This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies 禄
ninalanyon 路 61-69, T
ArishMell 路 70-79, M
@ninalanyon Why?
It's true the King will cut back on public engagements because the treatment may compromise his immune system, but he can still perform the official constitutional work which is basically all "in the office".
The UK's constitution and processes are all robust, with systems designed to cover eventualities such as the monarch's illness. King Charles would need, or want, to abdicate only if he becomes too ill to continue; but abdication is almost outside of the constitution.
There have been very, very few, maybe only one, abdication, in the near-1000 years since the Norman invader William The Conqueror made himself King of England. Though there have been a couple of executions and assassinations of monarchs, and William's Saxon predecessor King Harold had ceased to be by death in battle.
King George VI (King Charles III's grandfather) died from lung-cancer after years of smoking. He did not abdicate, and I don't know how things continued as his sickness developed, but they evidently did, thanks to high-level officials whose duties include helping in such situations.
The big differences between then and now are that firstly, many cancers and other major illnesses are much more treatable now; and secondly the Royals now are much more willing to admit illnesses. That is not least to encourage others to be more aware of their own health and seek medical advice sooner rather than later.
(We've also seen the second point made by other famous people admitting to have developed one or another serious illness; and it does work for a while.)
It's true the King will cut back on public engagements because the treatment may compromise his immune system, but he can still perform the official constitutional work which is basically all "in the office".
The UK's constitution and processes are all robust, with systems designed to cover eventualities such as the monarch's illness. King Charles would need, or want, to abdicate only if he becomes too ill to continue; but abdication is almost outside of the constitution.
There have been very, very few, maybe only one, abdication, in the near-1000 years since the Norman invader William The Conqueror made himself King of England. Though there have been a couple of executions and assassinations of monarchs, and William's Saxon predecessor King Harold had ceased to be by death in battle.
King George VI (King Charles III's grandfather) died from lung-cancer after years of smoking. He did not abdicate, and I don't know how things continued as his sickness developed, but they evidently did, thanks to high-level officials whose duties include helping in such situations.
The big differences between then and now are that firstly, many cancers and other major illnesses are much more treatable now; and secondly the Royals now are much more willing to admit illnesses. That is not least to encourage others to be more aware of their own health and seek medical advice sooner rather than later.
(We've also seen the second point made by other famous people admitting to have developed one or another serious illness; and it does work for a while.)
LordShadowfire 路 100+, M
@ArishMell Because he's a shitty king
ninalanyon 路 61-69, T
@ArishMell Because he's old. It's time to slim down the royal team and to allow someone younger get involved. Or just drop the whole thing altogether.
[quote]evidently did, thanks to high-level officials whose duties include helping in such situations. [/quote]
Thus demonstrating the superfluity of the monarch.
[quote]evidently did, thanks to high-level officials whose duties include helping in such situations. [/quote]
Thus demonstrating the superfluity of the monarch.
ArishMell 路 70-79, M
@ninalanyon Age these days is not an indicator of ability.
The Monarchy is not superfluous as it is the non-political Head of [i]State[/i], not Head of [i]Government[/i] as is a President; but it is a lot slimmer than it used to be, and that indeed is as the King and Royal Family themselves want. The Queen (this is an unusual constitutional arrangement but not the first instance) and others of the Royal Family are taking the various more public duties.
Your last sentence misses the point. The officials to whom I referred help the Monarchy and Government, they not replace either institution.
There is a possible alternative if the King becomes too ill to work, and that is a Regency, effectively a caretaker Sovereign, but presumably the Queen could or would take that role. We had a Regency in the 18th? Century but I don't know why - I will have to brush up on my knowledge of history.
.
A point in the Constitution. Many people, even Britons including, shamefully, some MPS, think the UK does have a constitution. Of course it does, but a very complicated one spanning many hundreds of years of political and social evolution, Acts of Parliament and working protocols. I think the myth that we do not, stems from over-weening reportage of America affairs, a still-young country whose founding government managed to write a basic framework, open to amendment, in a single, fairly short document.
[Just learnt as it is being covered on the radio right now - other Royals can and will be covering many of the King's events but the more difficult problem will be covering the Sovereign's major Constitutional duties such as formalising Parliament and attending Commonwealth heads of government meetings. ]
The Monarchy is not superfluous as it is the non-political Head of [i]State[/i], not Head of [i]Government[/i] as is a President; but it is a lot slimmer than it used to be, and that indeed is as the King and Royal Family themselves want. The Queen (this is an unusual constitutional arrangement but not the first instance) and others of the Royal Family are taking the various more public duties.
Your last sentence misses the point. The officials to whom I referred help the Monarchy and Government, they not replace either institution.
There is a possible alternative if the King becomes too ill to work, and that is a Regency, effectively a caretaker Sovereign, but presumably the Queen could or would take that role. We had a Regency in the 18th? Century but I don't know why - I will have to brush up on my knowledge of history.
.
A point in the Constitution. Many people, even Britons including, shamefully, some MPS, think the UK does have a constitution. Of course it does, but a very complicated one spanning many hundreds of years of political and social evolution, Acts of Parliament and working protocols. I think the myth that we do not, stems from over-weening reportage of America affairs, a still-young country whose founding government managed to write a basic framework, open to amendment, in a single, fairly short document.
[Just learnt as it is being covered on the radio right now - other Royals can and will be covering many of the King's events but the more difficult problem will be covering the Sovereign's major Constitutional duties such as formalising Parliament and attending Commonwealth heads of government meetings. ]
ninalanyon 路 61-69, T
@ArishMell Age and ability is not really the point. If we are to have a monarch then they should be more representative of the people. We had an old monarch for decades, it's time to have a younger one.
If the purpose of the monarch is to rubber stamp the decisions of the government then a European style non-executive president will do. No need for the position to be hereditary.
If the purpose of the monarch is to rubber stamp the decisions of the government then a European style non-executive president will do. No need for the position to be hereditary.
ninalanyon 路 61-69, T
[quote]Many people, even Britons [/quote]
I'm well aware of the idea of an unwritten, or at least uncodified, constitution. However, those who deny that Britain has a constitution have a point because the usual meaning of the word is of a foundational law that is binding on the government and can only be changed by a formal procedure specified in the document itself. This is very much not the case for the British constitution because parliament is sovereign.
I'm well aware of the idea of an unwritten, or at least uncodified, constitution. However, those who deny that Britain has a constitution have a point because the usual meaning of the word is of a foundational law that is binding on the government and can only be changed by a formal procedure specified in the document itself. This is very much not the case for the British constitution because parliament is sovereign.
ArishMell 路 70-79, M
@ninalanyon A constitutional monarchy is dependent on life-long service from Accession, and the Monarch does not "rubber-stamp" Governmental decisions for its own sake in the style of a President. If you think that is all a monarch does you might equally ask the point of such a President.
If we have relatively old sovereigns that is an effect of people living longer, but why should a king aged over-60 be any less worthy than one half his age? If anything the older should be the wiser and more experienced. All that's happened really is that the age-band of kings and queens has moved upwards with that of the population generally.
Parliament might be sovereign in Britain in the sense of being the one to make or repeal laws, but it is still bound by principles and laws formulated over the centuries, and it is those controls that form the Constitution. Just because they are not on one sheet of paper like those of the USA or a golf-club does not make them any less a Constitution.
If we have relatively old sovereigns that is an effect of people living longer, but why should a king aged over-60 be any less worthy than one half his age? If anything the older should be the wiser and more experienced. All that's happened really is that the age-band of kings and queens has moved upwards with that of the population generally.
Parliament might be sovereign in Britain in the sense of being the one to make or repeal laws, but it is still bound by principles and laws formulated over the centuries, and it is those controls that form the Constitution. Just because they are not on one sheet of paper like those of the USA or a golf-club does not make them any less a Constitution.
ninalanyon 路 61-69, T
@ArishMell [quote] If you think that is all a monarch does you might equally ask the point of such a President.[/quote]
So what else do they do? Other than hand out medals and cut ribbons?
And yes a president is also superfluous. I only mentioned it because it seems that people feel that someone has to finally approve laws even though they have been approved already by the duly elected members of parliament.
So what else do they do? Other than hand out medals and cut ribbons?
And yes a president is also superfluous. I only mentioned it because it seems that people feel that someone has to finally approve laws even though they have been approved already by the duly elected members of parliament.
22Michelle 路 61-69, T
ArishMell 路 70-79, M
@22Michelle The Monarchy has no power over Parliament but I think can dissolve it [i]in extremis[/i], and it would have to be very extreme - the nation established that safeguard centuries ago.
I agree [i]some [/i]MPs, and not only Conservative, are unprincipled but by no means all are, and the wrongdoers are soon shown up. As I would hope they are.
The Royal estates actually pay huge amounts of tax to the Treasury, in return for a Civil List that is very modest in the grand scheme of things, and is for running-costs not personal "wage". Some heads of big companies earn , or at least are paid, at least as much!
I agree [i]some [/i]MPs, and not only Conservative, are unprincipled but by no means all are, and the wrongdoers are soon shown up. As I would hope they are.
The Royal estates actually pay huge amounts of tax to the Treasury, in return for a Civil List that is very modest in the grand scheme of things, and is for running-costs not personal "wage". Some heads of big companies earn , or at least are paid, at least as much!
ninalanyon 路 61-69, T
@ArishMell [quote]the wrongdoers are soon shown up.[/quote]
Such as Boris Johnson? Being shown up doesn't seem to have affected his standing.
Such as Boris Johnson? Being shown up doesn't seem to have affected his standing.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment