Not now. Not ever.
January 5, 2017 12:33 PM Subscribe
Queen Elizabeth II cannot die. You might be wondering what happens when the Queen dies. It's simple: we don't really know, but there are plans afoot.
She made it through 2016... she might just be immortal! (c.f. Betty White)
posted by hippybear at 12:38 PM on January 5, 2017 [14 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 12:38 PM on January 5, 2017 [14 favorites]
I can't wait. Possible days off work and crying rangers fans. Good times.
posted by gnuhavenpier at 12:42 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by gnuhavenpier at 12:42 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
That's a really unfortunate drawing of her in the upper right hand corner of the graph. Just turn her hair green and she'll look like she's ready to fight Batman.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 12:46 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 12:46 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
Well, can we get some sort of Dread Pirate Roberts thing going? At least then she'd be able to retire.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:47 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:47 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]
Isn't it treason to compass or imagine the death of the sovereign? Asking for a friend.
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:47 PM on January 5, 2017 [10 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:47 PM on January 5, 2017 [10 favorites]
I've always assumed that QEII was ready to fight Batman for any reason, ever. #toughwoman
posted by hippybear at 12:48 PM on January 5, 2017 [17 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 12:48 PM on January 5, 2017 [17 favorites]
I read that NP article this morning - I do enjoy the idea that there are boxes of black armbands and ties and crepe bunting and such tucked away in Canada's various govt. Offices.
I do think a large number of people will absolutely flip their shit around here.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 12:48 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
I do think a large number of people will absolutely flip their shit around here.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 12:48 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
I learned from this related article that there is a last person in line for the British throne, because only direct descendants of Sophia of Hanover can ascend. As of 2011, there were slightly fewer than 5,000 potential potentates of the realm.
posted by Etrigan at 12:49 PM on January 5, 2017 [15 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 12:49 PM on January 5, 2017 [15 favorites]
I can't imagine that Charles will be enthusiastically received as King, but I also can't imagine him being skipped.
posted by leotrotsky at 12:50 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by leotrotsky at 12:50 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
No mention of the Way Ahead group?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:54 PM on January 5, 2017
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:54 PM on January 5, 2017
As of 2011, there were slightly fewer than 5,000 potential potentates of the realm.
I think I'm 4,697 but will probably pass to 4,698 because I don't want to move.
posted by randomkeystrike at 12:55 PM on January 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
I think I'm 4,697 but will probably pass to 4,698 because I don't want to move.
posted by randomkeystrike at 12:55 PM on January 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
You might be wondering what happens when the Queen dies. It's simple: we don't really know, but there are plans afoot.
No. It's simple. Scotland secedes from the union, damn the consequences, and every remaining member of the Commonwealth with QEII as head of state quickly becomes a republic.
posted by Talez at 12:56 PM on January 5, 2017 [12 favorites]
No. It's simple. Scotland secedes from the union, damn the consequences, and every remaining member of the Commonwealth with QEII as head of state quickly becomes a republic.
posted by Talez at 12:56 PM on January 5, 2017 [12 favorites]
Unless of course Charles puts the Commonwealth ahead of himself and abdicates in favour of William and Kate. But the chances of that happening are about as equal as porcines growing wings.
posted by Talez at 12:57 PM on January 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by Talez at 12:57 PM on January 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
This is going to end in a King Ralph situation isn't it
posted by beerperson at 1:00 PM on January 5, 2017 [23 favorites]
posted by beerperson at 1:00 PM on January 5, 2017 [23 favorites]
Isn't the going scuttlebutt that Charles wants to be a somewhat active monarch? That seemed to be what was spooking people last I checked.
Also, how many people does Agent 47 have to "accidental death" before we get John Goodman?
posted by selfnoise at 1:00 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Also, how many people does Agent 47 have to "accidental death" before we get John Goodman?
posted by selfnoise at 1:00 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
the cemeteries are filled with indispensible monarchs
posted by thelonius at 1:05 PM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 1:05 PM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
Tonnes of people will lose their shit.
(I regularly access, index and update legislation and regulation on a Queen's Printer. I have a feeling that for years after QE2's demise, I will still be calling it QP as a default and getting side-eye from better monarchists. But a *dude* as your head of state? So weird and foreign.)
That said, Charles' tendency to weigh in on everyday politics (everything from so-called alternative health to military procurement) is problematic for a monarch. William hasn't done this very much and is more in the mold of his grandmother. He will have to reign things in. It wouldn't be as big a deal if the rest of the UK government was strong, but, well, it isn't right now.
every remaining member of the Commonwealth with QEII as head of state quickly becomes a republic.
Not Canada. The last thing we need is the sort of chaos we are witnessing south of the 49th parallel, which is a direct consequence of the republican condition. The monarchy is one of many institutions that prevent a Trump-type from ever becoming PM, by channeling the base human need for celebrity and symbolism into a harmless institution and placing a barrier between policy development and performance. Trudeau is working on breaking down that barrier, but that just shows why we need a strong monarchy. Let the hand-waivers channel our emotions; let the nerds do the business of governing.
posted by Kurichina at 1:06 PM on January 5, 2017 [61 favorites]
(I regularly access, index and update legislation and regulation on a Queen's Printer. I have a feeling that for years after QE2's demise, I will still be calling it QP as a default and getting side-eye from better monarchists. But a *dude* as your head of state? So weird and foreign.)
That said, Charles' tendency to weigh in on everyday politics (everything from so-called alternative health to military procurement) is problematic for a monarch. William hasn't done this very much and is more in the mold of his grandmother. He will have to reign things in. It wouldn't be as big a deal if the rest of the UK government was strong, but, well, it isn't right now.
every remaining member of the Commonwealth with QEII as head of state quickly becomes a republic.
Not Canada. The last thing we need is the sort of chaos we are witnessing south of the 49th parallel, which is a direct consequence of the republican condition. The monarchy is one of many institutions that prevent a Trump-type from ever becoming PM, by channeling the base human need for celebrity and symbolism into a harmless institution and placing a barrier between policy development and performance. Trudeau is working on breaking down that barrier, but that just shows why we need a strong monarchy. Let the hand-waivers channel our emotions; let the nerds do the business of governing.
posted by Kurichina at 1:06 PM on January 5, 2017 [61 favorites]
every remaining member of the Commonwealth with QEII as head of state quickly becomes a republic.
In Canada at least that means opening the constitution. That's beyond a monstrous pain in the ass, and if it happens, Festivus for reals. The Airings of the Grievances will be many, varied and and impossible to agree upon. Hobby horses will be ridden all over the country. Republicanism has an incredibly high opportunity cost here. Canada has already tried much more important and substantive amendments twice before. No living politician has any appetite for it at all.
So, idiot or no, King Charles can't worse than the accord processes. No frikken way.
posted by bonehead at 1:07 PM on January 5, 2017 [22 favorites]
In Canada at least that means opening the constitution. That's beyond a monstrous pain in the ass, and if it happens, Festivus for reals. The Airings of the Grievances will be many, varied and and impossible to agree upon. Hobby horses will be ridden all over the country. Republicanism has an incredibly high opportunity cost here. Canada has already tried much more important and substantive amendments twice before. No living politician has any appetite for it at all.
So, idiot or no, King Charles can't worse than the accord processes. No frikken way.
posted by bonehead at 1:07 PM on January 5, 2017 [22 favorites]
Ah, I was waiting for the King Ralph references. Last year I finally got to read a copy of the novel on which the movie is based, Headlong by Emlyn Williams. It is hilarious and different enough from the movie that it is well worth a read.
posted by soelo at 1:08 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by soelo at 1:08 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
I assume she'd be interned in the Golden Throne to reign indefinitely.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:09 PM on January 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:09 PM on January 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
If you can't order a few beheadings on a whim, you're not much of a monarch. More like a pope or a Kardashian.
posted by dr_dank at 1:10 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by dr_dank at 1:10 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
Charles would probably start by taking the meat out of the money.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:14 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Sys Rq at 1:14 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
You might be wondering what happens when the Queen dies. It's simple: we don't really know, but there are plans afoot.
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
posted by zamboni at 1:16 PM on January 5, 2017 [28 favorites]
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
posted by zamboni at 1:16 PM on January 5, 2017 [28 favorites]
I will still be calling it QP as a default and getting side-eye from better monarchists.
I worked alongside a KC who shouldn't have been calling himself a KC since all KCs became QCs automatically, but George VI made him a KC, and that's what my learned friend's letterhead was going to say, dammit.
He got the side-eye all the time.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:19 PM on January 5, 2017 [12 favorites]
I worked alongside a KC who shouldn't have been calling himself a KC since all KCs became QCs automatically, but George VI made him a KC, and that's what my learned friend's letterhead was going to say, dammit.
He got the side-eye all the time.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:19 PM on January 5, 2017 [12 favorites]
The idea of a fucking Royal Family in this day and age is bonkers.
posted by jonmc at 1:21 PM on January 5, 2017 [14 favorites]
posted by jonmc at 1:21 PM on January 5, 2017 [14 favorites]
The last thing we need is the sort of chaos we are witnessing south of the 49th parallel, which is a direct consequence of the republican condition. The monarchy is one of many institutions that prevent a Trump-type from ever becoming PM, by channeling the base human need for celebrity and symbolism into a harmless institution and placing a barrier between policy development and performance.
I could sort of get behind this reasoning, but then I think about the prospect of Prince Charles as king, and the stupid 'Windsor' family in general, and the stupid Royal Prerogative, and all the other stupid stupid stuff we have to put put up with (I'm English). And if the monarchy is such an effective lightning-rod for people's vulnerability to celebrity and symbolism, then why are figures like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage running rampant around the political landscape at the moment?
Also I think the US Presidency isn't a helpful model for assessing republican systems in general, because it's a bit of an eccentric outlier - the US President in lots of ways is more like an elected monarch than a modern republican head of state, thanks to the unreformability of the system the Americans have inherited from the 18th century. Ireland, Italy, etc seem to get by okay with some retired politician or other doing the waving and smiling, and even French presidents can't call on the kind of miltaristic civic nationalism that the American system falls prey to from time to time.
posted by Mocata at 1:25 PM on January 5, 2017 [33 favorites]
I could sort of get behind this reasoning, but then I think about the prospect of Prince Charles as king, and the stupid 'Windsor' family in general, and the stupid Royal Prerogative, and all the other stupid stupid stuff we have to put put up with (I'm English). And if the monarchy is such an effective lightning-rod for people's vulnerability to celebrity and symbolism, then why are figures like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage running rampant around the political landscape at the moment?
Also I think the US Presidency isn't a helpful model for assessing republican systems in general, because it's a bit of an eccentric outlier - the US President in lots of ways is more like an elected monarch than a modern republican head of state, thanks to the unreformability of the system the Americans have inherited from the 18th century. Ireland, Italy, etc seem to get by okay with some retired politician or other doing the waving and smiling, and even French presidents can't call on the kind of miltaristic civic nationalism that the American system falls prey to from time to time.
posted by Mocata at 1:25 PM on January 5, 2017 [33 favorites]
The idea of a fucking Royal Family in this day and age is bonkers
Hey now, it's better than having an electoral college.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:26 PM on January 5, 2017 [147 favorites]
Hey now, it's better than having an electoral college.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:26 PM on January 5, 2017 [147 favorites]
Just looking at the graph, it does seem kind of amazing to see a visual representation of how long Queen Elizabeth has been around, compared to other prominent national leaders. I mean, when I think of Eisenhower, it sounds like ancient history. Same with Stalin. But Elizabeth was reigning when both of them were in office. It's really pretty remarkable.
That being said, I'll admit my total ignorance when I ask, can't some of this be mitigated in advance? Why do they have to shut the stock market down? And the banks? That seems sort of unnecessary. National holidays, okay. And I guess this is contingent on whether the Queen declines over a period of time, or just wakes up dead one day, in terms of gathering the appropriate officials to declare Charles officially the king and plan all the plans. Still, it seems like it shouldn't be as disruptive and economically burdensome as they predict.
posted by Autumnheart at 1:26 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
That being said, I'll admit my total ignorance when I ask, can't some of this be mitigated in advance? Why do they have to shut the stock market down? And the banks? That seems sort of unnecessary. National holidays, okay. And I guess this is contingent on whether the Queen declines over a period of time, or just wakes up dead one day, in terms of gathering the appropriate officials to declare Charles officially the king and plan all the plans. Still, it seems like it shouldn't be as disruptive and economically burdensome as they predict.
posted by Autumnheart at 1:26 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
She made it through 2016... she might just be immortal! (c.f. Betty White)
Speaking of whom, have you ever seen them both in the same place at the same time? Makes you think.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:28 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]
Speaking of whom, have you ever seen them both in the same place at the same time? Makes you think.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:28 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]
it shouldn't be as disruptive and economically burdensome as they predict.
Perhaps, but I would still like a day off to mourn. Mourn in my own way, such as in the hot tub at Le Nordik.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:29 PM on January 5, 2017 [14 favorites]
Perhaps, but I would still like a day off to mourn. Mourn in my own way, such as in the hot tub at Le Nordik.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:29 PM on January 5, 2017 [14 favorites]
...or just wakes up dead one day...
This is how I want to go too.
posted by Brodiggitty at 1:29 PM on January 5, 2017 [11 favorites]
This is how I want to go too.
posted by Brodiggitty at 1:29 PM on January 5, 2017 [11 favorites]
I think Britons and non-Commonwealthers drastically overestimate (and Commonwealth columnists deliberately overstate) what the Monarchy means to the Commonwealth. It's just a face on the money. Sure, you might hear some grumbling (Australia especially likes to grumble, but they just need a new flag), but mostly of the "What's the point?" variety. No one actually gives a shit. (Not enough to do the actual work of eradicating the Crown.)
The only hassle of a new monarch is updating a bunch of things (money, passports, etc.) that are regularly updated anyway. Meh.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:30 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
The only hassle of a new monarch is updating a bunch of things (money, passports, etc.) that are regularly updated anyway. Meh.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:30 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
I think a national day of mourning is totally appropriate. I guess I got the impression from the article that they planned to shut down the stock market from the day of death through the funeral, which seems like a long time to hit the pause button on one's economy. Maybe I read it wrong.
posted by Autumnheart at 1:31 PM on January 5, 2017
posted by Autumnheart at 1:31 PM on January 5, 2017
All this discussion is nonsense.
If Elizabeth II is not the legitimate queen, the Charles is not the legitimate heir.
Send him with Vegemite
Lager to last the night
Wowsers' bullshit to smite
God save the (real) King
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 1:31 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
If Elizabeth II is not the legitimate queen, the Charles is not the legitimate heir.
Send him with Vegemite
Lager to last the night
Wowsers' bullshit to smite
God save the (real) King
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 1:31 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
then why are figures like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage running rampant around the political landscape at the moment?
Neither one of them has a hope in hell of becoming PM. Johnson, FWIW, seemed to realize this rather early.
US Presidency isn't a helpful model for assessing republican systems in general
The history of France provide plenty worse horrors, as does a number of less well-off republics. I am channeling a rather classic Canadian Red Tory tradition here in identifying republicanism as a source of chaos and uncontrolled populism. The values of peace, order and good government are upheld by the constitutional balance of a limited monarchy.
Colby Cosh elaborated on this seeming paradox in the National Post some time ago (also channeling McDonald and other historical figures horrified at goings on south of the border - part of a Canadian tradition, really).
posted by Kurichina at 1:32 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
Neither one of them has a hope in hell of becoming PM. Johnson, FWIW, seemed to realize this rather early.
US Presidency isn't a helpful model for assessing republican systems in general
The history of France provide plenty worse horrors, as does a number of less well-off republics. I am channeling a rather classic Canadian Red Tory tradition here in identifying republicanism as a source of chaos and uncontrolled populism. The values of peace, order and good government are upheld by the constitutional balance of a limited monarchy.
Colby Cosh elaborated on this seeming paradox in the National Post some time ago (also channeling McDonald and other historical figures horrified at goings on south of the border - part of a Canadian tradition, really).
posted by Kurichina at 1:32 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
The idea of a fucking Royal Family in this day and age is bonkers
We've got a mad kleptocrat who was voted into office in a spectacular example of the failings of democracy. So we're doing pretty good here too.
posted by maxsparber at 1:33 PM on January 5, 2017 [38 favorites]
We've got a mad kleptocrat who was voted into office in a spectacular example of the failings of democracy. So we're doing pretty good here too.
posted by maxsparber at 1:33 PM on January 5, 2017 [38 favorites]
Today I learned that a lot more people take the queen a lot more seriously than I had ever imagined.
And I am an ignorant, ignorant American. Thanks for the informative post.
posted by medusa at 1:33 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
And I am an ignorant, ignorant American. Thanks for the informative post.
posted by medusa at 1:33 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
Not Canada. The last thing we need is the sort of chaos we are witnessing south of the 49th parallel, which is a direct consequence of the republican condition.
54 40 or fight!
posted by the phlegmatic king at 1:34 PM on January 5, 2017 [16 favorites]
54 40 or fight!
posted by the phlegmatic king at 1:34 PM on January 5, 2017 [16 favorites]
Hey now, it's better than having an electoral college.
Not really. Either way you lose your first attempted at socialized medicine. The US because of a dickhead being elected by the electoral college and Australia because of a dickhead of a Governor-General. QEII didn't save us from Kerr any more than the electoral college saved us from Trump.
posted by Talez at 1:36 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
Not really. Either way you lose your first attempted at socialized medicine. The US because of a dickhead being elected by the electoral college and Australia because of a dickhead of a Governor-General. QEII didn't save us from Kerr any more than the electoral college saved us from Trump.
posted by Talez at 1:36 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
No one actually gives a shit.
Well, you know what they say--you don't know what you got 'till it's gone. Look at how many countries lit up their national monuments with purple lights when Prince died, and when was the last time that guy even had a hit? I would suggest not underestimating the possibility of people being bummed to a degree that surprises even themselves. (Lord knows 2016 provided enough practice for that.)
posted by Autumnheart at 1:36 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
Well, you know what they say--you don't know what you got 'till it's gone. Look at how many countries lit up their national monuments with purple lights when Prince died, and when was the last time that guy even had a hit? I would suggest not underestimating the possibility of people being bummed to a degree that surprises even themselves. (Lord knows 2016 provided enough practice for that.)
posted by Autumnheart at 1:36 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
I was hoping this was 'cannot' as in 'lacks the ability
If Season 1 of The Crown is to be believed, if she ever tries to die, Tommy Lascelles will come back from the dead to tell her she simply cannot; it's just not done.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 1:36 PM on January 5, 2017 [29 favorites]
If Season 1 of The Crown is to be believed, if she ever tries to die, Tommy Lascelles will come back from the dead to tell her she simply cannot; it's just not done.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 1:36 PM on January 5, 2017 [29 favorites]
I still get choked up at the film of her coronation. My eyes start to moisten at the first strains of Parry's setting of "I Was Glad When They Said Unto Me." Maybe I'm a sentimental old fool, but I'm going to miss her presence in the world.
I thought I read a while back about Charles being all adamant about his wife becoming Queen Consort if and when he were King. Now, I know we're all terribly modern and shit, but is that really going to fly?
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:41 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]
I thought I read a while back about Charles being all adamant about his wife becoming Queen Consort if and when he were King. Now, I know we're all terribly modern and shit, but is that really going to fly?
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:41 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]
I thought I read a while back about Charles being all adamant about his wife becoming Queen Consort if and when he were King. Now, I know we're all terribly modern and shit, but is that really going to fly?
I know. I'd rather not be reminded that Charles and Camilla have... consorted... every time she's mentioned.
posted by Talez at 1:44 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]
I know. I'd rather not be reminded that Charles and Camilla have... consorted... every time she's mentioned.
posted by Talez at 1:44 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]
I am channeling a rather classic Canadian Red Tory tradition here in identifying republicanism as a source of chaos and uncontrolled populism. The values of peace, order and good government are upheld by the constitutional balance of a limited monarchy.
Oh okay. We're probably talking past one another then because I'm entirely ignorant of the classic Canadian Red Tory tradition. I can see how Canadians might look at the nearest instance of republicanism and think 'No thanks,' but it doesn't make me much more enthusiastic about the UK system, the stupidest aspects of which Canadians probably don't have to put up with.
(Also, which examples of French republican horror do you have in mind? Surely you don't mean the Terror, which was quite a few republics ago?)
posted by Mocata at 1:45 PM on January 5, 2017
Oh okay. We're probably talking past one another then because I'm entirely ignorant of the classic Canadian Red Tory tradition. I can see how Canadians might look at the nearest instance of republicanism and think 'No thanks,' but it doesn't make me much more enthusiastic about the UK system, the stupidest aspects of which Canadians probably don't have to put up with.
(Also, which examples of French republican horror do you have in mind? Surely you don't mean the Terror, which was quite a few republics ago?)
posted by Mocata at 1:45 PM on January 5, 2017
If you can't order a few beheadings on a whim, you're not much of a monarch.
Au contraire, even though King Salman has to use a modicum of due process before getting people beheaded, he's still not very much of a monarch.
Whereas Brenda's done her job perfectly, much like the sysadmin of a long obsolete but very ornate computer system which is only used as part of the reboot process of the main servers and otherwise sits looking pretty in the atrium of the building. Even if Charles needs his equerry to hold his penis while he pees, he'll do that job pretty much fine.
posted by ambrosen at 1:50 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Au contraire, even though King Salman has to use a modicum of due process before getting people beheaded, he's still not very much of a monarch.
Whereas Brenda's done her job perfectly, much like the sysadmin of a long obsolete but very ornate computer system which is only used as part of the reboot process of the main servers and otherwise sits looking pretty in the atrium of the building. Even if Charles needs his equerry to hold his penis while he pees, he'll do that job pretty much fine.
posted by ambrosen at 1:50 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Well, you know what they say--you don't know what you got 'till it's gone. Look at how many countries lit up their national monuments with purple lights when Prince died, and when was the last time that guy even had a hit? I would suggest not underestimating the possibility of people being bummed to a degree that surprises even themselves. (Lord knows 2016 provided enough practice for that.)
I mean we don't care enough to do away with the Monarchy. There's no question we'd go all sadness bananas when they die. After all, Elton John pays some of his taxes in Canada now, and we could use some of those funeral single royalties.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:53 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
I mean we don't care enough to do away with the Monarchy. There's no question we'd go all sadness bananas when they die. After all, Elton John pays some of his taxes in Canada now, and we could use some of those funeral single royalties.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:53 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
There will be no Charlie Chaplin for weeks.
Oh, man. Fuckin' A!
posted by strelitzia at 1:53 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Oh, man. Fuckin' A!
posted by strelitzia at 1:53 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
The idea of a fucking Royal Family in this day and age is bonkers
Anti-monarchists tend to be so angry.
For the curious, some cites that make the case for monarchy in this benighted day and age.
Something for Americans, as well!
posted by IndigoJones at 1:54 PM on January 5, 2017
Anti-monarchists tend to be so angry.
For the curious, some cites that make the case for monarchy in this benighted day and age.
Something for Americans, as well!
posted by IndigoJones at 1:54 PM on January 5, 2017
I mean we don't care enough to do away with the Monarchy.
I re-read your post and now I feel like a dumbass. Carry on.
posted by Autumnheart at 1:57 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
I re-read your post and now I feel like a dumbass. Carry on.
posted by Autumnheart at 1:57 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Well, Charles isn't likely going to be able to handle Brexit and its consequences well, so lets hope she gets another decade at least. During the last couple decades, I've noticed that royals are often good in national crisis situations, like big terror attacks. They can go out and be grieving and holding hands without needing to wage war on foreign nations.
Sometimes I get a bit irritated they spend so many of taxpayers money, but when they act dignified while politicians are going off the cliff, I always feel I get my moneys worth.
(Oh, Diana you say. I know its sacrilege but I've never been a fan of drama queens, and while I find her life and death tragic and sad, I don't see it as equivalent to a major terror attack and I understand how the royals might not be entirely resolved about the whole thing back then).
posted by mumimor at 1:58 PM on January 5, 2017 [15 favorites]
Sometimes I get a bit irritated they spend so many of taxpayers money, but when they act dignified while politicians are going off the cliff, I always feel I get my moneys worth.
(Oh, Diana you say. I know its sacrilege but I've never been a fan of drama queens, and while I find her life and death tragic and sad, I don't see it as equivalent to a major terror attack and I understand how the royals might not be entirely resolved about the whole thing back then).
posted by mumimor at 1:58 PM on January 5, 2017 [15 favorites]
The history of France provide plenty worse horrors, as does a number of less well-off republics. I am channeling a rather classic Canadian Red Tory tradition here in identifying republicanism as a source of chaos and uncontrolled populism. The values of peace, order and good government are upheld by the constitutional balance of a limited monarchy.
How does the monarchy helps us? The last time the GG had an occasion to make a difference it decided to accept the PMs request to prorogue parliament because he was afraid a coalition of the opposition parties would take over. Basically the GG does what the PM asks, and that's how we want it, so I find being a constituonal monarchy just a waste of our money for antiquated offices and security when they visit. Got no beef with the queen as a person, but the position should be abolished.
... and I had to swear alleagance to the queen because I worked at the federal government, I'm still bitter about that.
And however compared opening the constitution with the airing of grievances in Festivus, this is pure genius!
posted by coust at 2:01 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
How does the monarchy helps us? The last time the GG had an occasion to make a difference it decided to accept the PMs request to prorogue parliament because he was afraid a coalition of the opposition parties would take over. Basically the GG does what the PM asks, and that's how we want it, so I find being a constituonal monarchy just a waste of our money for antiquated offices and security when they visit. Got no beef with the queen as a person, but the position should be abolished.
... and I had to swear alleagance to the queen because I worked at the federal government, I'm still bitter about that.
And however compared opening the constitution with the airing of grievances in Festivus, this is pure genius!
posted by coust at 2:01 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
I will be sad when she dies, somewhat because she just always been there and she's a someone or something that has been part of my life in many different ways.
Mostly though because it will start a whole lot of blathering and wailing and handwringing and will be a time when 'we have to look at what the monarchy is and what it means today because reasons' and there will whole lot of time and energy vomited into the ethos discussing it and it will go on and on and on.
Meanwhile Rome burns.
I'm firmly in the don't care one way or another whether the monarchy is retained as the head of our country or whether having Kings and Queens in this day and age is worthwhile or not. What I care about is the absolute time, effort and energy it would take to dismantle the status quo.
The globe and the world has more important things to focus on right now and unfortunately what I see happening is a whole lot of future people looking back (if they even can) in the 'wtf were they all thinking' This was the vitally important issue to spend so much fucking time on?"
posted by Jalliah at 2:03 PM on January 5, 2017 [10 favorites]
No one actually gives a shit.
Agreed. The monarchy in Canada is (as I see it) a largely irrelevant institution. Small r-republican* grumbles will certainly increase in the future, as the proportion of Canada's population without British roots increases. But -- as noted above -- to actively get the process of abolition underway is a constitutional battle no-one wants to engage in.
That the monarchy is irrelevant and far away and not actually a problem (at the moment) may be its best guarantor of preservation in Canada. If, however, any of those conditions change, then who knows? My long-term bet is that institutional monarchy ends in the UK first, and then other Commonwealth members such as Canada then need to actually deal with the matter of choosing their own head of state. I doubt that that would happen in my lifetime, though, if ever.
*of which I am one.
posted by Capt. Renault at 2:04 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Agreed. The monarchy in Canada is (as I see it) a largely irrelevant institution. Small r-republican* grumbles will certainly increase in the future, as the proportion of Canada's population without British roots increases. But -- as noted above -- to actively get the process of abolition underway is a constitutional battle no-one wants to engage in.
That the monarchy is irrelevant and far away and not actually a problem (at the moment) may be its best guarantor of preservation in Canada. If, however, any of those conditions change, then who knows? My long-term bet is that institutional monarchy ends in the UK first, and then other Commonwealth members such as Canada then need to actually deal with the matter of choosing their own head of state. I doubt that that would happen in my lifetime, though, if ever.
*of which I am one.
posted by Capt. Renault at 2:04 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
The monarchy is one of many institutions that prevent a Trump-type from ever becoming PM, by channeling the base human need for celebrity and symbolism into a harmless institution
I wish people wouldn't say things that seem to ignore even the existence all the parliamentary republics in the world.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:04 PM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
I wish people wouldn't say things that seem to ignore even the existence all the parliamentary republics in the world.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:04 PM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
How does the monarchy helps us?
I think Cosh piece I linked to outlines how pretty well.
Odd, I don't recall swearing allegiance to the Queen when I used to be with the federal public service, but it may not have stood out to me as my the security clearance procedures. However, I am happy to swear allegiance to the Queen, primarily because it means I am not swearing allegiance to either Harper or Trudeau (or currently, to Notley, Prentice or Redford) - I serve all of them equally because I'm actually working for Her Majesty in Right of Canada. We can also owe the non-partisan civil service in part to the monarchy. :-)
posted by Kurichina at 2:07 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
I think Cosh piece I linked to outlines how pretty well.
Odd, I don't recall swearing allegiance to the Queen when I used to be with the federal public service, but it may not have stood out to me as my the security clearance procedures. However, I am happy to swear allegiance to the Queen, primarily because it means I am not swearing allegiance to either Harper or Trudeau (or currently, to Notley, Prentice or Redford) - I serve all of them equally because I'm actually working for Her Majesty in Right of Canada. We can also owe the non-partisan civil service in part to the monarchy. :-)
posted by Kurichina at 2:07 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
I’m British, and I would like to abolish the monarchy because the symbolism is so awful — it’s anti-democratic, anti-meritocratic and enshrines the class system right in the centre of our constitution — but I don’t see why we need to replace the monarch with a president.
I don’t see why we need a head of state at all. Figureheads are nice enough, but boats work perfectly well without them.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 2:09 PM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
I don’t see why we need a head of state at all. Figureheads are nice enough, but boats work perfectly well without them.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 2:09 PM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
I can't imagine that Charles will be enthusiastically received as King, but I also can't imagine him being skipped.
i hope they go right to fat baby george bc how hilarious
posted by poffin boffin at 2:09 PM on January 5, 2017 [20 favorites]
i hope they go right to fat baby george bc how hilarious
posted by poffin boffin at 2:09 PM on January 5, 2017 [20 favorites]
I think she's as tough as nails and the thing that'll take her out is Philip's demise. He's older than she is and his health hasn't been fantastic of late. I think it will completely take the air out of her sails when he goes, poor dear.
I saw the most wonderful play in 2016 called King Charles III. It posits what will happen among the royal family at the time of QEII's death, specifically, the succession. It raises an interesting political question, shows how Charles would likely react, shows how William would likely react, then plays the two off each other in (a) the most fascinatingly counterintuitive scenario I think I've ever seen on stage and (b) IN IAMBIC PENTAMETER.
If you're someone who clicks on a thread about the royal family, you absolutely should seek out this play. Read it, if you can't find a performance, but do read at least parts of it aloud. Sheer fucking genius. And the personalities are all just what you would imagine.
-- here's a little tidbit to whet your appetite: In this play, first performed in April 2014, Harry dates a multi-racial young woman. HOW PRESCIENT IS THAT.
posted by janey47 at 2:10 PM on January 5, 2017 [19 favorites]
I saw the most wonderful play in 2016 called King Charles III. It posits what will happen among the royal family at the time of QEII's death, specifically, the succession. It raises an interesting political question, shows how Charles would likely react, shows how William would likely react, then plays the two off each other in (a) the most fascinatingly counterintuitive scenario I think I've ever seen on stage and (b) IN IAMBIC PENTAMETER.
If you're someone who clicks on a thread about the royal family, you absolutely should seek out this play. Read it, if you can't find a performance, but do read at least parts of it aloud. Sheer fucking genius. And the personalities are all just what you would imagine.
-- here's a little tidbit to whet your appetite: In this play, first performed in April 2014, Harry dates a multi-racial young woman. HOW PRESCIENT IS THAT.
posted by janey47 at 2:10 PM on January 5, 2017 [19 favorites]
Apparently the mods don't like me swearing at Business Insider without context, so I will clarify that saying that "The death of Queen Elizabeth will be the most disruptive event in Britain in the last 70 years" is utter tripe. More disruptive than the Great Storm of 1987, which cost at least £2 billion (not adjusted for inflation) and felled 15 million trees? More disruptive than the decision to join the invasion of Iraq? More disruptive than the fucking Three Day Week?
Seriously, these people know nothing about British history and need to fuck off.
posted by howfar at 2:10 PM on January 5, 2017 [18 favorites]
Seriously, these people know nothing about British history and need to fuck off.
posted by howfar at 2:10 PM on January 5, 2017 [18 favorites]
(Also, which examples of French republican horror do you have in mind? Surely you don't mean the Terror, which was quite a few republics ago?)
I wouldn't call it a horror, exactly, but the idea that they're better at democratic stability is somewhat belied by the fact that the present political order only dates back to the May '58 crisis and the return of de Gaulle. In fact, if you look at Western European democratic establishments (with the possible exception of the Benelux and Germany, but then "Germany" as it is now only dates from 1990), they're all younger and less stable than ours (even if we just go from 1945 onwards and ignore the 1930's). That's not meant as a ra-ra America thing, but its worth looking at the context within which these comparisons are made.
I'm an American, and I've always viewed our political system as being designed less around keeping the loonies out than making sure that the system can survive the loonies getting in. Seriously. Jackson. Nixon. Harding. Bush Jr. Fucking Buchanan (although I guess the system didn't survive him, come to think of it). We've had some pretty repulsive folks make it in. But they've come and gone, and America's still here. And its because the original system was set up by a bunch of seriously suspicious guys who tended to think in terms of worst case scenarios - how can we keep things working if demagogues or ogilarchs manage to make it through the White House gates?
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:14 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't call it a horror, exactly, but the idea that they're better at democratic stability is somewhat belied by the fact that the present political order only dates back to the May '58 crisis and the return of de Gaulle. In fact, if you look at Western European democratic establishments (with the possible exception of the Benelux and Germany, but then "Germany" as it is now only dates from 1990), they're all younger and less stable than ours (even if we just go from 1945 onwards and ignore the 1930's). That's not meant as a ra-ra America thing, but its worth looking at the context within which these comparisons are made.
I'm an American, and I've always viewed our political system as being designed less around keeping the loonies out than making sure that the system can survive the loonies getting in. Seriously. Jackson. Nixon. Harding. Bush Jr. Fucking Buchanan (although I guess the system didn't survive him, come to think of it). We've had some pretty repulsive folks make it in. But they've come and gone, and America's still here. And its because the original system was set up by a bunch of seriously suspicious guys who tended to think in terms of worst case scenarios - how can we keep things working if demagogues or ogilarchs manage to make it through the White House gates?
posted by AdamCSnider at 2:14 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
That Business Insider article was remarkably thorough.
posted by latkes at 2:14 PM on January 5, 2017
posted by latkes at 2:14 PM on January 5, 2017
Another tidbit about Canada is that the majority of treaty agreements with FN's and whole lot of other agreements that the state that is Canada is built on were made with 'The Crown'. The agreements are baked into our Constitution and there is a whole lot of law and legal things surrounding them. It is super complex and what I've been told by people who understand it a whole lot better then I do that getting rid of the Monarchy in our case means opening up a huuuuuge can O' legal and Constituation worms the likes of which haven't been seen before because of this bit of rather unique in the global sense of history.
It apparently isn't as simple as crossing out "The Crown' in treaties and replacing it with something else. In some cases it would mean redos which while some say it would just be symbolic and largely formalities I and others don't buy that scenario, humans being humans and all.
posted by Jalliah at 2:17 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
It apparently isn't as simple as crossing out "The Crown' in treaties and replacing it with something else. In some cases it would mean redos which while some say it would just be symbolic and largely formalities I and others don't buy that scenario, humans being humans and all.
posted by Jalliah at 2:17 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
He will have to reign things in.
posted by Kurichina at 1:06 PM on January 5
Homonymisterical!
posted by lalochezia at 2:20 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by Kurichina at 1:06 PM on January 5
Homonymisterical!
posted by lalochezia at 2:20 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
Brexit may have Mad a royalist out of me, as in with almost all British institutions dysfunctional at the moment knocking out other ones is vaguely terrifying.
posted by Artw at 2:21 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:21 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
This is going to end in a King Ralph situation isn't it
I'm thinking Weekend At Bernie's.
posted by Paul Slade at 2:26 PM on January 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
I'm thinking Weekend At Bernie's.
posted by Paul Slade at 2:26 PM on January 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
if you look at Western European democratic establishments they're all younger and less stable than ours
Hi there, I'm from England. Our citizens have had world-class democratic rights since 1689, no matter what the head of state has been, and no matter how shabbily we've been treating the rest of the world.
posted by ambrosen at 2:29 PM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
Hi there, I'm from England. Our citizens have had world-class democratic rights since 1689, no matter what the head of state has been, and no matter how shabbily we've been treating the rest of the world.
posted by ambrosen at 2:29 PM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
I think Cosh piece I linked to outlines how pretty well.
Respectfully, I disagree. This has nothing to do with the monarchy and everything to do with having a non insane way of electing our government, and a system less likely to get gamed like the US one.
Odd, I don't recall swearing allegiance to the Queen when I used to be with the federal public service, but it may not have stood out to me as my the security clearance procedures. However, I am happy to swear allegiance to the Queen, primarily because it means I am not swearing allegiance to either Harper or Trudeau (or currently, to Notley, Prentice or Redford) - I serve all of them equally because I'm actually working for Her Majesty in Right of Canada. We can also owe the non-partisan civil service in part to the monarchy. :-)
Completely agree on not swearing allegiance to the PM, but do we really need to swear allegiance to someone? I didn't swear allegiance to our CEO when I stated my current job.
Agreed we need a professional non-partisan civil service to have a functional country. And maybe the monoarchy got us there, but we don't need it for it to continue, and mainly if it goes south the monarchy won't save us since they're pretty much hands off of everything now, let's acknowledge that fact and officialize how this country really function.
posted by coust at 2:29 PM on January 5, 2017
Respectfully, I disagree. This has nothing to do with the monarchy and everything to do with having a non insane way of electing our government, and a system less likely to get gamed like the US one.
Odd, I don't recall swearing allegiance to the Queen when I used to be with the federal public service, but it may not have stood out to me as my the security clearance procedures. However, I am happy to swear allegiance to the Queen, primarily because it means I am not swearing allegiance to either Harper or Trudeau (or currently, to Notley, Prentice or Redford) - I serve all of them equally because I'm actually working for Her Majesty in Right of Canada. We can also owe the non-partisan civil service in part to the monarchy. :-)
Completely agree on not swearing allegiance to the PM, but do we really need to swear allegiance to someone? I didn't swear allegiance to our CEO when I stated my current job.
Agreed we need a professional non-partisan civil service to have a functional country. And maybe the monoarchy got us there, but we don't need it for it to continue, and mainly if it goes south the monarchy won't save us since they're pretty much hands off of everything now, let's acknowledge that fact and officialize how this country really function.
posted by coust at 2:29 PM on January 5, 2017
I'm Canadian, and have no real fondness for the monarchy (I remain utterly baffled at the people of this country who go batshit during a visit, marriage, or birth announcement and will likely feel the same about the response to the Queen's passing). I think, however, any attempt to replace the monarchy in Canada are going to be limited by two things:
1. Whenever the topic comes up, the immediate default assumption of Canadians is that moving to a "republic" style of government means copying exactly what the US has. In addition to this prompting an immediate, tedious discussion of the flaws of the US system, I think it sparks against a core insecurity about the Canadian identity - whatever else we are, we aren't Americans.
2. The lack of any solid, good proposed alternative to the constitutional monarchy. Maybe I'm just not aware, but the last time I looked around the Canadian movement for trying to decouple us from the monarchy really had no proposed system that we could move to. This, of course, feeds into issue 1.
However, every time a discussion like this comes up, I get to share a fun story. On our honeymoon, my wife and I went to the Cook Islands, which used to be a British protectorate, then became part of New Zealand, and is now self-governing associated state. Anyways, because of the history, there are some British ex-pats there. So we're on the island of Aitutaki, which has about 1000 people on it at the time I think, and this older British gentleman hears us speaking English without a New Zealand accent (lots of New Zealand tourists there). So he comes over to find out where we are from. And after we tell him, he says "Oh, so good to see the colonies represented!" Which was just hilarious to both of us. I think if I see the High Commissioner for Canada at the Accession Council I will say "so good to see the colonies represented!" and have a good laugh.
posted by nubs at 2:29 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
1. Whenever the topic comes up, the immediate default assumption of Canadians is that moving to a "republic" style of government means copying exactly what the US has. In addition to this prompting an immediate, tedious discussion of the flaws of the US system, I think it sparks against a core insecurity about the Canadian identity - whatever else we are, we aren't Americans.
2. The lack of any solid, good proposed alternative to the constitutional monarchy. Maybe I'm just not aware, but the last time I looked around the Canadian movement for trying to decouple us from the monarchy really had no proposed system that we could move to. This, of course, feeds into issue 1.
However, every time a discussion like this comes up, I get to share a fun story. On our honeymoon, my wife and I went to the Cook Islands, which used to be a British protectorate, then became part of New Zealand, and is now self-governing associated state. Anyways, because of the history, there are some British ex-pats there. So we're on the island of Aitutaki, which has about 1000 people on it at the time I think, and this older British gentleman hears us speaking English without a New Zealand accent (lots of New Zealand tourists there). So he comes over to find out where we are from. And after we tell him, he says "Oh, so good to see the colonies represented!" Which was just hilarious to both of us. I think if I see the High Commissioner for Canada at the Accession Council I will say "so good to see the colonies represented!" and have a good laugh.
posted by nubs at 2:29 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
It apparently isn't as simple as crossing out 'The Crown' in treaties and replacing it with something else.
I was going to replace it with The OA but friends say it's bad
posted by Beardman at 2:32 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
I was going to replace it with The OA but friends say it's bad
posted by Beardman at 2:32 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
We just binged The Crown, which I definitely suggest doing, and the question came up afterwards in a more mechanical-transitionary way, which I found fascinating.
The show picks up in the late 30s, as you kind of have to with any story about Elizabeth, since at birth she had no real expectation of becoming sovereign at all. Her uncle was to be King, not her father. And so we move through the Abdication (mostly in flashback), and eventually to a point where Elizabeth and her husband are on a Commonwealth Tour in Africa, and, well, Bertie dies.
It's by no means a documentary, but the sense of "inexorable and well-planned wheels grinding forward" is pretty overpowering. Boom, she's queen. Flags change. Staff around her changed, because she moved into a different role. You'd think she'd get to keep her staff, but no: an overarching plot point, for example, was that she really wanted to keep her private secretary, who was a junior man in the office at the time (serving the Princess being less important than serving the monarch). The senior guy who had been serving her father kept that job, and began serving her. She couldn't really pick, so her favorite stayed the #3 man in the office.
It came up again when the senior guy retired, and Liz wanted to leapfrog her old favorite into the top spot, and got stymied again, and had to take the newly senior, formerly #2 man -- who then stayed in the job for 20 years. Her favorite DID eventually become her aide -- in 1972, when the intermediate guy retired.
The show also gave me a much better appreciation for WHY it's problematic for Charles to have public opinions on matters of policy. (Also, an understanding, sorta, about why Charles and Camilla weren't even married in a church; divorce is still that much of an issue for the Royals for some reason.)
posted by uberchet at 2:33 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
The show picks up in the late 30s, as you kind of have to with any story about Elizabeth, since at birth she had no real expectation of becoming sovereign at all. Her uncle was to be King, not her father. And so we move through the Abdication (mostly in flashback), and eventually to a point where Elizabeth and her husband are on a Commonwealth Tour in Africa, and, well, Bertie dies.
It's by no means a documentary, but the sense of "inexorable and well-planned wheels grinding forward" is pretty overpowering. Boom, she's queen. Flags change. Staff around her changed, because she moved into a different role. You'd think she'd get to keep her staff, but no: an overarching plot point, for example, was that she really wanted to keep her private secretary, who was a junior man in the office at the time (serving the Princess being less important than serving the monarch). The senior guy who had been serving her father kept that job, and began serving her. She couldn't really pick, so her favorite stayed the #3 man in the office.
It came up again when the senior guy retired, and Liz wanted to leapfrog her old favorite into the top spot, and got stymied again, and had to take the newly senior, formerly #2 man -- who then stayed in the job for 20 years. Her favorite DID eventually become her aide -- in 1972, when the intermediate guy retired.
The show also gave me a much better appreciation for WHY it's problematic for Charles to have public opinions on matters of policy. (Also, an understanding, sorta, about why Charles and Camilla weren't even married in a church; divorce is still that much of an issue for the Royals for some reason.)
posted by uberchet at 2:33 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
I didn't swear allegiance to our CEO when I stated my current job.
Respectfully, public service is more than a mere job.
posted by Kurichina at 2:36 PM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
Respectfully, public service is more than a mere job.
posted by Kurichina at 2:36 PM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
I was hoping this was 'cannot' as in 'lacks the ability'
And with strange aeons, even death may die.
posted by GuyZero at 2:38 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
And with strange aeons, even death may die.
posted by GuyZero at 2:38 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
Respectfully, public service is more than a mere job.
Being born into incredible dynastic wealth and living life off the public teat is not actually a public service.
posted by Madame Defarge at 2:39 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
Being born into incredible dynastic wealth and living life off the public teat is not actually a public service.
posted by Madame Defarge at 2:39 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
I had to stop reading at
Really? Shell-shocked mourning? Cease to function?
I mean, it'll be sad, and everyone will have to adjust a bit, but... she's 90. Nobody will be shell shocked.
I remember when the Queen Mother died and they literally showed nothing but documentaries about her on TV. It was actually quite boring.
posted by leo_r at 2:40 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]
Whatever happens formally, the shock on the day of the Queen's passing will see Britain effectively cease to function. The day of the funeral, around two weeks later, will be declared a bank holiday, but "shell-shocked" mourning will continue throughout this time.
Really? Shell-shocked mourning? Cease to function?
I mean, it'll be sad, and everyone will have to adjust a bit, but... she's 90. Nobody will be shell shocked.
I remember when the Queen Mother died and they literally showed nothing but documentaries about her on TV. It was actually quite boring.
posted by leo_r at 2:40 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]
Being born into incredible dynastic wealth and living life off the public teat is not actually a public service.
posted by Madame Defarge
you finally got to make the comment you registered this account for
posted by beerperson at 2:41 PM on January 5, 2017 [55 favorites]
posted by Madame Defarge
you finally got to make the comment you registered this account for
posted by beerperson at 2:41 PM on January 5, 2017 [55 favorites]
Being born into incredible dynastic wealth and living life off the public teat is not actually a public service.
I wasn't talking about the monarch with this statement; I was referring to the non-partisan public service (of which I am a part) and why our oaths of service may differ from those in private sector employment, if you follow the thread.
posted by Kurichina at 2:41 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]
I wasn't talking about the monarch with this statement; I was referring to the non-partisan public service (of which I am a part) and why our oaths of service may differ from those in private sector employment, if you follow the thread.
posted by Kurichina at 2:41 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]
I am happy to swear allegiance to the Queen, primarily because it means I am not swearing allegiance to either Harper or Trudeau
The human vocal tract is in fact capable of swearing that one will perform one's job to the best of one's ability and of swearing allegiance to abstractions such as a polity's laws and constitution.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:42 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
The human vocal tract is in fact capable of swearing that one will perform one's job to the best of one's ability and of swearing allegiance to abstractions such as a polity's laws and constitution.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:42 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
(Also, an understanding, sorta, about why Charles and Camilla weren't even married in a church; divorce is still that much of an issue for the Royals for some reason.)
Kinda weird when you consider the particulars of said Church's founding.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:42 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
Kinda weird when you consider the particulars of said Church's founding.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:42 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
The human vocal tract is in fact capable of swearing that one will perform one's job to the best of one's ability and of swearing allegiance to abstractions such as a polity's laws and constitution.
And yet it's never happened without some form of personification of those values into a head of state.
Plus, can you send a constitution to an international social engagement when the head of government is unavailable? Even the unwritten parts?
posted by Kurichina at 2:48 PM on January 5, 2017
And yet it's never happened without some form of personification of those values into a head of state.
Plus, can you send a constitution to an international social engagement when the head of government is unavailable? Even the unwritten parts?
posted by Kurichina at 2:48 PM on January 5, 2017
Plus, being born into a role where, dynastic wealth notwithstanding, your every move is public knowledge and you never have a moment of privacy or freedom of choice, even down to whom you're allowed to date and marry, the clothes you wear and the amount you weigh, doesn't sound awesome to me either. It could obviously be worse (I certainly wouldn't have much gratitude in me for my "freedom of choice" if I couldn't even meet my basic needs) but it isn't a life I would sign up for.
posted by Autumnheart at 2:49 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Autumnheart at 2:49 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
Kinda weird when you consider the particulars of said Church's founding.Right?
Another big deal in the show is Margaret's romance with Peter Townsend, and the fact that this was cause for consternation and whatnot because he'd been DIVORCED. The pushback came from lots of sources, but especially the Church of England. I mean, seriously, WTF?
(Another huge part of the show is how well, to my eye, it dealt with that "no choice" aspect of being monarch, which is portrayed as an especially bitter pill for Elizabeth because until she was 10, she had no real expectation of being queen, so the non-sovereign life was always the path she didn't take.)
posted by uberchet at 2:50 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Respectfully, public service is more than a mere job.
Respectfully, I mostly disagree, public servants aren't allowed much leeway, like in any other job they do what they're told to do. There's no need to swear allegiance and almost no space to maneuver if somebody asks you to do something fishy. I still think its of the utmost importance that these jobs are staffed with competent people intent on doing the best they can, but I don't feel swearing allegiance is the way to get there.
The kicker is, public servants with high degree of latitude like deputy ministers and other agency directors the to get replaced/moved around when government changes.
posted by coust at 2:52 PM on January 5, 2017
Respectfully, I mostly disagree, public servants aren't allowed much leeway, like in any other job they do what they're told to do. There's no need to swear allegiance and almost no space to maneuver if somebody asks you to do something fishy. I still think its of the utmost importance that these jobs are staffed with competent people intent on doing the best they can, but I don't feel swearing allegiance is the way to get there.
The kicker is, public servants with high degree of latitude like deputy ministers and other agency directors the to get replaced/moved around when government changes.
posted by coust at 2:52 PM on January 5, 2017
Well, the Catholic Church got around the divorce issue by allowing one to annul their marriage in exchange for a generous donation. Shit, even the Pharisees asked Jesus to his face if he thought divorce was okay, and decided they didn't like his answer. Christianity's been hypocritical about divorce since Christ was still preaching. That's nothing new.
posted by Autumnheart at 2:57 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Autumnheart at 2:57 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
Another big deal in the show is Margaret's romance with Peter Townsend, and the fact that this was cause for consternation and whatnot because he'd been DIVORCED.
The same was true of Wallis Simpson. The fact that she was a commoner wasn't ideal, and the fact that she was American, even less so, but it was the fact that she was a divorcée that forced Edward's abdication.
On the subject of swearing oaths: It's stupid and pointless when lying is a thing that is humanly possible. Instead of idle promises, what civil servants should say is, "I understand the purpose of such and such is such and such; I understand the penalty for not doing such and such is so many years in prison, a fine of so much, and the removal of this or that from my body."
posted by Sys Rq at 3:03 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
The same was true of Wallis Simpson. The fact that she was a commoner wasn't ideal, and the fact that she was American, even less so, but it was the fact that she was a divorcée that forced Edward's abdication.
On the subject of swearing oaths: It's stupid and pointless when lying is a thing that is humanly possible. Instead of idle promises, what civil servants should say is, "I understand the purpose of such and such is such and such; I understand the penalty for not doing such and such is so many years in prison, a fine of so much, and the removal of this or that from my body."
posted by Sys Rq at 3:03 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Regurgitating a fun fact I think I learned indirectly from MeFi in the first place: the EIIR insignia on most postboxes won't need to be changed, it apparently refers to the reigning monarch when the box is installed, not the one currently on the throne (correct me if I'm wrong!)
posted by comealongpole at 3:05 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by comealongpole at 3:05 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
I think she's as tough as nails and the thing that'll take her out is Philip's demise. He's older than she is and his health hasn't been fantastic of late. I think it will completely take the air out of her sails when he goes, poor dear.
I wouldn't be so certain. Judging by a lot of the older ladies in my parent's spontaneously organized retirement condo women who outlive their husbands often seem to have a liberated second wind.
posted by srboisvert at 3:06 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
I wouldn't be so certain. Judging by a lot of the older ladies in my parent's spontaneously organized retirement condo women who outlive their husbands often seem to have a liberated second wind.
posted by srboisvert at 3:06 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
Regurgitating a fun fact I think I learned indirectly from MeFi in the first place: the EIIR insignia on most postboxes won't need to be changed, it apparently refers to the reigning monarch when the box is installed, not the one currently on the throne (correct me if I'm wrong!)
Yup, there are still quite a few GR and VR postboxes in use.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 3:08 PM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
Yup, there are still quite a few GR and VR postboxes in use.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 3:08 PM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
public servants aren't allowed much leeway
As soon as you show value, you have a lot of leeway and a lot of influence, and you certainly don't need to be an ADM or higher to achieve that. It is completely incorrect to say that line public servants do not have leeway or influence. We are given problems to solve, collectively, not told exactly what to do. (Indeed, the elected officials do not know what to do precisely and ask our advice on how to implement platform commitments.)
On the few occasions I have been asked to do anything 'fishy' (out of ignorance from a senior official, not really malice), I have educated them on the law/ethics in question and why it matters, and was thanked, not rebuked. If you don't feel you can push back like this, public service is not for you. That's what the oath of service is. That's why it's important that it transcends the government of the day.
And yeah, DMs get moved around, but they aren't turfed and routinely replaced with partisan apparatchiks. (Although I could name a few who clearly could/should have been turfed after the last change of government here, they were not.)
posted by Kurichina at 3:11 PM on January 5, 2017 [12 favorites]
As soon as you show value, you have a lot of leeway and a lot of influence, and you certainly don't need to be an ADM or higher to achieve that. It is completely incorrect to say that line public servants do not have leeway or influence. We are given problems to solve, collectively, not told exactly what to do. (Indeed, the elected officials do not know what to do precisely and ask our advice on how to implement platform commitments.)
On the few occasions I have been asked to do anything 'fishy' (out of ignorance from a senior official, not really malice), I have educated them on the law/ethics in question and why it matters, and was thanked, not rebuked. If you don't feel you can push back like this, public service is not for you. That's what the oath of service is. That's why it's important that it transcends the government of the day.
And yeah, DMs get moved around, but they aren't turfed and routinely replaced with partisan apparatchiks. (Although I could name a few who clearly could/should have been turfed after the last change of government here, they were not.)
posted by Kurichina at 3:11 PM on January 5, 2017 [12 favorites]
None of these articles anticipate the massive upswelling of intense human passion that could see the quidnunc kid voted #1 over the entire Commonwealth.
Charles would surely see the righteous beauty in that.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:18 PM on January 5, 2017 [11 favorites]
Charles would surely see the righteous beauty in that.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:18 PM on January 5, 2017 [11 favorites]
I remember when the Queen Mother died and they literally showed nothing but documentaries about her on TV. It was actually quite boring.
IIRC the original plan was to have 9 days of solemn music and little else but they had so many complaints over the coverage when princess Diana died they had to cut back on that.
posted by biffa at 3:21 PM on January 5, 2017
IIRC the original plan was to have 9 days of solemn music and little else but they had so many complaints over the coverage when princess Diana died they had to cut back on that.
posted by biffa at 3:21 PM on January 5, 2017
Re: Simpson and the abdication, sure, but he was monarch.
Margaret was many, many steps away by this point -- Elizabeth and Philip had two children by that point, including an heir apparent in Charles, and went on to have two more. Margaret was out of the game, so it was surprising to me that Townsend's status mattered to as many as it did.
In "real life" it apparently wasn't the showstopper it's portrayed as in the show, as the Queen and PM Eden "drew up a plan in 1955 under which Princess Margaret could marry Townsend while keeping her royal title and her civil list allowance of £6,000 a year plus another £9,000 on marriage. She could live in this country and even continue with public duties if the public approved, as was highly likely." (BBC.)
posted by uberchet at 3:23 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Margaret was many, many steps away by this point -- Elizabeth and Philip had two children by that point, including an heir apparent in Charles, and went on to have two more. Margaret was out of the game, so it was surprising to me that Townsend's status mattered to as many as it did.
In "real life" it apparently wasn't the showstopper it's portrayed as in the show, as the Queen and PM Eden "drew up a plan in 1955 under which Princess Margaret could marry Townsend while keeping her royal title and her civil list allowance of £6,000 a year plus another £9,000 on marriage. She could live in this country and even continue with public duties if the public approved, as was highly likely." (BBC.)
posted by uberchet at 3:23 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
public servants aren't allowed much leeway
Depends. At a clerk/tech/junior level, no. At a senior officer level, SME-type job, one can have a lot, and a lot of judgement is required. We're given mandates to stick to, and managers to report to on results, but many of us, for the most part, define how we meet that mandate ourselves. I have a great deal of discretion with my own budget and staff's time. I'm accountable, but generally trusted to do the right thing.
In terms of the oath, my colleagues and I have conversions about how the values and ethics of the service apply, not a lot, but often enough to matter. Who's interest we have to serve and why, best value for the dollar for service delivery, interests and conflicts, that sort of thing. And that does have practical effects on our decision making.
posted by bonehead at 3:24 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
Depends. At a clerk/tech/junior level, no. At a senior officer level, SME-type job, one can have a lot, and a lot of judgement is required. We're given mandates to stick to, and managers to report to on results, but many of us, for the most part, define how we meet that mandate ourselves. I have a great deal of discretion with my own budget and staff's time. I'm accountable, but generally trusted to do the right thing.
In terms of the oath, my colleagues and I have conversions about how the values and ethics of the service apply, not a lot, but often enough to matter. Who's interest we have to serve and why, best value for the dollar for service delivery, interests and conflicts, that sort of thing. And that does have practical effects on our decision making.
posted by bonehead at 3:24 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
Regurgitating a fun fact I think I learned indirectly from MeFi in the first place: the EIIR insignia on most postboxes won't need to be changed, it apparently refers to the reigning monarch when the box is installed, not the one currently on the throne (correct me if I'm wrong!)
As I recall (and also stand to be corrected on), the lovely Dominion Public Building in London (our London) has on it a cipher for Edward VIII.
posted by Capt. Renault at 3:25 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
As I recall (and also stand to be corrected on), the lovely Dominion Public Building in London (our London) has on it a cipher for Edward VIII.
posted by Capt. Renault at 3:25 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
The human vocal tract is in fact capable of swearing that one will perform one's job to the best of one's ability and of swearing allegiance to abstractions such as a polity's laws and constitution.
posted by howfar at 3:27 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
And yet it's never happened without some form of personification of those values into a head of state."I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands..."
posted by howfar at 3:27 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
the cemeteries are filled with indispensible monarchs
Car parks, too!
posted by Celsius1414 at 3:28 PM on January 5, 2017 [10 favorites]
Car parks, too!
posted by Celsius1414 at 3:28 PM on January 5, 2017 [10 favorites]
That's what the oath of service is. That's why it's important that it transcends the government of the day.
Just which modern democracies are you imagining that civil servants swear personal allegiance to the government of the day?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:31 PM on January 5, 2017
Just which modern democracies are you imagining that civil servants swear personal allegiance to the government of the day?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:31 PM on January 5, 2017
Why do they have to shut the stock market down? And the banks?
Yes, I thought that part was bullshit the last time Business Insider ran this article.
I'll also bet against their prediction of a Diana-esque outpouring of grief at the Queen's death. Totally different situations: Diana was well-loved by the public, died young, and was broadly seen as having been treated fairly shoddily by the Royal Family. The Queen is more respected than loved, IMHO.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 3:33 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yes, I thought that part was bullshit the last time Business Insider ran this article.
I'll also bet against their prediction of a Diana-esque outpouring of grief at the Queen's death. Totally different situations: Diana was well-loved by the public, died young, and was broadly seen as having been treated fairly shoddily by the Royal Family. The Queen is more respected than loved, IMHO.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 3:33 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Charles won't abdicate; the House of Windsor has had a disgust for abdication ever since Edward VIII. They view it as a dereliction of duty.
In some countries like the Netherlands, monarchs abdicate when they wish to, essentially, retire; the former monarch becomes a sort of national grandparent and is no less beloved. In Britain your reign ends when you die and not before.
posted by Pallas Athena at 3:36 PM on January 5, 2017
In some countries like the Netherlands, monarchs abdicate when they wish to, essentially, retire; the former monarch becomes a sort of national grandparent and is no less beloved. In Britain your reign ends when you die and not before.
posted by Pallas Athena at 3:36 PM on January 5, 2017
Just which modern democracies are you imagining that civil servants swear personal allegiance to the government of the day?
Stephen Harper tried this. No shit at all. It was not a Fun Time.
posted by bonehead at 3:40 PM on January 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
Stephen Harper tried this. No shit at all. It was not a Fun Time.
posted by bonehead at 3:40 PM on January 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
By which I mean, a lot of wrangling and behind-the-back finger crossing.
posted by bonehead at 3:42 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by bonehead at 3:42 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Car parks, too!
fair, Henry put a lot of effort into proving how dispensable and disposable Richard was....
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:44 PM on January 5, 2017
fair, Henry put a lot of effort into proving how dispensable and disposable Richard was....
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:44 PM on January 5, 2017
I don't really trust "Business Insider". I don't trust any publication whose name sounds like something printed on one of Tom Haverford's business cards.
posted by howfar at 3:53 PM on January 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by howfar at 3:53 PM on January 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands..."
Literally the worst example ever, as discussed above. The US elects, essentially, a Royal Family, even going to so far as to institutionalize the role of the spouse/consort of the President. That the upper levels of the public service are partisan isn't exception but the rule. The abstraction implied in that oath isn't reflected in the institutions in the slightest.
(As an aside, oaths for all citizens, in particular children to be forced to recite, are pretty creepy. It's one thing for adults to chose an oath as a condition of service, but the USian ritual of making every child repeat an actual oath is a very coercive version of citizenship.)
posted by Kurichina at 4:01 PM on January 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
Literally the worst example ever, as discussed above. The US elects, essentially, a Royal Family, even going to so far as to institutionalize the role of the spouse/consort of the President. That the upper levels of the public service are partisan isn't exception but the rule. The abstraction implied in that oath isn't reflected in the institutions in the slightest.
(As an aside, oaths for all citizens, in particular children to be forced to recite, are pretty creepy. It's one thing for adults to chose an oath as a condition of service, but the USian ritual of making every child repeat an actual oath is a very coercive version of citizenship.)
posted by Kurichina at 4:01 PM on January 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
Now, if Camilla's ex-husband was to unfortunately and completely accidentally cut his throat and fall down the stairs while combing his hair, it might be a different story...
Princess Anne would have made an awesome Queen. Sister gets s*** done and then rides her horse over it.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 4:09 PM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
Princess Anne would have made an awesome Queen. Sister gets s*** done and then rides her horse over it.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 4:09 PM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
I'll also bet against their prediction of a Diana-esque outpouring of grief at the Queen's death.
Not Diana-esque necessarily (I think that's very much bound up in the time/Blair/two young kids) but I think it's going to hit incredibly hard especially if it happens imminently. Whatever side of the monarchist debate you're on, she's been the head of state since people in their seventies were children. And people just don't trust Charles.
I think that the main TV channels in the UK will almost certainly more or less clear the channel between her death and the funeral - for one thing its not worth the reputational risk in inadvertently putting something "disrespectful" on.
posted by threetwentytwo at 4:13 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Not Diana-esque necessarily (I think that's very much bound up in the time/Blair/two young kids) but I think it's going to hit incredibly hard especially if it happens imminently. Whatever side of the monarchist debate you're on, she's been the head of state since people in their seventies were children. And people just don't trust Charles.
I think that the main TV channels in the UK will almost certainly more or less clear the channel between her death and the funeral - for one thing its not worth the reputational risk in inadvertently putting something "disrespectful" on.
posted by threetwentytwo at 4:13 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
> the Queen and PM Eden "drew up a plan in 1955 under which Princess Margaret could marry Townsend...
One of those things I really admire about England's national institutions is their remarkable forethought regarding their self perpetuation.
posted by ardgedee at 4:27 PM on January 5, 2017
One of those things I really admire about England's national institutions is their remarkable forethought regarding their self perpetuation.
posted by ardgedee at 4:27 PM on January 5, 2017
Anyway, thanks to this thread for making me remember, this terribly-done television show with a very pertinent premise:
It is a sitcom about an earthy, one-hit wonder disco queen named Regina Gallant who is recommended for appointment as Governor General by a conniving Prime Minister anticipating she will become a national embarrassment in the job, allowing him to move ahead in eliminating the position, along with the Canadian monarchy. Regina is brash and loud and highly unsuitable for a formal position, but has a charming common touch.
Each episode has her becoming embroiled in one scandal or another, usually not of her making, only to have things resolve in her favour by the end.
posted by Kurichina at 4:29 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
It is a sitcom about an earthy, one-hit wonder disco queen named Regina Gallant who is recommended for appointment as Governor General by a conniving Prime Minister anticipating she will become a national embarrassment in the job, allowing him to move ahead in eliminating the position, along with the Canadian monarchy. Regina is brash and loud and highly unsuitable for a formal position, but has a charming common touch.
Each episode has her becoming embroiled in one scandal or another, usually not of her making, only to have things resolve in her favour by the end.
posted by Kurichina at 4:29 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
In the lamented event of Her Majesty's passing, I'm pretty sure Australia will remain a monarchy. All the monarchists would have to do is say the magic words "elected head of state, President Trump".
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:37 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:37 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
I hesitated for applying for Canadian citizenship because being sworn in requires swearing allegiance to the Queen, but after the election back home, I am no longer hesitant and I do not care about the monarchy.
posted by Kitteh at 4:44 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 4:44 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
In the lamented event of Her Majesty's passing, I'm pretty sure Australia will remain a monarchy. All the monarchists would have to do is say the magic words "elected head of state, President Trump".
All of the executive power already exists with parliament. A hypothetical President of Australia would just be a figurehead of state.
posted by Talez at 4:48 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
All of the executive power already exists with parliament. A hypothetical President of Australia would just be a figurehead of state.
posted by Talez at 4:48 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Each episode has her becoming embroiled in one scandal or another, usually not of her making, only to have things resolve in her favour by the end.
Sounds a bit like Yes, Minister
posted by The Underpants Monster at 5:02 PM on January 5, 2017
Sounds a bit like Yes, Minister
posted by The Underpants Monster at 5:02 PM on January 5, 2017
All of the executive power already exists with parliament. A hypothetical President of Australia would just be a figurehead of state.
THIS!! Do you really think the crown so called representatives hold any power?
posted by coust at 5:48 PM on January 5, 2017
THIS!! Do you really think the crown so called representatives hold any power?
posted by coust at 5:48 PM on January 5, 2017
As I recall (and also stand to be corrected on), the lovely Dominion Public Building in London (our London) has on it a cipher for Edward VIII.
I am unaware of this, but the former post office at Yonge and Eglinton in Toronto (Postal Station K) very definitely has one, one of only a handful in the Commonwealth. Its location is doubly historic, also being formerly the site of Montgomery's Tavern, where the 1837 rebellion was launched. The post office is now closed and the land sold to developers, who will surely treat the site with the respect it deserves, as all developers do.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:48 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
I am unaware of this, but the former post office at Yonge and Eglinton in Toronto (Postal Station K) very definitely has one, one of only a handful in the Commonwealth. Its location is doubly historic, also being formerly the site of Montgomery's Tavern, where the 1837 rebellion was launched. The post office is now closed and the land sold to developers, who will surely treat the site with the respect it deserves, as all developers do.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 5:48 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
me: why is this thread about the Q of E talking about canada
canadian friend: are u kidding me
me: is canada ... still a colony? it's 2017 ffs
cf: are u srs
me: what next, australia?
cf: how are you even real
posted by poffin boffin at 5:59 PM on January 5, 2017 [11 favorites]
canadian friend: are u kidding me
me: is canada ... still a colony? it's 2017 ffs
cf: are u srs
me: what next, australia?
cf: how are you even real
posted by poffin boffin at 5:59 PM on January 5, 2017 [11 favorites]
me: wait is that the lady on your money?
cf: *screaming*
me: i thought that was helen mirren
cf: W H Y
posted by poffin boffin at 6:01 PM on January 5, 2017 [27 favorites]
cf: *screaming*
me: i thought that was helen mirren
cf: W H Y
posted by poffin boffin at 6:01 PM on January 5, 2017 [27 favorites]
All of the executive power already exists with parliament. A hypothetical President of Australia would just be a figurehead of state.
It's not the executive power, but the reserve power that's important. Under our Constitution, the purpose of the Head of State is to restart the machinery of democracy when it breaks down, as it did in Australia in 1975. Otherwise, you can have a situation where the Prime Minister doesn't have the confidence of Parliament and therefore cannot pass Supply, and therefore resorts to extra-Constitutional means of raising money. Or where the Prime Minister simply doesn't want to face elections. You need a mechanism to refresh or to unequivocally identify the legitimate executive, and that mechanism needs to be separate from politics or else you end up with President Trump.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:02 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
It's not the executive power, but the reserve power that's important. Under our Constitution, the purpose of the Head of State is to restart the machinery of democracy when it breaks down, as it did in Australia in 1975. Otherwise, you can have a situation where the Prime Minister doesn't have the confidence of Parliament and therefore cannot pass Supply, and therefore resorts to extra-Constitutional means of raising money. Or where the Prime Minister simply doesn't want to face elections. You need a mechanism to refresh or to unequivocally identify the legitimate executive, and that mechanism needs to be separate from politics or else you end up with President Trump.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:02 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Being born into incredible dynastic wealth and living life off the public teat is not actually a public service.
Where is this "public teat" people keep talking about
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:05 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
Where is this "public teat" people keep talking about
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:05 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
All the monarchists would have to do is say the magic words "elected head of state, President Trump".
Trump isn't President for Life and Don Jr. isn't next in line for the presidency.
posted by Madame Defarge at 6:06 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Trump isn't President for Life and Don Jr. isn't next in line for the presidency.
posted by Madame Defarge at 6:06 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
As a renegade colonist, I'm not particularly invested in the monarchy, but it is unlikely that this Elizabeth will be eulogized by the likes of Shakespeare.
"Beauty, truth, and
Grace in all simplicity,
Here enclos'd in cinders lie."
"Truth may seem, but cannot be;
Beauty brag, but 'tis not she;
Truth and beauty buried be."
posted by TedW at 6:08 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
"Beauty, truth, and
Grace in all simplicity,
Here enclos'd in cinders lie."
"Truth may seem, but cannot be;
Beauty brag, but 'tis not she;
Truth and beauty buried be."
posted by TedW at 6:08 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Where is this "public teat" people keep talking about
westminster
posted by poffin boffin at 6:09 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
westminster
posted by poffin boffin at 6:09 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Where is this "public teat" people keep talking about
westminster
is it like jutting out of the ground or what
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:24 PM on January 5, 2017 [10 favorites]
westminster
is it like jutting out of the ground or what
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:24 PM on January 5, 2017 [10 favorites]
I love the Queen the way only an American can: With the sure and certain knowledge that my tax dollars pay for NONE of this, but that I get to enjoy it in my native language nonetheless.
"At the BBC, anchors actively practice for the eventuality of the Monarch's passing so they won't be caught unaware on their shifts. The BBC's Peter Sissons was heavily criticised for wearing a red tie to announce the Queen Mother's passing (as seen above), and the BBC now keeps black ties and suits at the ready at all times."
Uh, way to focus on the important bits, British public! Before announcing emergency, be sure to CHANGE YOUR TIE.
"because he'd been DIVORCED. The pushback came from lots of sources, but especially the Church of England. I mean, seriously, WTF?"
I mean technically the dispute was over whether the monarch could appoint (or present to the Pope for appointment) the bishops in his territory. It's just that he wanted those bishops to grant him an annulment that the Pope wouldn't because the Pope was the virtual prisoner of his wife's nephew. Anyway it's totally coherent to think that a national sovereign should be able to appoint his own bishops AND ALSO be against divorce. Also totally coherent to be against divorce in the Catholic way AND ALSO think that Henry should have been given his divorce because either a) he married his brother's wife in contradiction of Scripture or b) they had no male children and he was a monarch and that was a totes routine divorce reason.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:52 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
"At the BBC, anchors actively practice for the eventuality of the Monarch's passing so they won't be caught unaware on their shifts. The BBC's Peter Sissons was heavily criticised for wearing a red tie to announce the Queen Mother's passing (as seen above), and the BBC now keeps black ties and suits at the ready at all times."
Uh, way to focus on the important bits, British public! Before announcing emergency, be sure to CHANGE YOUR TIE.
"because he'd been DIVORCED. The pushback came from lots of sources, but especially the Church of England. I mean, seriously, WTF?"
I mean technically the dispute was over whether the monarch could appoint (or present to the Pope for appointment) the bishops in his territory. It's just that he wanted those bishops to grant him an annulment that the Pope wouldn't because the Pope was the virtual prisoner of his wife's nephew. Anyway it's totally coherent to think that a national sovereign should be able to appoint his own bishops AND ALSO be against divorce. Also totally coherent to be against divorce in the Catholic way AND ALSO think that Henry should have been given his divorce because either a) he married his brother's wife in contradiction of Scripture or b) they had no male children and he was a monarch and that was a totes routine divorce reason.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:52 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
The monarchy is one of many institutions that prevent a Trump-type from ever becoming PM
Prescient comment on circa-2011 Metafilter:
Prescient comment on circa-2011 Metafilter:
I would trade you three Bushes, a Rockefeller and a Trump for one Elizabeth.posted by Ralston McTodd at 6:58 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
Everyone is missing the worst part of this whole deal, which is how fucking dorky our quarter will look (or $15 coin, wtf?)
But the saddest thing of all will be no more Amy Winehouse queen money.
posted by chococat at 6:58 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
But the saddest thing of all will be no more Amy Winehouse queen money.
posted by chococat at 6:58 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
1 oz. of silver = $15 coin, I'm guessing. And that is not a flattering portrait, as you say.
posted by Bee'sWing at 7:04 PM on January 5, 2017
posted by Bee'sWing at 7:04 PM on January 5, 2017
Everyone is missing the worst part of this whole deal, which is how fucking dorky our quarter will look (or $15 coin, wtf?)
That's a commemorative coin. His mum's very likely on the other side, in profile, as he will be when (if) he's Monarch.
But dear lord is that an unflattering portrait.
posted by Sys Rq at 7:06 PM on January 5, 2017
That's a commemorative coin. His mum's very likely on the other side, in profile, as he will be when (if) he's Monarch.
But dear lord is that an unflattering portrait.
posted by Sys Rq at 7:06 PM on January 5, 2017
"That being said, I'll admit my total ignorance when I ask, can't some of this be mitigated in advance? Why do they have to shut the stock market down? And the banks? ... Still, it seems like it shouldn't be as disruptive and economically burdensome as they predict."
I mean they don't HAVE to, but from the articles it sounds like the stock market will shut down if it happens during the trading day, and then on the day of the funeral as a holiday; that's not all that disruptive (and may prevent a crash because traders are emotional and not logical). The NYSE closed for the moon landing (planned) and 9/11 (unplanned, 4 days) and Hurricane Sandy (semi-planned, 2 days). It's not a huge crisis to close stock trading for a day or two.
Also I learned from Netflix the very Anglo-Saxony oath noblemen have to swear to the new monarch: "I, NAME, do become your liege man of life and limb and of earthly worship and faith and truth I will bear unto you to live and die against all manner of folks."
"All manner of folks" is EXCELLENT.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:10 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
I mean they don't HAVE to, but from the articles it sounds like the stock market will shut down if it happens during the trading day, and then on the day of the funeral as a holiday; that's not all that disruptive (and may prevent a crash because traders are emotional and not logical). The NYSE closed for the moon landing (planned) and 9/11 (unplanned, 4 days) and Hurricane Sandy (semi-planned, 2 days). It's not a huge crisis to close stock trading for a day or two.
Also I learned from Netflix the very Anglo-Saxony oath noblemen have to swear to the new monarch: "I, NAME, do become your liege man of life and limb and of earthly worship and faith and truth I will bear unto you to live and die against all manner of folks."
"All manner of folks" is EXCELLENT.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:10 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
> "All manner of folks" is EXCELLENT
I hope they say that bit in an offended tone.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:17 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
I hope they say that bit in an offended tone.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:17 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Wait, I came in here SURE that someone would have linked or mentioned this anecdote from HRRecoveringH earlier this week:
The guard confessed to Her Majesty he had nearly fired his weapon, to which she quipped: 'Next time I'll ring through beforehand so you don't have to shoot me.'
posted by deludingmyself at 7:44 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
The guard confessed to Her Majesty he had nearly fired his weapon, to which she quipped: 'Next time I'll ring through beforehand so you don't have to shoot me.'
posted by deludingmyself at 7:44 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
All of the executive power already exists with parliament. A hypothetical President of Australia would just be a figurehead of state.
THIS!! Do you really think the crown so called representatives hold any power?
Remember, remember, the 11th of November (1975). The crown representative dismissed the elected government. Now that's power.
posted by Thella at 8:28 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
THIS!! Do you really think the crown so called representatives hold any power?
Remember, remember, the 11th of November (1975). The crown representative dismissed the elected government. Now that's power.
posted by Thella at 8:28 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
I once had a long argument with two monarchists, pointing out that just because they didn't like Charles very much didn't mean that he could just be skipped over. This is the nature of hereditary monarchy. Who knows what kind of dangerous individual might come after the current crop of closely related dullards.
Anyway, monarchies were common at the turn of the twentieth century, then we saw the most cataclysmic loss of life ever witnessed. The family relationships of George, Nicholas and Wilhelm didn't stop that.
posted by 1head2arms2legs at 9:06 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Anyway, monarchies were common at the turn of the twentieth century, then we saw the most cataclysmic loss of life ever witnessed. The family relationships of George, Nicholas and Wilhelm didn't stop that.
posted by 1head2arms2legs at 9:06 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Another tidbit about Canada is that the majority of treaty agreements with FN's and whole lot of other agreements that the state that is Canada is built on were made with 'The Crown'. The agreements are baked into our Constitution and there is a whole lot of law and legal things surrounding them.
So for the sake of argument, let's consider this: how much does it matter *who* holds "The Crown"?
As far as I can tell there are two main sources of anti-monarchical sentiment in Canada (and perhaps elsewhere in the Commonwealth): republicanism, and anti-colonialism - i.e. the desire to cut the last perceived colonial tie with Britain. When you separate them, a third option, besides keeping the existing monarchical system or establishing a republic, presents itself: establishing a monarchy based in Canada. Invite some other otherwise unemployed royal to take up permanent residence in Canada, renounce all foreign titles and dynastic claims, and take up "The Crown" here.
This would obviously keep the monarchists happy, and probably satisfy at least a portion of the anti-colonialists - after all, that last colonial tie would be gone.
Would the Canadian constitution have to be re-opened at all, if all we're doing is changing the dynasty, with the Crown of Canada otherwise remaining as-is? Where does it say that it has to remain with the House of Windsor?
posted by e-man at 9:31 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
So for the sake of argument, let's consider this: how much does it matter *who* holds "The Crown"?
As far as I can tell there are two main sources of anti-monarchical sentiment in Canada (and perhaps elsewhere in the Commonwealth): republicanism, and anti-colonialism - i.e. the desire to cut the last perceived colonial tie with Britain. When you separate them, a third option, besides keeping the existing monarchical system or establishing a republic, presents itself: establishing a monarchy based in Canada. Invite some other otherwise unemployed royal to take up permanent residence in Canada, renounce all foreign titles and dynastic claims, and take up "The Crown" here.
This would obviously keep the monarchists happy, and probably satisfy at least a portion of the anti-colonialists - after all, that last colonial tie would be gone.
Would the Canadian constitution have to be re-opened at all, if all we're doing is changing the dynasty, with the Crown of Canada otherwise remaining as-is? Where does it say that it has to remain with the House of Windsor?
posted by e-man at 9:31 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
Where is this "public teat" people keep talking about
If you can't bother to keep abreast of the political situation, you should be udderly ashamed.
posted by Celsius1414 at 9:52 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
If you can't bother to keep abreast of the political situation, you should be udderly ashamed.
posted by Celsius1414 at 9:52 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
Boob.
posted by Celsius1414 at 9:52 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Celsius1414 at 9:52 PM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
→ Perhaps, but I would still like a day off to mourn
Can we have two, please? My hangover's only likely to be starting after one day.
posted by scruss at 9:52 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Can we have two, please? My hangover's only likely to be starting after one day.
posted by scruss at 9:52 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Well, for starters, there's that pesky bit right at the start of the the 1867 Constitution Act (which is folded up and into the current, modern Constitution):
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:
I can imagine the messy can of worms that would be opened if we try to amend the Constitution to remove (or change or replace) the monarchy. I don't think we've got any politicians worthy of the name who could guide us or lead us through that kind of mess. You need somebody with strength and vision and determination. We seem to be lacking that at the moment.
posted by sardonyx at 9:54 PM on January 5, 2017
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:
I can imagine the messy can of worms that would be opened if we try to amend the Constitution to remove (or change or replace) the monarchy. I don't think we've got any politicians worthy of the name who could guide us or lead us through that kind of mess. You need somebody with strength and vision and determination. We seem to be lacking that at the moment.
posted by sardonyx at 9:54 PM on January 5, 2017
→ Hi there, I'm from England. Our citizens have had world-class democratic rights since 1689, …
… as long as you're a Protestant, that is. So not exactly world class.
And how's that unwritten constitution working out for you, then?
posted by scruss at 10:00 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
… as long as you're a Protestant, that is. So not exactly world class.
And how's that unwritten constitution working out for you, then?
posted by scruss at 10:00 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
For those who have trouble understanding the British relationship to the Monarchy I refer you to the other institution which has survived longer than it has any right to.
from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... royal-y woyaly... stuff.posted by fullerine at 10:12 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
scruss, democracy's developed over the past 300 years, but England & Wales have been in the same league as the most democratic the whole time. As has Scotland, pretty much.
To be clear, I wasn't saying that it's the most free country in the world, just taking issue with the comment/attitude that constitutional monarchies aren't democracies. Any representative democracy has non-democratic brakes in the system to avoid mob role. The UK's is atavistic, and not how you'd design something from scratch, but it's also functional.
And there's some written constitutions which could have avoided a Brexit style mess and some which couldn't. I'd put Ireland's in the former and Switzerland's in the latter, as the first examples of either that spring to mind.
posted by ambrosen at 10:37 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
To be clear, I wasn't saying that it's the most free country in the world, just taking issue with the comment/attitude that constitutional monarchies aren't democracies. Any representative democracy has non-democratic brakes in the system to avoid mob role. The UK's is atavistic, and not how you'd design something from scratch, but it's also functional.
And there's some written constitutions which could have avoided a Brexit style mess and some which couldn't. I'd put Ireland's in the former and Switzerland's in the latter, as the first examples of either that spring to mind.
posted by ambrosen at 10:37 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Queen Elizabeth II cannot die. You might be wondering what happens when the Queen dies. It's simple: we don't really know, but there are plans afoot.
I hope Moffat casts Jo Brand for the Queen's next regeneration. Sandi Toksvig would be good, but she's too busy with QI.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:36 AM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
I hope Moffat casts Jo Brand for the Queen's next regeneration. Sandi Toksvig would be good, but she's too busy with QI.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:36 AM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
It would probably be legally treasonous* to hope that the monarch doesn't die within N days of any event one has a ticket for or has been looking forward to (and which will be cancelled in the debilitating period of national mourning that follows), so instead I will wish her an ongoing long and happy reign.
* according to Mark Thomas, it is still a crime under the Treason Felony Act to imagine the end of the British monarchy, or to instruct a foreign citizen (but not a British subject, for some reason) to imagine this.
posted by acb at 2:02 AM on January 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
* according to Mark Thomas, it is still a crime under the Treason Felony Act to imagine the end of the British monarchy, or to instruct a foreign citizen (but not a British subject, for some reason) to imagine this.
posted by acb at 2:02 AM on January 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
That said, Charles' tendency to weigh in on everyday politics (everything from so-called alternative health to military procurement) is problematic for a monarch. William hasn't done this very much and is more in the mold of his grandmother. He will have to reign things in. It wouldn't be as big a deal if the rest of the UK government was strong, but, well, it isn't right now.
Well, the Tories could make use of that, if they want to dismantle the NHS and replace it with a US-style free-market health-care industry. In the outpouring of post-Brexit partiotism after the coronation of King Charles III, the new head of the NHS could announce that it is taking inspiration and guidance from the wise and thoughtful monarch and diverting its funding to homeopathy and mystical healing treatments. What little is left for surgery, GPs, pharmaceuticals and such will be sufficiently inadequate that everybody who has the money will have gone private, and everybody who hasn't will be reliant on a US-style employer-funded service. (Except for all the Uber/Deliveroo drivers who are independent contractors, of course.)
Other than that, every new building built will have a neoclassical colonnade. Make Britain Great Again!
posted by acb at 2:10 AM on January 6, 2017
Well, the Tories could make use of that, if they want to dismantle the NHS and replace it with a US-style free-market health-care industry. In the outpouring of post-Brexit partiotism after the coronation of King Charles III, the new head of the NHS could announce that it is taking inspiration and guidance from the wise and thoughtful monarch and diverting its funding to homeopathy and mystical healing treatments. What little is left for surgery, GPs, pharmaceuticals and such will be sufficiently inadequate that everybody who has the money will have gone private, and everybody who hasn't will be reliant on a US-style employer-funded service. (Except for all the Uber/Deliveroo drivers who are independent contractors, of course.)
Other than that, every new building built will have a neoclassical colonnade. Make Britain Great Again!
posted by acb at 2:10 AM on January 6, 2017
the Queen's next regeneration
Now that would be an interesting way to handle the problem. When the queen dies, someone new is cast in her role. A little of Doctor Who, a little of Tibetan succession rules. There will always be a Queen Elizabeth II: the empress of a thousand faces who reigns forevermore over the heavens and Earth.
posted by honestcoyote at 2:20 AM on January 6, 2017 [7 favorites]
Now that would be an interesting way to handle the problem. When the queen dies, someone new is cast in her role. A little of Doctor Who, a little of Tibetan succession rules. There will always be a Queen Elizabeth II: the empress of a thousand faces who reigns forevermore over the heavens and Earth.
posted by honestcoyote at 2:20 AM on January 6, 2017 [7 favorites]
... the procession winding through the postnatal ward, lead by a somber figure bearing on a cusion the ceremonial corgi, its beady eyes swiveling, nose twitching at what may be, no, what was and is the scent of the once and future monarch!
As always, Prince Charles trailing behind.
posted by sebastienbailard at 2:54 AM on January 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
As always, Prince Charles trailing behind.
posted by sebastienbailard at 2:54 AM on January 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
From a UK persons point-of-view, it'll be the most enormous pain the ass.
Given Brexit, people already appear to be losing their minds and their ability to process facts.
The Royals, even at the most stable of times seems to make rational people gibbering wrecks "such grace, stability, permanence, who else could do her job?" etc ...
If she dies, god help us, the nation - well English for sure will descend into such a puddle of nonsense, illogic, and foolishness it'll be unbearably painful.
Please, don't die in 2017. Get passed the numerous crucial European elections.
posted by rolandroland at 3:36 AM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
Given Brexit, people already appear to be losing their minds and their ability to process facts.
The Royals, even at the most stable of times seems to make rational people gibbering wrecks "such grace, stability, permanence, who else could do her job?" etc ...
If she dies, god help us, the nation - well English for sure will descend into such a puddle of nonsense, illogic, and foolishness it'll be unbearably painful.
Please, don't die in 2017. Get passed the numerous crucial European elections.
posted by rolandroland at 3:36 AM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
And how's that unwritten constitution working out for you, then?
I feel it is my pedant- um, patriotic duty to point out that our constitution is uncodified, rather than unwritten. Plenty of it is written down in various places - it's just not collected anywhere in one single document. There are some advantages to this kind of system, notably that it a) allows for a lot of flexibility and b) means most questions about whether something is or isn't constitutional allow for endless "yes but no but yes but no but here's this interesting anecdote from 1627!" answers, which in times of threatened constitutional crisis at least provides some of us with a bit of entertainment.
(Like: does the Prime Minister need to be an elected MP? Yes, in that this is so much the popular expectation now that no party is going to challenge it. No, in that Prime Ministers have previously been members of the House of Lords. Yes, in that the last PM from the House of Lords, Alec Douglas-Home, stepped down from the Lords immediately after becoming PM and was parachuted in to a safe Conservative seat in Scotland (my government tutor: "I'll just say that again: a safe Conservative seat in Scotland") to take up a position in the Commons, and that set a precedent it would be very difficult for any party to back away from, in part because part of the written form of our constitution is people writing down what does happen and after a while this becomes what must happen because the population would now be extremely opposed to any PM who tried to backtrack on that. No, in that we are now in post-2016 politics so who the hell even knows any more?)
My favourite constitutional thought-experimenting on the future of the monarchy is "what happens if we end up with another Henry VIII?", in the sense not of divorces/Church-founding but in passing legislation. Any Bill that goes through Parliament needs Royal Assent from the monarch before becoming an Act. This is basically rubber-stamping now, since the monarch has granted it for everything 1708, but it is still rubber-stamping that the monarch has to do. So: what if the monarch says "actually no, I'm not going to pass this one"?
One view on this would be something like: by this point in history the monarch's duty is to grant Royal Assent, not to make a decision on whether or not to grant it. That is part of their duty within this democratic system. Any monarch refusing to grant royal assent is failing to play their role in the system, as much as they would be if they failed to turn up for the state opening of parliament, and the system should therefore just bypass them.
However(1): monarchs have considered refusing Royal Assent a lot more recently than 1708. George V came close in 1914 on a bill to do with Home Rule in Ireland, to the point of speaking to lawyers about the issue. He decided against eventually and wrote this to Asquith, the then-PM:
"Much has been said and written in favour of the proposition that the Assent of the Crown should be withheld from the measure. On the other hand, the King feels strongly that that extreme course should not be adopted in this case unless there is convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillizing effect on the distracting conditions of the time. There is no such evidence."
...but what if a future monarch found/believed/could convincingly argue that there was such evidence for something?
However(2): the best thought-experiment on this is one that goes, okay, if it's the monarch's democratic duty to grant Royal Assent every time no matter what the bill is - what if the bill itself is anti-democratic? What if Parliament passes a new Fixed-Term Parliaments act that allows for Parliament to have a maximum term of 500 years rather than 5? What's the monarch's democratic duty in that case?
If a monarch goes insane George III style, you can just effectively skip over them and instate a regency, but if they just get increasingly power-hungry and paranoid Henry VIII style, that's tougher. And what if they were a machiavellian genius with a stable of spin-doctors who could get the tabloids on their side? What would that look like in post-truth politics?
Anyway. I hope the Queen's feeling well!
posted by Catseye at 3:50 AM on January 6, 2017 [9 favorites]
I feel it is my pedant- um, patriotic duty to point out that our constitution is uncodified, rather than unwritten. Plenty of it is written down in various places - it's just not collected anywhere in one single document. There are some advantages to this kind of system, notably that it a) allows for a lot of flexibility and b) means most questions about whether something is or isn't constitutional allow for endless "yes but no but yes but no but here's this interesting anecdote from 1627!" answers, which in times of threatened constitutional crisis at least provides some of us with a bit of entertainment.
(Like: does the Prime Minister need to be an elected MP? Yes, in that this is so much the popular expectation now that no party is going to challenge it. No, in that Prime Ministers have previously been members of the House of Lords. Yes, in that the last PM from the House of Lords, Alec Douglas-Home, stepped down from the Lords immediately after becoming PM and was parachuted in to a safe Conservative seat in Scotland (my government tutor: "I'll just say that again: a safe Conservative seat in Scotland") to take up a position in the Commons, and that set a precedent it would be very difficult for any party to back away from, in part because part of the written form of our constitution is people writing down what does happen and after a while this becomes what must happen because the population would now be extremely opposed to any PM who tried to backtrack on that. No, in that we are now in post-2016 politics so who the hell even knows any more?)
My favourite constitutional thought-experimenting on the future of the monarchy is "what happens if we end up with another Henry VIII?", in the sense not of divorces/Church-founding but in passing legislation. Any Bill that goes through Parliament needs Royal Assent from the monarch before becoming an Act. This is basically rubber-stamping now, since the monarch has granted it for everything 1708, but it is still rubber-stamping that the monarch has to do. So: what if the monarch says "actually no, I'm not going to pass this one"?
One view on this would be something like: by this point in history the monarch's duty is to grant Royal Assent, not to make a decision on whether or not to grant it. That is part of their duty within this democratic system. Any monarch refusing to grant royal assent is failing to play their role in the system, as much as they would be if they failed to turn up for the state opening of parliament, and the system should therefore just bypass them.
However(1): monarchs have considered refusing Royal Assent a lot more recently than 1708. George V came close in 1914 on a bill to do with Home Rule in Ireland, to the point of speaking to lawyers about the issue. He decided against eventually and wrote this to Asquith, the then-PM:
"Much has been said and written in favour of the proposition that the Assent of the Crown should be withheld from the measure. On the other hand, the King feels strongly that that extreme course should not be adopted in this case unless there is convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillizing effect on the distracting conditions of the time. There is no such evidence."
...but what if a future monarch found/believed/could convincingly argue that there was such evidence for something?
However(2): the best thought-experiment on this is one that goes, okay, if it's the monarch's democratic duty to grant Royal Assent every time no matter what the bill is - what if the bill itself is anti-democratic? What if Parliament passes a new Fixed-Term Parliaments act that allows for Parliament to have a maximum term of 500 years rather than 5? What's the monarch's democratic duty in that case?
If a monarch goes insane George III style, you can just effectively skip over them and instate a regency, but if they just get increasingly power-hungry and paranoid Henry VIII style, that's tougher. And what if they were a machiavellian genius with a stable of spin-doctors who could get the tabloids on their side? What would that look like in post-truth politics?
Anyway. I hope the Queen's feeling well!
posted by Catseye at 3:50 AM on January 6, 2017 [9 favorites]
Jesus Christ, I had dinner with two public servants this week (separately), know a few more and have worked for at least two government agencies myself. I assure you they all consider their jobs just jobs, there is no higher calling. It's not some priesthood.
posted by deadwax at 3:53 AM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by deadwax at 3:53 AM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
An equally valid question is how that written constitution is treating the US. Constitutional and/or founding fathers orthodoxy isn't looking brilliant from this vantage point.
posted by deadwax at 3:58 AM on January 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by deadwax at 3:58 AM on January 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
Jesus Christ, I had dinner with two public servants this week (separately), know a few more and have worked for at least two government agencies myself. I assure you they all consider their jobs just jobs, there is no higher calling.
Depends on the job, though, right?
To grab a topical UK example (oh, Brexit politics, what don't you give us?), the UK's Ambassador to the EU recently resigned. The news of this, and the speculated reasons for this, caused some degree of controversy over the role of the civil service from various figures in the news. But I mention this not to quote any of the usual talking heads about it, but to pass along the final email of the leaked email he sent to his staff regarding his resignation:
posted by Catseye at 4:19 AM on January 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
Depends on the job, though, right?
To grab a topical UK example (oh, Brexit politics, what don't you give us?), the UK's Ambassador to the EU recently resigned. The news of this, and the speculated reasons for this, caused some degree of controversy over the role of the civil service from various figures in the news. But I mention this not to quote any of the usual talking heads about it, but to pass along the final email of the leaked email he sent to his staff regarding his resignation:
For my part, I hope that in my day-to-day dealings with you I have demonstrated the values which I have always espoused as a public servant. I hope you will continue to challenge ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking and that you will never be afraid to speak the truth to those in power. I hope that you will support each other in those difficult moments where you have to deliver messages that are disagreeable to those who need to hear them. I hope that you will continue to be interested in the views of others, even where you disagree with them, and in understanding why others act and think in the way that they do. I hope that you will always provide the best advice and counsel you can to the politicians that our people have elected, and be proud of the essential role we play in the service of a great democracy.I'm not suggesting that everyone who e.g. works in a minor role on tax administration in a non-departmental public body considers their employer to be akin to the priesthood. But as far as higher callings can go in that kind of environment, "speak truth to power" is a pretty good one.
posted by Catseye at 4:19 AM on January 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
Also I think the US Presidency isn't a helpful model for assessing republican systems in general, because it's a bit of an eccentric outlier - the US President in lots of ways is more like an elected monarch than a modern republican head of state, thanks to the unreformability of the system the Americans have inherited from the 18th century. Ireland, Italy, etc seem to get by okay with some retired politician or other doing the waving and smiling.
Exactly - for me the happy midpoint between a constitutional monarchy and a powerful president is the parliamentary republic - instead of a ceremonial monarch with limited powers you have a ceremonial elected president with limited powers. It's worked pretty well in Ireland - our presidents have all been politicians, but have tended to be more idealist in general, for example (let's forget about Dev for now):
Douglas Hyde: first president, Irish language activist and academic (also a Protestant, which was notable at the time)
Mary Robinson: lawyer, women's and gay rights campaigner, later UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Michael D Higgins: current president, political lecturer, adorably tiny leftwing poet (here he is watching Bob Dylan and Santata in the 80's).
An equally valid question is how that written constitution is treating the US. Constitutional and/or founding fathers orthodoxy isn't looking brilliant from this vantage point.
In Ireland we got a lousy, regressive constitution drafted by conservatives, which is not as bad as it sounds, because it means people are more willing to change it based on what makes sense right now, versus treating the founders as secular saints and trying to deduce their intentions, as seems to happen sometimes in the US. It can be changed by a simple majority in a popular vote, so we're making progress bit by bit.
posted by kersplunk at 4:28 AM on January 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
Exactly - for me the happy midpoint between a constitutional monarchy and a powerful president is the parliamentary republic - instead of a ceremonial monarch with limited powers you have a ceremonial elected president with limited powers. It's worked pretty well in Ireland - our presidents have all been politicians, but have tended to be more idealist in general, for example (let's forget about Dev for now):
Douglas Hyde: first president, Irish language activist and academic (also a Protestant, which was notable at the time)
Mary Robinson: lawyer, women's and gay rights campaigner, later UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Michael D Higgins: current president, political lecturer, adorably tiny leftwing poet (here he is watching Bob Dylan and Santata in the 80's).
An equally valid question is how that written constitution is treating the US. Constitutional and/or founding fathers orthodoxy isn't looking brilliant from this vantage point.
In Ireland we got a lousy, regressive constitution drafted by conservatives, which is not as bad as it sounds, because it means people are more willing to change it based on what makes sense right now, versus treating the founders as secular saints and trying to deduce their intentions, as seems to happen sometimes in the US. It can be changed by a simple majority in a popular vote, so we're making progress bit by bit.
posted by kersplunk at 4:28 AM on January 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
I assure you they all consider their jobs just jobs, there is no higher calling. It's not some priesthood.
Those types are really awful to work with, IME.
posted by Kurichina at 6:25 AM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
Those types are really awful to work with, IME.
posted by Kurichina at 6:25 AM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
Sys Rq: "I think Britons and non-Commonwealthers drastically overestimate (and Commonwealth columnists deliberately overstate) what the Monarchy means to the Commonwealth. It's just a face on the money. Sure, you might hear some grumbling (Australia especially likes to grumble, but they just need a new flag)"
And I hear much support for the monarchy
and I hear the Union Jack's to remain
posted by Chrysostom at 7:34 AM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
And I hear much support for the monarchy
and I hear the Union Jack's to remain
posted by Chrysostom at 7:34 AM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
The monarchy is one of many institutions that prevent a Trump-type from ever becoming PM, by channeling the base human need for celebrity and symbolism into a harmless institution and placing a barrier between policy development and performance. Trudeau is working on breaking down that barrier, but that just shows why we need a strong monarchy. Let the hand-waivers channel our emotions; let the nerds do the business of governing.
So much this. I don't want the PM to be the glad-hander, we have a GG for that. The PM should govern, and the GG should celebrite and symbolise, and this nice separation has been eroding and is eroding even faster now and it makes me sad.
posted by jeather at 7:44 AM on January 6, 2017
So much this. I don't want the PM to be the glad-hander, we have a GG for that. The PM should govern, and the GG should celebrite and symbolise, and this nice separation has been eroding and is eroding even faster now and it makes me sad.
posted by jeather at 7:44 AM on January 6, 2017
The monarchy is one of many institutions that prevent a Trump-type from ever becoming PM
Really? - I mean it all depends on the random blueblood you get doesn't it? Eddie VIII would not have been a great bulwark against UK fascism
posted by brilliantmistake at 8:35 AM on January 6, 2017 [4 favorites]
Really? - I mean it all depends on the random blueblood you get doesn't it? Eddie VIII would not have been a great bulwark against UK fascism
posted by brilliantmistake at 8:35 AM on January 6, 2017 [4 favorites]
But how many days do we get off work? And what about for the coronation after?? It's been quite the dominant conversation during coffee break for some time...
posted by sedimentary_deer at 9:11 AM on January 6, 2017
posted by sedimentary_deer at 9:11 AM on January 6, 2017
But how many days do we get off work? And what about for the coronation after??
I think the day of the funeral is a given; the coronation may take some time to happen. The coronation for Elizabeth II was over a year after her father's death.
posted by nubs at 9:16 AM on January 6, 2017
I think the day of the funeral is a given; the coronation may take some time to happen. The coronation for Elizabeth II was over a year after her father's death.
posted by nubs at 9:16 AM on January 6, 2017
I don’t see why we need a head of state at all. Figureheads are nice enough, but boats work perfectly well without them.
Because if you don't have a symbolic figurehead, then the top politician will be your very-not-symbolic figurehead (see: USA), and then you have a politician who can't be properly and continually cross-examined (because people feel it is disrespectful for interviewers to treat the figurehead of their nation like a lying weaselly politician) and then the figurehead-politician's own agenda can be wrapped protectively in the flag, with critics attacked and due-diligence derided/chilled as unpatriotic, which allows the Iraq War, and then hundreds of thousands of people are killed.
(To add insult to injury, the politician can push other nations to join in even though those nations had the symbolic figurehead in place ensuring they wouldn't start a groundless war, but then their biggest ally went LEEROY JENKINS!!! and then you gotta follow...)
posted by anonymisc at 9:58 AM on January 6, 2017 [8 favorites]
Because if you don't have a symbolic figurehead, then the top politician will be your very-not-symbolic figurehead (see: USA), and then you have a politician who can't be properly and continually cross-examined (because people feel it is disrespectful for interviewers to treat the figurehead of their nation like a lying weaselly politician) and then the figurehead-politician's own agenda can be wrapped protectively in the flag, with critics attacked and due-diligence derided/chilled as unpatriotic, which allows the Iraq War, and then hundreds of thousands of people are killed.
(To add insult to injury, the politician can push other nations to join in even though those nations had the symbolic figurehead in place ensuring they wouldn't start a groundless war, but then their biggest ally went LEEROY JENKINS!!! and then you gotta follow...)
posted by anonymisc at 9:58 AM on January 6, 2017 [8 favorites]
In deludingmyself's link, she's dressed just like Nurse Chapell from Star Trek:TOS. I hope Prince Philip didn't throw his plomeek soup at her.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:54 AM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:54 AM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
Catseye's comment got me thinking about Henry VIII clauses and specifically their role in any Great Repeal Act used to achieve the Brexit.
A "Hard" Brexit would require massive amounts of legislation to unscramble the egg that is the current UK legal system. (A lot of existing legislation assumes the continued involvement of the EU and its institutions). One simple way to do this would be with an Act containing several clauses that give the power to Ministers to make the necessary changes.
That, while in practical terms almost certainly necessary, would radically shift the power to make laws away from the Parliament and give it to the Ministry. In US terms, this means taking law making power away from the legislature and giving it to the administration. Those two branches aren't very distinct in UK government, so a lot of the conventions we have are crafted to avoid the problems this can create. In Queensland (Australia) for example, there's a strong presumption against writing legislation that contains such powers.
This means the legislation necessary to enable the Brexit could create a constitutional crisis. The Monarch could, in some possible scenarios, arguably be totally justified in refusing to give Royal Assent to such a Bill.
Interesting times...
posted by GeckoDundee at 12:33 PM on January 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
A "Hard" Brexit would require massive amounts of legislation to unscramble the egg that is the current UK legal system. (A lot of existing legislation assumes the continued involvement of the EU and its institutions). One simple way to do this would be with an Act containing several clauses that give the power to Ministers to make the necessary changes.
That, while in practical terms almost certainly necessary, would radically shift the power to make laws away from the Parliament and give it to the Ministry. In US terms, this means taking law making power away from the legislature and giving it to the administration. Those two branches aren't very distinct in UK government, so a lot of the conventions we have are crafted to avoid the problems this can create. In Queensland (Australia) for example, there's a strong presumption against writing legislation that contains such powers.
This means the legislation necessary to enable the Brexit could create a constitutional crisis. The Monarch could, in some possible scenarios, arguably be totally justified in refusing to give Royal Assent to such a Bill.
Interesting times...
posted by GeckoDundee at 12:33 PM on January 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
Of course, now that the edit window is closed, I realise I wrote "administration" instead of "executive".
posted by GeckoDundee at 12:57 PM on January 6, 2017
posted by GeckoDundee at 12:57 PM on January 6, 2017
According to British political theology/jurisprudence, a king or queen doesn't ever die. Their body natural is of course subject to death, but their body politic and what it embodies live on. All past kings and queens of England and the Commonwealth are forever alive. Hence "king is dead; long live the king."
(This Kantorowicz book, which is impossibly expensive here in Brazil, is one of the coolest pieces of historiography you can ever come across.)
posted by rufb at 3:20 PM on January 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
(This Kantorowicz book, which is impossibly expensive here in Brazil, is one of the coolest pieces of historiography you can ever come across.)
posted by rufb at 3:20 PM on January 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
I mean it all depends on the random blueblood you get doesn't it?
Alternately, you could go with an elective monarchy.
posted by Chrysostom at 3:20 PM on January 6, 2017
Alternately, you could go with an elective monarchy.
posted by Chrysostom at 3:20 PM on January 6, 2017
poffin boffin: me: wait is that the lady on your money?
Ha ha ha. That's awesome.
You might like these images that show how her likeness has changed on Canadian currency series over time. Must be tricky business, that...
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 3:28 PM on January 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
Ha ha ha. That's awesome.
You might like these images that show how her likeness has changed on Canadian currency series over time. Must be tricky business, that...
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 3:28 PM on January 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
GeckoDundee, is the distinction you mention akin to the regulatory power sometimes given to executive agencies in the US?
posted by uberchet at 3:51 PM on January 6, 2017
posted by uberchet at 3:51 PM on January 6, 2017
"king is dead; long live the king."
I had always believed that to be a simple assertion of the immediate succession of the new monarch to the throne, for reasons of political expediency, rather than anything more sophisticated. But I'm not sure I've ever seen a reliable source for any origin of the phrase. Anyone got one?
posted by howfar at 4:51 PM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
I had always believed that to be a simple assertion of the immediate succession of the new monarch to the throne, for reasons of political expediency, rather than anything more sophisticated. But I'm not sure I've ever seen a reliable source for any origin of the phrase. Anyone got one?
posted by howfar at 4:51 PM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
According to British political theology/jurisprudence, a king or queen doesn't ever die. Their body natural is of course subject to death, but their body politic and what it embodies live on. All past kings and queens of England and the Commonwealth are forever alive. Hence "king is dead; long live the king."
What? No. They say that because the king is dead and the heir apparent immediately succeeds them. That whole le mort saisit le vif thing the French came up with.
posted by Talez at 4:55 PM on January 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
What? No. They say that because the king is dead and the heir apparent immediately succeeds them. That whole le mort saisit le vif thing the French came up with.
posted by Talez at 4:55 PM on January 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
uberchet, it's the distinction between what we call delegated or subordinate legislation and Acts of Parliament proper. An Act of Parliament might for example make an action punishable by a fine and then say that some other body (i.e. not parliament) can set the fine. Or it might say certain organisations are proscribed organisations but then let a Minister decide which organisations go on that list. This means some things can be changed by simply changing the regulation and don't need to have majority support in either House.
I don't know much about the US system, but I believe this is similar to the power you're talking about. The big difference here (and I imagine elsewhere with a Westminster system) is that the body exercising the power is rarely as independent as in the case of executive bodies you're describing.
For example, I believe the DEA has the power to decide what classification illegal drugs fall into. That would be similar to leaving the classification to, say the Home Secretary in the UK. However, I think the Administrator of the DEA would be more like the equivalent of the Permenant Secretary than the Home Secretary. That is, more like the professional administrator than the career politician to whom they answer. So the British system would be more like have that classification carried out by the Attorney General rather than the Administrator of the DEA (who answers to the AG).
TL-DR = Yes
posted by GeckoDundee at 5:04 PM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
I don't know much about the US system, but I believe this is similar to the power you're talking about. The big difference here (and I imagine elsewhere with a Westminster system) is that the body exercising the power is rarely as independent as in the case of executive bodies you're describing.
For example, I believe the DEA has the power to decide what classification illegal drugs fall into. That would be similar to leaving the classification to, say the Home Secretary in the UK. However, I think the Administrator of the DEA would be more like the equivalent of the Permenant Secretary than the Home Secretary. That is, more like the professional administrator than the career politician to whom they answer. So the British system would be more like have that classification carried out by the Attorney General rather than the Administrator of the DEA (who answers to the AG).
TL-DR = Yes
posted by GeckoDundee at 5:04 PM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
> how her likeness has changed on Canadian currency series over time.
!! The "commemorative" series has younger versions of her in the hologram while still featuring current her. Can't figure out how to feel about it, really.
Somewhat related, The Crown (television show) really flatters QEII through her ascension. Given the love for the royals and in particular QEII - who has been pretty darned good at her role, and indeed served as a decent role model - I wonder how much intention was in these to celebrate her reign while she can still appreciate the gestures?
posted by porpoise at 7:00 PM on January 6, 2017
!! The "commemorative" series has younger versions of her in the hologram while still featuring current her. Can't figure out how to feel about it, really.
Somewhat related, The Crown (television show) really flatters QEII through her ascension. Given the love for the royals and in particular QEII - who has been pretty darned good at her role, and indeed served as a decent role model - I wonder how much intention was in these to celebrate her reign while she can still appreciate the gestures?
posted by porpoise at 7:00 PM on January 6, 2017
This means the legislation necessary to enable the Brexit could create a constitutional crisis. The Monarch could, in some possible scenarios, arguably be totally justified in refusing to give Royal Assent to such a Bill.
While an interesting point, I'm not sure I think this is plausible. The making of secondary legislation is, for one thing, an executive act subject to ordinary judicial review. There will be strong incentives to get as much as possible through as primary legislation, given the certainty (in light of the huge number of people, businesses and bodies which will lose out due to Brexit, and the way that their different interests will come into conflict in trying to make a workable Brexit happen) of a large number of legal challenges to very significant portions of any secondary legislation made. Moreover, from a broader constitutional point of view, Parliament can always take back any powers delegated to the executive, and change secondary legislation through primary legislation.
I don't think you need to rely on the monarchy as a constitutional check, here, when we have the the much more orthodox and predictable mechanisms of the courts and parliamentary sovereignty. In fact, given that Parliament can always take back what it gives, I think it would be a far graver (indeed essentially unthinkable) constitutional crisis were the monarch to interfere with Parliament's right to delegate its power as it sees fit.
Which isn't to say that there isn't a significant possibility (some might say, judging by the overall level of competence shown by this government, an overwhelming probability) of the "Great Repeal Bill" being an utter cock up, but rather that the mess is much more likely to be chronic and insidious than acute and explosive.
posted by howfar at 7:01 PM on January 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
While an interesting point, I'm not sure I think this is plausible. The making of secondary legislation is, for one thing, an executive act subject to ordinary judicial review. There will be strong incentives to get as much as possible through as primary legislation, given the certainty (in light of the huge number of people, businesses and bodies which will lose out due to Brexit, and the way that their different interests will come into conflict in trying to make a workable Brexit happen) of a large number of legal challenges to very significant portions of any secondary legislation made. Moreover, from a broader constitutional point of view, Parliament can always take back any powers delegated to the executive, and change secondary legislation through primary legislation.
I don't think you need to rely on the monarchy as a constitutional check, here, when we have the the much more orthodox and predictable mechanisms of the courts and parliamentary sovereignty. In fact, given that Parliament can always take back what it gives, I think it would be a far graver (indeed essentially unthinkable) constitutional crisis were the monarch to interfere with Parliament's right to delegate its power as it sees fit.
Which isn't to say that there isn't a significant possibility (some might say, judging by the overall level of competence shown by this government, an overwhelming probability) of the "Great Repeal Bill" being an utter cock up, but rather that the mess is much more likely to be chronic and insidious than acute and explosive.
posted by howfar at 7:01 PM on January 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
I don't really think it's likely that any Monarch would actually refuse assent to Great Repeal Bill, or even be in a position where it might be a live option. However, I didn't think the "leave" vote would get up either, so we're in uncharted territory. If I understand what's going on at the Supreme Court correctly (and I probably don't), the argument seems to revolve around the Tory Government saying the Crown in Cabinet (and not Parliament, interestingly enough) can order the Brexit without Parliament's support. That rather invites the Monarch to take a stance. Elizabeth would presumably go with whatever the PM and Cabinet of the day advised, but who knows? George VII might not. We don't even know what the Court's going to decide yet and how that might reshape the question.
Don't you think the Government's reliance on prerogative powers might undermine any later attempt to use the notion of parliamentary sovereignty to assuage fears of a wide ranging Great Repeal Act requiring lots of subordinate legislation? They can't really say "don't worry, Parliament will save you from the abuse of any GRA powers" if the only reason they were able to get the ball rolling in the first place was by arguing that Parliament has no right to stop a Brexit. I wouldn't be happy to rely on judicial review to fix any abuse either. The role of judicial review is largely to make sure the Minister in question sticks to the powers given in the Act. But if the Act gives significant autonomy to the decision maker (and it seems it would defeat the purpose if the Act had to spell out those powers in significant detail), then JR won't help much anyway.
It all has a strong whiff of "post-democracy", for want of a more alarmist label.
posted by GeckoDundee at 8:56 PM on January 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
Don't you think the Government's reliance on prerogative powers might undermine any later attempt to use the notion of parliamentary sovereignty to assuage fears of a wide ranging Great Repeal Act requiring lots of subordinate legislation? They can't really say "don't worry, Parliament will save you from the abuse of any GRA powers" if the only reason they were able to get the ball rolling in the first place was by arguing that Parliament has no right to stop a Brexit. I wouldn't be happy to rely on judicial review to fix any abuse either. The role of judicial review is largely to make sure the Minister in question sticks to the powers given in the Act. But if the Act gives significant autonomy to the decision maker (and it seems it would defeat the purpose if the Act had to spell out those powers in significant detail), then JR won't help much anyway.
It all has a strong whiff of "post-democracy", for want of a more alarmist label.
posted by GeckoDundee at 8:56 PM on January 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
« Older Comic Book Squirrel Monkeys | In My Mind, and In My Car, We Can't Rewind, We've... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by beerperson at 12:34 PM on January 5, 2017 [42 favorites]