The second is her declaration on her twenty-first birthday that she would serve for her whole life whether it be long or short. She is also said to regard her oath at her coronation as imposing a sacred duty to reign as long as she shall live. Would Prince Charles abdicate in favour of his son, Prince William? That would be a matter for Prince Charles, and for parliament. Under common law, Prince Charles will automatically become King the moment the Queen dies.
Prince William could only become King if Prince Charles chose to abdicate. That would require legislation, as happened with the Declaration of Abdication Act The line of succession is regulated by parliament as in the Act of Succession , and the Succession to the Crown Act ; it can be changed only by parliament and cannot be unilaterally altered by the monarch of the day.
That said, having waited over 60 years as heir apparent, it would be natural for Prince Charles to want to assume the throne and perform the royal duties for which he has spent so long preparing. But it would be equally natural if, after reigning for a few years as an increasingly elderly monarch, he chose to invite parliament to hand on the throne to Prince William. In the Netherlands the last three Queens have abdicated when they reached the age of around In Spain, King Juan Carlos abdicated in , at the age of 76, to be succeeded by his son Felipe Emperor Akihito of Japan 84 - where the issue was framed as facilitating retirement — abdicated under a new law in April But the Scandinavian monarchies do not practise abdication.
None of the Swedish Bernadotte monarchs has abdicated. It is possible that the difference of practice between these monarchies and the rest may be related to the fact that all the Scandinavian monarchs have to be — as in the UK - members of the national Protestant church. There is no similar formal religious requirement and its implication that may be taken of life-long commitment in the other monarchies.
Become a supporter. There is no serious constitutional impediment to making the change. It would be for parliament to legislate following endorsement by a referendum.
In Britain support for a republic has rarely exceeded per cent, and support for the monarchy has rarely dropped below per cent. Recent Constitution Unit research on the other European monarchies stressed that for the monarchy to survive depends on continuing consent. Individual monarchs who step out of line risk losing their thrones: as has happened in Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain and the UK.
It is difficult to foresee the circumstances in which the UK might become a republic. In modern times monarchies have been overthrown following revolution France, Portugal and Russia , catastrophic loss or devastation in war Germany, Austro-Hungary, Italy and Yugoslavia or as the result of military coup Greece. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — a return to constitutional normality? Monitor Change, continuity, and an uncertain future for the Union 9th March The Constitution Unit blog in the year in review 23rd December Braking the law: is there, and should there be, an executive veto over laws made by parliament?
The role of monarchy in modern democracy 30th September Petra Schleiter and Edward Morgan-Jones suggest that governments with constitutional monarchies are more likely to consult their people with early elections, in comparison to both appointed and directly elected presidents.
In China, The Queen and Royal Family has an impact on the perception of brands, meaning consumers are more likely to buy it if seen on a Royal. Heirs to the throne are usually raised to know their position and to learn the ropes of their future job. This makes them more experienced than the politicians who govern the country. Save a few rogue leaders in the past, they also want to try the best for their people — no one wants to be remembered in a bad light: Japanese Emperor Hirohito advocated for surrender after WWII, despite the military wanting to fight on, and he saved thousands of lives.
And remember the coronation oath that British Monarchs swear? Governing a country is hard work — just look how soon new leaders start showing their greys!
Separating the positions of Head of State and Head of Government means that the work-load is split: ceremonial work at home and abroad such as handing out honours, hosting and undertaking State Visits is taken care of by one party, meanwhile, the Prime Minister can focus more on running the country. Soft diplomacy is also a great weapon, and is currently being deployed in the UK as Brexit negotiations begin, with the Cambridges having visited Paris , and Prince Charles and Camilla having completed a tour of central Europe.
The monarch is also t he fount of honour, and all honours are awarded in his or her name although, with notable exceptions, most are awarded on the advice of the g overnment. The British m onarch is also the Head of the Commonwealth, and the head of state in 15 of the other 53 Commonwealth member countries.
The most frequent arguments made in favour of a constitutional m onarchy revolve around:. Am impartial and symbolic head of state A c onstitutional m onarch is one who is above party politics or factional interests. The monarch is thus said to be a focus of national unity. Supporters of a constitutional monarchy stress the benefits of the head of g overnment the p rime minister being separate from the role as head of state. A constitutional monarch is also able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations and charities that would not be possible in the same way for a political figure.
The British m onarch is also the Head of State of 15 other independent countries, as well as being the head of the commonwealth of 53 Nations. A powerful global representation of Britain The international recognition of the British monarchy , with its associated foreign tours and state visits, is said to help support the influence of Britain around the world. This is said to bring notable benefits in terms of security, influence, and trade. A magnet for tourism The Royal Family are said to represent a strong draw for tourists to visit Great Britain.
Such figures are questioned by others, but supporters of the Royal Family pose the counter factual question as to how much tourism may not come to Britain, if the monarchy was abolished. The most frequent arguments made for the abolition of the monarchy are:.
Democracy It is argued that in a democracy, the public should be able to exercise democratic control over the Head of State. This relates to both electing the post, and having the instruments to check or even impeach whoever holds that role. None of this is possible if the head of state is a hereditary monarch. They argue that only an elected head of state can change the political culture and the relationship with those in power.
This is said to be evidenced by the volume of private letters written by the current Prince of Wales to government Ministers on a regular basis. The Established Church The continuing existence of the r oyal family also attracts criticism because of the way in which the m onarch is both the head of the church and head of state.
It is argued that having an established church, in the form of the Church of England , discriminates in favour of one religion above all. It is said that this is a piece of religious discrimination which is a dangerous anachronism in a multi-cultural, mainly secular society.
0コメント