68

TLDR From natural-born citizens at least, no, you don't need to swear such allegiance, unless you're doing some very specific jobs. Even in such jobs, possible with some exceptional circumstances, one can be 'anti-Monarchist' without repercussion. I'm British, so I can comment on the "natural-born" part of this question. What I say below applies for such ...


64

Upon the Demise of the crown (which covers both the death of the current monarch or their abdication, or any other event ending the reign of the monarch), the next in succession immediately becomes the new monarch without any act of government or state required. The throne is never empty. If this happens during the time Parliament has been dissolved for a ...


62

It is a constitutional rather than a statutory requirement: Prime Ministers have a constitutional responsibility to tell the Queen what is happening (John Major) The Queen remains the Head of State, and the Prime Minister is required (by tradition and precedent) to keep the Queen apprised of government business. The Queen lacks direct power, but she ...


58

In theory: Yes. Brexit requires legislation, which the Queen can veto; and the Queen also has prerogative over international treaties. It was decided by the UK Supreme Court that the government cannot instigate Brexit at all without the approval of Parliament. Parliament has already passed an Act authorising the Prime Minister to trigger article 50 of the ...


55

I have been a Canadian my whole life and I do not recall ever being asked to "swear allegiance" to the monarch verbally. Generally the monarchy is popular in a celebrity kind of way and while there are some anti-monarchists I believe it is not a significant political issue. Since individual rights are important to Canadians (and I imagine similarly to the ...


40

This is a complete non-issue in the UK. For example, the leader of the opposition in Parliament, Jeremy Corbyn, has openly refused to sing the National Anthem when attending high profile, televised, public events such as a memorial service commemorating the anniversary of the Battle of Britain in WWII. It's hard to imagine any public figure "getting away ...


27

Queen's prerogative powers The Queen has the right to authorise the forming of a new government and the appointment of a Prime Minister. So, theoretically, she can and has the power to say 'no' to the request. The Queen only has the power to authorise the formation of a new government and appoint a new Prime Minister. There aren't any special powers in the ...


26

British person here, swearing an oath of loyalty to the monarch only happens if you join government service of some kind (millitary, police, etc). Otherwise it almost never comes up. While I quite like the royals, a lot of people don't like them and are free to do so.


25

Yes, he most certainly could, assuming that Parliament agreed to accept his abdication. We have a precedent in the His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 where Parliament passed a bill confirming the voluntary abdication of Edward VIII and passing succession to his brother, George VI, despite there (apparently) being an extant heir to the throne ...


24

Laws of royal succession vary between monarchies. Some have inheritance in the male line only, but others do not. The UK has a tradition of allowing inheritance through the female line; and of women as monarchs in their own right, such as Elizabeth I of England (reigned 1558-1603), Mary of Scotland (1542-67), and Victoria (1837-1901). At the time Elizabeth ...


24

New citizens Others have discussed most about those having citizenship from birth. I will attempt to answer this part of your question: What about a non-natural person otherwise qualifying for citizenship or a passport ? United Kingdom To become a UK citizen, one must take an oath of allegiance. The text of the oath (from Wikipedia) is as follows: I, [...


18

Questions about the power of the Queen come up occasionally on this site. The normal answer goes something like this. The Queen has absolute authority to do as she pleases; however, she does not choose to use this authority, and instead carries out the will of Parliament. If the Queen chose to remove Parliament and rule in its place, this could lead to some ...


18

The situation you're asking about is a Hung Parliament and is fairly common. While the Queen can't simply take over government if parliament is hung, she (or rather her ministers) can use Orders in Council to handle any emergencies should they arise. Her ability to intervene in the parliamentary deadlock itself is more complex, and there's an illustrative ...


14

There has been an instance of restarting from no monarch, no parliament so the answer to "Is there a scenario where the UK is left permanently without a parliament?" is "No". In 1688, James II fled England after William of Orange had turned up, by invitation of some of James' opponents, with a very effective army. James got rid of the great seal, probably ...


14

No. Belgian noble titles are only hereditary in rare instances, although it does still happen. As you mention, Herman van Rompuy's title was granted by Royal Decree on July 8th 2015. This was published in the Belgian Gazette on the 17th (Ref: 2015/15097). From my rough translation of the decree: On the recommendation of Mr Deputy Prime Minister and Minister ...


13

The difference in this case is that Prince Charles already has two heirs from his first marriage with the deceased Princess Diana Spencer (Prince William and Prince Henry). Should he have another child with Camilla Parker Bowles (very unlikely, considering that she was 57 when they married and is now 68), that child would be 5th in succession after Charles, ...


13

The other answers comprehensively cover the UK and Canada cases. I'll offer the Australian perspective, as a naturalised Australian citizen. Contrary to Canada, the Australian citizenship pledge does not pledge allegiance to the Queen. It it a common misconception though, so much so, that when one of my friends is about to become a citizen, I tease them by ...


12

Your premise is incorrect. Land in general in the UK is owned by the owners, not by the monarch. The monarchy has no right to confiscate land any more than elsewhere in the democratic world. While it is true that the 'allodial title' of all land belongs to the crown, this is a historical artifact indicating that the owner of the land still owes certain ...


11

The arguments I found in favour of constitutional monarchy (some of them could be biased): Some people are going to a admire celebrities no matter what. Without monarchy they admire film actors or singers anyway, so monarchy give them someone to love and take as a model. It gives an international view on the country that no elected president can ever give. ...


11

It's very difficult to answer such a hypothetical question but here goes... The Queen could have unilaterally attempted to invoke a no deal Brexit by withdrawing the UK from its EU treaty obligations. This is within the remit of the Royal Prerogative. As the treaty obligations are also written directly in to UK law, and those Acts wouldn't necessarily be ...


10

She could, but would have been unlikely to happen. The Supreme Court ruled in January that Parliament must vote on whether to invoke Article 50 (although the devolved parliaments do not need to be consulted). The president of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, stated “Section 2 of the 1972 [European Communities] Act provides that, whenever EU institutions ...


10

The very short answer is no. The sole requirement for an heir to the throne (per the Act of Settlement 1701) is that they have to be "Heirs of [the monarch's] Body" and "such Issue to the Heirs of the Body", so basically the King/Queen's children and their subsequent offspring. There's no mention of a legal requirement for the heir or the ...


10

Once upon a time, the UK was a genuine monarchy. These days, the Queen acts as Crown-in-Parliament, which is a fancy way of saying that everybody pretends that the Queen still is the source of sovereign power but that she graciously lets her parliament actually pass laws. If the Queen was to disregard this fiction and act as if she was still a ruling ...


9

H2ONaCl's answer gives a good Canadian perspective, there is a similar list for the UK here, which lists Members of Parliament, prominent journalists and media personalities. MORI polls cited on the Wikipedia page show around 20% of those sampled expressing republican views. The current Leader of the Opposition (Jeremy Corbyn) is one of the people ...


9

The limits can only be decided by a court, because the UK does not have written constitution setting them out. The PM advises the queen to prorogue Parliament. There is an unwritten rule that the advice should be given in good faith, for the smooth running of parliament rather than any political end. A court would have to decide if any particular advice to ...


8

The definition of a democracy is one where the government is chosen by some form of election. Not all constitutional monarchies are democracies, because not all constitutional monarchies' governments are chosen by the people. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, because the monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II) is the head of state, while the ...


8

At the core, you are conflating political culture with political institutions. Political institutions are things like laws (including constitutions), courts, legislatures, offices - all the formal bits of how government works. Political culture is a largely intangible set of symbols and acts that are used to represent values. The two interact in some ...


8

An elected government could start re-drafting the constitution to remove the royalty from the constitution. It would not be a easy negotiation. If the negotiations are successful, the new constitution would need to be ratified by the Spaniards with a referendum and an election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1978 Protected ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible