King Charles or King William?

[Topaz]

Now that he engagement of Prince Wiiliam, some oare talking about who should be King after the Queen dies. After watching Prince Charles last night on NBC, Charles really likes what he is doing now and he is into making a better world through a better environment in which we live. He was asked about being King, but he said he really doesn't like talking about being King because his mother would have to die and he's in no rush for that. He also said he hopes he could could change the rules abit so he could keep doing what he does now. I got the impression that if he couldn't continue his work, that he may say no and pass it on to his son. All this depends on the length of time the Queen has and the life experience of William. I'm sure he's in no huury to be king either. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/101120/world/eu_britain_king_william

[guyser]

A better question would be Miss Kate or the Rottweiler.

I know who Id rather look at.

[g_bambino]

I got the impression that if he couldn't continue his work, that he may say no and pass it on to his son.

That won't happen unless there are legislative changes in all sixteen countries he's in line to become king of; in Canada alone that involves the agreement of all ten provinces and the federal parliament, and I believe that in Australia it would require a referendum. So, it's far more likely than not that we'll be seeing a King Charles (though he may reign as George VII).

[c/e]

Edited November 21, 2010 by g_bambino

[Bonam]

Not much point to Charles being King. Elizabeth II has become so emblematic a Queen mostly as a result of her long long reign. If Charles became king how long would he last? Would just be some old dude holding over for a few years, not exciting or interesting to anybody. A younger, more vibrant king that could have a chance to hold the throne for a span comparable to Elizabeth II would be a better choice.

[TimG]

That won't happen unless there are legislative changes in all sixteen countries he's in line to become king of; in Canada alone that involves the agreement of all ten provinces and the federal parliament, and I believe that in Australia it would require a referendum. So, it's far more likely than not that we'll be seeing a King Charles (though he may reign as George VII).

What you are saying makes no sense. The law cannot possibly compel Charles to serve has King if he does not want to. If he says he does not want to be King he will not be King. The legal framework(s) will have to adapt to whatever decision he makes.

[g_bambino]

If he says he does not want to be King he will not be King.

Only if he convinces 26 governments and parliaments to go along with it. The Commonwealth Realms are constitutional monarchies, not absolute ones.

[correct]

Edited November 21, 2010 by g_bambino

[Michael Hardner]

Only if he convinces 26 governments and parliaments to go along with it. The Commonwealth Realms are constitutional monarchies, not absolute ones.

[correct]

I thought this was odd, too, but a note on the wiki page about Edward VIII's abdication notes:

Edward's abdication required the consent of each Commonwealth state, which was duly given;[71] by the parliament of Australia, which was at the time in session, and by the governments of the other Dominions, whose parliaments were in recess.[45]

[g_bambino]

I thought this was odd, too,

In constitutional monarchies, lines of succession are not left ungoverned; wars have been known to start otherwise. Since at least the beginning of the reign of Queen Mary, there have been constitutional rules guiding who takes the throne, and in each of the Commonwealth Realms, those stipulations are set out in the Act of Settlement 1701, which states that only the most direct descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, may take the crown upon the death of the previous sovereign. To eliminate Charles from the line of succession, the Act would have to be amended or another Act of Parliament issued declaring him to be removed, as was done for Edward VIII in 1936. However, since the Statute of Westminster, also a part of the constitutions of each Commonwealth Realm, states that, by convention, the realms shall share the same person as their respective monarch,* but, by statute law, no act of the British parliament has any force outside of Britain, an amendment to the Act of Settlement would have to be made in the parliament of each of the 16 Commonwealth Realms. In Canada, the Constitution Act 1982 requires that such a change to the constitution would require the consent of the federal and all ten provincial legislatures.

* How stringent this requirement is remains unknown. A judge of the Ontario Superior Court said this convention was like a "treaty" amongst nations. Also, at the end of the abdication crisis of 1936, as the Realms were making their legislative changes, it ended up that, for one day, Ireland had Edward VIII as king while the other countries had George VI.

[+]

Edited November 21, 2010 by g_bambino

[TimG]

by statute law, no act of the British parliament has any force outside of Britain, an amendment to the Act of Settlement would have to be made in the parliament of each of the 16 Commonwealth Realms.

I think you have the onus wrong. All Charles has to do is decide to go. After that it is up to politicians to figure out how to get the constitutional nicities sorted out (i.e. it is not Charles' problem). I suspect it would be a non-issue in most places and if it is polictically impossible to open the consititution the government would simply ignore the law and leave it up to the supreme court to resolve the matter with the common sense it has shown on a number of occasions. Edited November 21, 2010 by TimG

[g_bambino]

I think you have the onus wrong. All Charles has to do is decide to go. After that it is up to politicians to figure out how to get the constitutional nicities sorted out (i.e. it is not Charles' problem). I suspect it would be a non-issue in most places and if it is polictically impossible to open the consititution the government would simply ignore the law and leave it up to the supreme court to resolve the matter with the common sense it has shown on a number of occasions.

I don't have the onus wrong: the parliaments can remove any monarch if they all agree to, even against the sovereign's wishes. Likewise, they don't have to replace a king who doesn't want to reign. But, practically speaking, I imagine the parliaments would rather replace him; it's kind of hard to operate a constitutional monarchy with a monarch who refuses to do his duties.

But, you're wrong to assert that a government could ignore the law and simply pick some random person to bear the Crown; the law would not recognise that individual as sovereign. It's up to parlaiment to change the law, as, in constitutional monarchies (at least in the Westminster tradition), parliament is supreme.

[TimG]

But, you're wrong to assert that a government could ignore the law and simply pick some random person to bear the Crown; the law would not recognise that individual as sovereign.

We are talking about picking the next in line. Not some random person. And yes, I think the parliament of Canada could ignore the succession rules, recognize William and the SCC would support it even if it had to reinterpret constitutional precedent. Edited November 21, 2010 by TimG

[g_bambino]

And yes, I think the parliament of Canada could ignore the succession rules, recognize William and the SCC would support it even if it had to reinterpret constitutional precedent.

You'll have to back that claim up with some tangible evidence.

[TimG]

You'll have to back that claim up with some tangible evidence.

Tangible evidence of a response to a sitution that has never occurred? You are expecting a bit much. I am basing my opinion on a number of pragmatic decisions (i.e. the clarity act ruling) made by the court. Do you have examples of the SCC upholding a constitutional provision that is largely viewed as absurd by the majority of people?

You also would need to explain why Canadian law would care what body occupies the throne since the role of British royal line today is nothing more than rubber stamping whatever GG and LG appointments the government asks for.

[g_bambino]

Tangible evidence of a response to a sitution that has never occurred? You are expecting a bit much. I am basing my opinion on a number of pragmatic decisions (i.e. the clarity act ruling) made by the court. Do you have examples of the SCC upholding a constitutional provision that is largely viewed as absurd by the majority of people?

You also would need to explain why Canadian law would care what body occupies the throne since the role of British royal line today is nothing more than rubber stamping whatever GG and LG appointments the government asks for.

A change in the line of succession has occurred: 1936. Further, the Ontario Superior Court has ruled (without calling on your expert ability to channel the majority's opinnion of the matter) on the line of succession to the Canadian throne and how it can and cannot be changed. That you know about neither of those, nor the relevant provisions of the constitution - sections III.9 and IV.17 of the Constitution Act 1867, section II of the 1947 Letters Patent, and section 41 of the Constitution Act 1982, in particular - would point to you basing your opinions on not much at all.

[sp]

Edited November 22, 2010 by g_bambino

[TimG]

A change in the line of succession has occurred: 1936. Further, the Ontario Superior Court has ruled (without calling on your expert ability to channel the majority's opinnion of the matter) on the line of succession to the Canadian throne and how it can and cannot be changed.

I am not claiming to be an expert. I just expect the SCC to apply common sense when it comes to these types of things.In any case, you forget that the parliament can simply ignore the constitution on this point and it would be up to someone to challenge the government. It is not clear why anyone would bother because even if they won there is no chance that any laws would be tossed out because of it.

[g_bambino]

you forget that the parliament can simply ignore the constitution on this point.

I can't forget what I never knew. Again, you'll have to provide some proof of your claim that parlaiment can ignore the cosntitution. It can change the constitution (according to the rules set forth by it), but ignore the constitution parliament cannot.

[guyser]

A change in the line of succession has occurred: 1936. Further, the Ontario Superior Court has ruled (without calling on your expert ability to channel the majority's opinnion of the matter) on the line of succession to the Canadian throne and how it can and cannot be changed. That you know about neither of those, nor the relevant provisions of the constitution - sections III.9 and IV.17 of the Constitution Act 1867, section II of the 1947 Letters Patent, and section 41 of the Constitution Act 1982, in particular - would point to you basing your opinions on not much at all.

[sp]

g bambino, I have to agree with Tim on this.

If Charles does not want the job, then I would think all the rest of the world would go ok, and work it out on the QT first then apply the laws . In other words they would make it fit somehow.

I know you are correct in your assertions, but it just seems , in this day, that all of those rules and regs would get bent around to fit the wishes of Charles.

Edited November 22, 2010 by guyser

[Queenmandy85]

It is all moot anyway. Charles will do his his duty and will do it well.

I do not understand the antipathy to the Prince of Wales. He has performed well. Had he been permitted to marry the woman he loved, the situation may have been different. Fot those self righteous idiots that blame Charles for remaining faithful to Camilla inspite of being forced into a Marriage of State, think about all those American Presidents that had (and have) mistresses: Wilson, Harding, F.D. Roosvelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy. Probably the only President in the 20th century that did not have a mistress was Richard Nixon.

Hopefully, William will become King when his Father dies, but he still can benifit from a few more years of apprenticeship. If not, Harry would make a super King.

[g_bambino]

If Charles does not want the job, then I would think all the rest of the world would go ok, and work it out on the QT first then apply the laws . In other words they would make it fit somehow.

I said exactly that. Tim, however, stated the rules could simply be ignored.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Fot those self righteous idiots that blame Charles for remaining faithful to Camilla inspite of being forced into a Marriage of State, think about all those American Presidents that had (and have) mistresses: Wilson, Harding, F.D. Roosvelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy. Probably the only President in the 20th century that did not have a mistress was Richard Nixon.

Omigod....like clockwork we get the comparison to America....no matter how irrelevant. Welcome aboard!

PS: Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan did not have "mistresses".

[TimG]

I said exactly that. Tim, however, stated the rules could simply be ignored.

I was responding to your assertion that Charles could not give up his throne without seeking the permission of the pettiest provincial premier. In an ideal world the rules would be followed and a limited scope constitutional amendment would be passed that changed the succession. However, if a provincial premier chose to block this reasonable effort for whatever reason then the rules could be ignored and life would carry on as if the amendment was passed. If the issue did end up at the SCC it would also likely squash the issue as irrelevant. Edited November 22, 2010 by TimG

[g_bambino]

I was responding to your assertion that Charles could not give up his throne without seeking the permission of the pettiest provincial premier.

He can't.

If the issue did end up at the SCC it would also likely squash the issue as irrelevant.

Show one example of the Supreme Court deeming the amending formulae of the constitution to be irrelevant. It certainly didn't when the party leaders in Newfoundland's legislative assembly, alone, spelled the defeat of the Meech Lake proposals.

[+]

Edited November 22, 2010 by g_bambino

[TimG]

He can't.

Who is going to stop him? Should the RCMP arrest him for refusing to be king? That would making an interesting Charter case.

Show one example of the Supreme Court deeming the amending formulae of the constitution to be irrelevant.

If the SCC deems anything irrelevant it will be the provisions requiring a constitutional change to accept a change in monarch. At most it may acknowledge a technical violation but rule that the business of the nation can continue unimpeded until it becomes possible to obtain the necessary consent (essentially allowing the government to continue in violation of the constitution). I would be absolutely shocked if the SCC allowed such a trivial issue to be used to blackmail the rest of the country.

[g_bambino]

Who is going to stop him? Should the RCMP arrest him for refusing to be king?

The question rests on the assumption that Charles can simply stop being king by making the decision to refuse to be king. He cannot. He can refuse to carry out the required duties of kingship, but he will remain king until the law is changed to make him not king.

If the SCC deems anything irrelevant it will be the provisions requiring a constitutional change to accept a change in monarch.

Bullshit. Section 41 of the Constitution Act 1982 specifically lays out what is required for any change that affects "the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province." The Supreme Court cannot simply choose to ignore the existence of a clause in the constitution.

[TimG]

The question rests on the assumption that Charles can simply stop being king by making the decision to refuse to be king. He cannot. He can refuse to carry out the required duties of kingship, but he will remain king until the law is changed to make him not king.

And what happens if we need a new GG appointed and William signs the papers?

Section 41 of the Constitution Act 1982 specifically lays out what is required for any change that affects "the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province." The Supreme Court cannot simply choose to ignore the existence of a clause in the constitution.

If the SCC makes a ruling it has to specify what remedies are required. If the SCC rules that the constitution must be followed it can also stipulate that the business of the country can carry on while that change is being negotiated. It could provide a 5 year window that would allow a change of government in all provinces. If negotiations are still at in impass it could allow another 5 years. Eventually the issue will become moot.

We are talking past each other. You are thinking of the letter of the law and I am thinking about how the law could enforced. I don't see the law as something that would be enforced.

Edited November 22, 2010 by TimG