Charles III's coronation

[Wudang]

Re the idea of "President Johnson". In what way did the queen restrict Boris in any way? He lied to the house, he lied to the queen and there were zero consequences. He put lie to the Royalist claim that a monarch is a brake on executive power.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Not according to wikipedia.. Queen Mary preferred not to use the title, but it goes back to 1660, apparently.

Seriously, as much as it matters, I think erwinl is correct, Camilla would just be the queen dowager.

Whilst Queen May of Teck was given the title, it was only honorary, she was never in the line of succession, as for her 'preferring not to use the title' this is likely a polite way of saying she couldn't as it would cause confusion. Just as it is said Princess Anne 'chose' not to give her kids titles. Prince Andrew's kids only got titles because he had a massive strop over it and being the Queen's favourite son, she gave into him. (Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.)

Quote:

George V died on 20 January 1936, after his physician, Lord Dawson of Penn, gave him an injection of morphine and cocaine that may have hastened his death.[40] Queen Mary's eldest son ascended the throne as Edward VIII. She was then to be known as Her Majesty Queen Mary.

Likewise, Camilla is not in the line of succession either (nor Kate) the Sovereign, now Charles, can award any title he likes on the favoured but in the case of all non-succession line wives, the titles are only via marriage to their husbands. Should the hereditary title holder divorce or die, then they revert to, for example, Princess Kate, would become Kate, Princess of Wales, or Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

On her kids birth certificates Kate put as her occupation, 'Princess of the realm' (or similar), so Meghan simply copied Kate and did the same.

However, prince or princess is a title from birth for the offspring of the monarch. Their wives and husbands only have courtesy titles.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Wudang

Re the idea of "President Johnson". In what way did the queen restrict Boris in any way? He lied to the house, he lied to the queen and there were zero consequences. He put lie to the Royalist claim that a monarch is a brake on executive power.

The difference is, the members of his party could kick him out with a vote of no confidence. Thank goodness there is no guarantee that a rogue PM can stay for a fixed term of office.

At present, the PM has no dominion over the armed forces and a large part of the establishment (unlike the US President).

Remember, all MP's have to swear allegiance to the Sovereign so they are effectively prohibited from bring anti-monarchy bills, which the monarch has had no hesitation in secretly striking out behind the scenes.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Darat

Like all constitutions the bits that those holding power say are canon.

Exactly.

Why not stick it in a single volume and make it hard to alter.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Exactly.

Why not stick it in a single volume and make it hard to alter.

For a very rare occasion, we agree.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Exactly.

Why not stick it in a single volume and make it hard to alter.

What's the point? The US has a written one that's hard to alter, but that doesn't matter because whoever's in power at the moment can simply interpret it to mean whatever they like.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The difference is, the members of his party could kick him out with a vote of no confidence. Thank goodness there is no guarantee that a rogue PM can stay for a fixed term of office.

At present, the PM has no dominion over the armed forces and a large part of the establishment (unlike the US President).

Remember, all MP's have to swear allegiance to the Sovereign so they are effectively prohibited from bring anti-monarchy bills, which the monarch has had no hesitation in secretly striking out behind the scenes.

This is not an answer to the question : "In what way did the queen restrict Boris in any way?"

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by lionking

For a very rare occasion, we agree.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

What's the point? The US has a written one that's hard to alter, but that doesn't matter because whoever's in power at the moment can simply interpret it to mean whatever they like.

I think perhaps a happy medium wrt to the alterations, a popular referendum?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Whilst Queen May of Teck was given the title, it was only honorary, she was never in the line of succession,

Er, yes, that's exactly why she was given the title, Queen Mother, the same as our previous queen's mother. Who suggested the title had anything to do with succession?

Quote:

as for her 'preferring not to use the title' this is likely a polite way of saying she couldn't as it would cause confusion.

What confusion would it have caused?

[Trebuchet]

We were watching a recent series with David Attenborough last night and it occurred to me that Chuck is his 5th monarch!

[Darat]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Exactly.

Why not stick it in a single volume and make it hard to alter.

I think being in a country that has a non-codified constitution it gives us a different outlook and I think a more realistic outlook. There is no state that is governed by their codified constituion, they are all governed by the laws that are passed, the court decisions, the parliamentary procedures and so on.

When you talk about a country's constitution you are (unless in an academic setting) more than likely talking about how a country is governed, which isn't by the text of the constitution.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Vixen

The difference is, the members of his party could kick him out with a vote of no confidence. Thank goodness there is no guarantee that a rogue PM can stay for a fixed term of office.

At present, the PM has no dominion over the armed forces and a large part of the establishment (unlike the US President).

Remember, all MP's have to swear allegiance to the Sovereign so they are effectively prohibited from bring anti-monarchy bills, which the monarch has had no hesitation in secretly striking out behind the scenes.

Of course they do. Who ordered the armada down to the Falklands? Who finances and decides what the armed forces will do etc.

All the swearing stuff is the theatre of the country.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

We were watching a recent series with David Attenborough last night and it occurred to me that Chuck is his 5th monarch!

My fingers are crossed that Doris my 100 plus year old neighbour will get to see her 6th coronation....

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Wudang

This is not an answer to the question : "In what way did the queen restrict Boris in any way?"

As all conversations between the monarch and the serving Prime Minister is confidential, it doesn't follow that the sovereign has no clout. It is a common misconception that 'the Queen did not get involved in politics' when by gosh, she jolly well did!!! For example, keeping out Rab Butler after MacMillan resigned in 1963, at his request. When Gordon Brown advised he couldn't form a government the Queen with the machinations of Lord Geidt brought about the Cameron-Clegg leadership. The Queen's predecessor George VI was tricked by Asquith (IIRC) into appointing a whole bunch of Liberal peers into the House of Lords to swing political votes.

Whilst we cannot know whether Her Maj 'restricted Boris in any way' I am quite sure she pulled strings, just as she did with Thatcher, whom she hated.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Er, yes, that's exactly why she was given the title, Queen Mother, the same as our previous queen's mother. Who suggested the title had anything to do with succession?


What confusion would it have caused?

I was referencing back to the original question as to whether Camila would become Queen if Charles died: the distinction between hereditary titles and line of succession and the ones conferred as a favour by the reigning monarch. People unfamiliar with the way the RF are titled can be forgiven for thinking Camilla the 'Queen' is equal in status to Charles the King. Therein lies the potential confusion for our cousins over the pond.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Darat

Of course they do. Who ordered the armada down to the Falklands? Who finances and decides what the armed forces will do etc.

All the swearing stuff is the theatre of the country.

Sure, Thatcher will have been 'advised' by the Armed Forces Intelligence Services to fight for the Falklands but the reality is, in any war, it is usually the Generals who call the shots. The Monarch is head of the armed forces. The idea the Prime Minister is in charge is largely an illusion when it comes to anything that affects the sovereignty of the UK.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I was referencing back to the original question as to whether Camila would become Queen if Charles died: the distinction between hereditary titles and line of succession and the ones conferred as a favour by the reigning monarch. People unfamiliar with the way the RF are titled can be forgiven for thinking Camilla the 'Queen' is equal in status to Charles the King. Therein lies the potential confusion for our cousins over the pond.

That question had already been answered, and you were replying to a completely different post, so it was not possible to tell that's what you were doing.

[TragicMonkey]

Camilla won't be queen after Charles dies because the "accident" William is arranging will take them both out at once. I know what you're thinking: what title will they put on the tomb? She won't have one: William will have her body thrown into his secret alligator lagoon. That will insure she can't rise again as she has several times before.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Camilla...

My main point about Camilla is that anyone who preferred her over the delightful and delightfully attractive woman that Diana was, is a complete idiot.

And Charles certainly fits that bill.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

And Charles certainly fits that bill.

I know Charles is inbred and all, but it’s still a pretty good effort to get the very best education available, have so many privileges, never need to get his hands dirty and still be so breathtakingly dim.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

My main point about Camilla is that anyone who preferred her over the delightful and delightfully attractive woman that Diana was, is a complete idiot.

And Charles certainly fits that bill.

Meh, tastes differ and looks aren't everything. Charles actually knew Diana personally so, idiot or not, his was an informed choice. For all we know, Camilla is a demon in the sack, or Diana had terrible body odor, or maybe Charles has a fetish for neck wattles and Camilla can flare hers out like that dinosaur in Jurassic Park.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Vixen

As all conversations between the monarch and the serving Prime Minister is confidential, it doesn't follow that the sovereign has no clout. It is a common misconception that 'the Queen did not get involved in politics' when by gosh, she jolly well did!!! For example, keeping out Rab Butler after MacMillan resigned in 1963, at his request. When Gordon Brown advised he couldn't form a government the Queen with the machinations of Lord Geidt brought about the Cameron-Clegg leadership. The Queen's predecessor George VI was tricked by Asquith (IIRC) into appointing a whole bunch of Liberal peers into the House of Lords to swing political votes.

Whilst we cannot know whether Her Maj 'restricted Boris in any way' I am quite sure she pulled strings, just as she did with Thatcher, whom she hated. No.

FTFY.

[aniri]

... or: Diana was histerical, demanding and toxic person as far as personal relationships are concerned, while Camilla is pretty easy-going ....

[Ryan O'Dine]

What happens if the official line of succession is done in? Does England go monarchless? Is there a point at which I -- a random dufus on the internet -- have a shot? Or am I warming up my Death Nozzle in vain?

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine

What happens if the official line of succession is done in? Does England go monarchless? Is there a point at which I -- a random dufus on the internet -- have a shot? Or am I warming up my Death Nozzle in vain?

The line is huge. If there were (say) a huge explosion that did for most of them then someone like Prince Andrew (not invited to the explosion) would be next in line.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by GlennB

The line is huge. If there were (say) a huge explosion that did for most of them then someone like Prince Andrew (not invited to the explosion) would be next in line.

I think someone did a chain that had something like 3000 people on it.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Thanks! So no contingency plans beyond that? 3,000 sounds more like a challenge than a guarantee.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine

What happens if the official line of succession is done in? Does England go monarchless? Is there a point at which I -- a random dufus on the internet -- have a shot? Or am I warming up my Death Nozzle in vain?

Danny Dyer is in with a shout.

[Carrot Flower King]

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/...in-our-culture

Aka Numpty cannot stop saying pretty much racist things.

So, how does Starkey explain thoroughly British born and bred white boys like me, coming from long lines of whey-faced Brits going back into the mists of time (OK some ancestry from elsewhere, but closer than Germany) being somewhat less than uninterested in the coronating of Chucky W? Let alone active hostility?

[wobs]

Originally Posted by GlennB

The line is huge. If there were (say) a huge explosion that did for most of them then someone like Prince Andrew (not invited to the explosion) would be next in line.

Wiki shows the main 62 people in line (Andrew is number 8).

"No official, complete version of the line of succession is maintained. The exact number, in more remote collateral lines, of the people who would be eligible is uncertain. In 2001, American genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner compiled a list of 4,973 living descendants of the Electress Sophia in order of succession without omitting Roman Catholics.[3] When updated in January 2011, the list included 5,753.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succes...British_throne

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

it's Monarchist Apologist Argument 2A: if you don't want the royals you MUST want President Whoeverisunpopularnow (it was Tony Blair for ages).

But so many steps, as you say, are missing, beginning with why do we need a head of state? And ignores voting for someone else...

Odd how across the Irish Sea they seem to manage to have a whole bunch of presidents who are viewed positively and are not in any way unpopular ex-politicians...

Sometimes they happen to be politicians that were unpopular at some stage prior to their election. The only real scandal we've had with a President was when the then Minister for Defence, that scrote Donegan, lambasted Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh and Cosgrove, the then Taoiseach failed to do his duty in not sacking Donegan.

[Carrot Flower King]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...athan-dimbleby

So, if, as Dimbleby says, Chucky finds the oath of allegiance "abhorrent" why hasn't he told Welby to shut the **** up?

And this bit - A Lambeth Palace spokesperson told reporters earlier this week: “Oaths and commitments of allegiance are very much commonplace all over the country, from parliaments and assemblies to the church, police, armed forces, citizenship ceremonies and even in scouts and guiding.” - is purest bovine faecal matter. I'm in my mid-60s and have never, ever at any point been asked to spout any oath of allegiance to Brenda or anyone in the clan. Mebbe my dad did during his National Service. May happen sometimes, but "very much commonplace" - just no.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/...in-our-culture

Aka Numpty cannot stop saying pretty much racist things.

So, how does Starkey explain thoroughly British born and bred white boys like me, coming from long lines of whey-faced Brits going back into the mists of time (OK some ancestry from elsewhere, but closer than Germany) being somewhat less than uninterested in the coronating of Chucky W? Let alone active hostility?

Pah - I call a pox on all these newcomers to our shores.

[Vixen]

My coronation tat has arrived. The faint-hearted, look away now.

[TragicMonkey]

Another fuss brewing! It's now reported that the Dalek Supreme will not be attending because security concerns over its laser arm. It maintains its arm is a cultural and religious expression and that being asked to remove it for the ceremony is a hate crime on level with extermination. Charles's Red Guards say it's simply security to ban weaponry in the temple, but critics have pointed out Charles has long been a close friend of Davros since they roomed together at ballet school. Davros and the Dalek Supreme have been enemies since their highly contentious, highly public divorce in 1975. Charles is clearly being influenced and playing favorites despite the risk of international incidents and unpopularity backlash. The Dalek Supreme is beloved in its home country and the Dalek media is blasting Charles.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Another fuss brewing! It's now reported that the Dalek Supreme will not be attending because security concerns over its laser arm. It maintains its arm is a cultural and religious expression and that being asked to remove it for the ceremony is a hate crime on level with extermination. Charles's Red Guards say it's simply security to ban weaponry in the temple, but critics have pointed out Charles has long been a close friend of Davros since they roomed together at ballet school. Davros and the Dalek Supreme have been enemies since their highly contentious, highly public divorce in 1975. Charles is clearly being influenced and playing favorites despite the risk of international incidents and unpopularity backlash. The Dalek Supreme is beloved in its home country and the Dalek media is blasting Charles.

This is probably a good time for the Cyberleader to capitalise on the controversy to arrange a deal to import Cybermat meat to he UK tariff free. Talks broke down when Liz Truss was in charge of negotiations because she apparently found the Cyberleader "too emotional".

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

What's the point? The US has a written one that's hard to alter, but that doesn't matter because whoever's in power at the moment can simply interpret it to mean whatever they like.

The US is something of an exception. It's the only country with a constitution that's not a dictatorship which doesn't abide by its clauses.

To be honest, that's largely because it didn't stray far enough from 18th century English jurisprudence.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Darat

I think being in a country that has a non-codified constitution it gives us a different outlook and I think a more realistic outlook. There is no state that is governed by their codified constituion, they are all governed by the laws that are passed, the court decisions, the parliamentary procedures and so on.

When you talk about a country's constitution you are (unless in an academic setting) more than likely talking about how a country is governed, which isn't by the text of the constitution.

Given the last number of decades of governmental lawlessness, realistic isn't exactly the right word.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...athan-dimbleby

So, if, as Dimbleby says, Chucky finds the oath of allegiance "abhorrent" why hasn't he told Welby to shut the **** up?

And this bit - A Lambeth Palace spokesperson told reporters earlier this week: “Oaths and commitments of allegiance are very much commonplace all over the country, from parliaments and assemblies to the church, police, armed forces, citizenship ceremonies and even in scouts and guiding.” - is purest bovine faecal matter. I'm in my mid-60s and have never, ever at any point been asked to spout any oath of allegiance to Brenda or anyone in the clan. Mebbe my dad did during his National Service. May happen sometimes, but "very much commonplace" - just no.

Apparently people applying for naturalisation as British citizens do have to take the oath.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Apparently people applying for naturalisation as British citizens do have to take the oath.

Confusion arises on this point due to regional accents and some people apply thinking they have to take an oaf.