queen running the country within the currently legal means is somewhat redacto ad absurdum, however bad you think the latter may be. | |
| Dec 31, 2018 at 13:59 | comment | added | Jack Of All Trades 234 | Citation for the seemingly unfounded statement that soldiers would not support direct rule? Historically, the military in MOST western civilizations have been exceptionally conservative, and more than willing to support coups in support of that side of the political coin. | |
| Dec 31, 2018 at 13:25 | comment | added | vsz | Unless the Parliament makes such horrendously bad things that the population would support the Queen against them. Then there would be no revolt against the Queen, maybe possible there could be a revolt for the Queen against the Parliament. Happened in other countries. | |
| Dec 31, 2018 at 11:15 | comment | added | pjc50 | I have always imagined that the end of the monarchy would proceed in an extremely English fashion: "I'm sorry your Majesty, I regret to inform you that there's been a coup and we're going to have to ask you to leave". | |
| Dec 31, 2018 at 7:24 | comment | added | Chaim Eliyah | "Needing to take power" hardly seems like a justification for a revolution. "Ready the cannons and prepare the funeral pyres. I need to take power." o.O | |
| Dec 31, 2018 at 7:22 | comment | added | o.m. | @ChaimEliyah, when you take an oath, you do not surrender your conscience if circumstances change. Some Germans tried that excuse 75 years ago and the precedent is now clear. And the UK would need a revolution because that's the only way to take the monarch's power against the will of the monarchs. It might be an exchange of letters instead of street battles, but it would be a revolution. | |
| Dec 31, 2018 at 7:17 | comment | added | Chaim Eliyah | I might agree with your second statement, given the backdrop of 20th century politics, but why would they need a revolution? And does "needing" a revolution somehow change the oath? Also, in order of loyalty, wouldn't the Crown come first, and the beleaguered parliament a distant second? | |
| Dec 31, 2018 at 7:12 | comment | added | o.m. | @ChaimEliyah, if it were Henry VIII instead of Elisabeth II, the Brits would need a revolution right now. The current monarch understands that she is de facto in a constitutional monarchy even if she isn't de jure in one. | |
| Dec 31, 2018 at 4:32 | comment | added | Chaim Eliyah | Then what purpose does it serve to swear true allegiance to the queen? Perhaps they need a refresher on the meaning of the oath? | |
| Dec 30, 2018 at 6:16 | comment | added | o.m. | @phoog, edited. | |
| Dec 30, 2018 at 6:16 | history | edited | o.m. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Dec 29, 2018 at 22:51 | comment | added | phoog | I think you mean "direct rule." | |
| Dec 29, 2018 at 20:12 | history | answered | o.m. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |