Elizabeth II has died

[steve_bank]

The Brits do love putting on a uniform and wear a chestful of medals.

 

[ZiprHead]

She's still dead, right???

 

[Bomb#20]

Sure, but it wasn't always, and back in the C18th, it had similar powers to those of the modern US Presidency.

Prior to the C17th it had the power of dictatorship, and prior the C11th, practically unlimited power.

Forgive me if I don't find "Not even close" a convincing and detailed rebuttal of my position.

I was curious so I googled to see what powers 18th Century British monarchs had. You could do the same.

What did you discover?

That bilby was incorrect. I am certain that he knows more about Great Britain and the monarchy and the history of its powers but he has it demonstrated a very good grasp of how American government is structured.

He hasn't demonstrated a very good grasp of how British government was structured either. 18th century monarchs were already pretty much figureheads -- they had negligible power compared to a President. IIRC, William of Orange, who died in 1702, was the last monarch to make substantive military decisions; and Queen Anne, who died in 1714, was the last monarch to veto an Act of Parliament. English monarchs were never dictators; Charles I apparently wanting to be one is how provoked getting his head cut off. Before the 17th century the monarchy was usually strapped for cash because taxation required Parliament's consent. Go back further and the Church was a law unto itself; the main reason Henry II wanted someone to rid him of this turbulent priest was "criminous clerics" were immune from prosecution, and the Archbishop of Canterbury wouldn't let him do anything about it (and even low-level church employees were apt to be ordained then.) And the notion that the King had unlimited power before the 11th century is just fanciful -- in those days any nobleman with a castle and a band of knights could pretty much ignore the King and run his domain as he saw fit. Unlimited power or even dictatorship doesn't just require an absence of constitutional impediments; it also requires an organized countrywide system of underlings who're prepared to follow orders from the center.

 

[Tigers!]

She's still dead, right???

No. She is with Elvis.

 

[steve_bank]

I heard she was cryo frozen. Chuck could not bear beomg without his mother.

 

[bilby]

English monarchs were never dictators;

Every single one from William the Bastard to Good Queen Bess were, absolutely, dictators.

The Church operated a parallel and separate dictatorship with specific powers and areas of responsibility, of course. At least until Bessie's dad got the shits with the pope and rolled all those powers and jurisdictions into the monarchy.

 

[ZiprHead]

She's still dead, right???

No. She is with Elvis.

And they both just went home.

 

[Jarhyn]

English monarchs were never dictators;

Every single one from William the Bastard to Good Queen Bess were, absolutely, dictators.

The Church operated a parallel and separate dictatorship with specific powers and areas of responsibility, of course. At least until Bessie's dad got the shits with the pope and rolled all those powers and jurisdictions into the monarchy.

To be fair they did have oligarchs that they had to please: the landed lords.

While the king could possibly order one or two to be executed for something or other, though, too much of that would mean enraging the people who actually control the armies and the garrisons and eventually the monarch would find themselves very dead.

 

[bilby]

English monarchs were never dictators;

Every single one from William the Bastard to Good Queen Bess were, absolutely, dictators.

The Church operated a parallel and separate dictatorship with specific powers and areas of responsibility, of course. At least until Bessie's dad got the shits with the pope and rolled all those powers and jurisdictions into the monarchy.

To be fair they did have oligarchs that they had to please: the landed lords.

While the king could possibly order one or two to be executed for something or other, though, too much of that would mean enraging the people who actually control the armies and the garrisons and eventually the monarch would find themselves very dead.

To be fair, that's true of literally every dictatorship.

 

[Bomb#20]

English monarchs were never dictators;

Every single one from William the Bastard to Good Queen Bess were, absolutely, dictators.

That isn't an argument; it's just gainsaying what the other person says. Do you have any particular criterion for dictator in mind that makes a system where the head honcho has to negotiate with a parliament that doesn't have to give him what he wants and that has the power to exact concessions including respecting Magna Carta from him if he wants to collect tax money still qualify as a dictatorship? You're talking as though limited government sprang fully formed from the brow of Zeus the day Edward Coke ruled a royal decree unconstitutional.

The Church operated a parallel and separate dictatorship with specific powers and areas of responsibility, of course.

Weird sort of dictatorship where there's no monopoly on power and the "dictator" can't even prosecute the other guy's employee, but okay. Would you put any limit on how many parallel and separate dictatorships with specific powers and areas of responsibilities a society can contain before it stops being dictatorship and becomes limited government?

 

[Bomb#20]

She's still dead, right???

No. She is with Elvis.

And they both just went home.

Actually all we know is they have both left the building.

Like the bartender said, you don't have to go home but you can't stay here.

 

[bilby]

English monarchs were never dictators;

Every single one from William the Bastard to Good Queen Bess were, absolutely, dictators.

That isn't an argument; it's just gainsaying what the other person says. Do you have any particular criterion for dictator in mind that makes a system where the head honcho has to negotiate with a parliament that doesn't have to give him what he wants and that has the power to exact concessions including respecting Magna Carta from him if he wants to collect tax money still qualify as a dictatorship? You're talking as though limited government sprang fully formed from the brow of Zeus the day Edward Coke ruled a royal decree unconstitutional.

The Church operated a parallel and separate dictatorship with specific powers and areas of responsibility, of course.

Weird sort of dictatorship where there's no monopoly on power and the "dictator" can't even prosecute the other guy's employee, but okay. Would you put any limit on how many parallel and separate dictatorships with specific powers and areas of responsibilities a society can contain before it stops being dictatorship and becomes limited government?

You could make much the same arguments to show that no dictatorships have ever existed anywhere on Earth.

 

[Swammerdami]

. . . English monarchs were never dictators; Charles I apparently wanting to be one is how provoked getting his head cut off. Before the 17th century the monarchy was usually strapped for cash because taxation required Parliament's consent. Go back further and the Church was a law unto itself; the main reason Henry II wanted someone to rid him of this turbulent priest was "criminous clerics" were immune from prosecution, and the Archbishop of Canterbury wouldn't let him do anything about it (and even low-level church employees were apt to be ordained then.) And the notion that the King had unlimited power before the 11th century is just fanciful -- in those days any nobleman with a castle and a band of knights could pretty much ignore the King and run his domain as he saw fit. Unlimited power or even dictatorship doesn't just require an absence of constitutional impediments; it also requires an organized countrywide system of underlings who're prepared to follow orders from the center.

While it is true that no dictator — even Saddam Hussein or Al Capone — can survive without a number of loyal and armed supporters, I think you under-estimate the power of some English Kings. William I and perhaps Henry I, Henry II and Edward I are examples of English Kings who had great personal power.

(I am treading on thin ice through my ignorance; I hope our historians will point out my errors.)

While early Kings were dependent on landowners for wealth and military service, this changed in the 16th century (with the rise of mercantilism) as the Monarchs allied themselves with merchants and skilled men to become financially independent of the nobility. The Tudor dynasty was the beneficiary of this trend and I think Queen Elizabeth the First, despite a depleted Treasury, was one of the most powerful of English Monarchs. But she was the last strong English Monarch.

While the Church also wielded power, it should be noted that both Elizabeth I and her sister each changed the state religion with a snap of their fingers.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Do you have any particular criterion for dictator in mind that makes a system where the head honcho has to negotiate with a parliament that doesn't have to give him what he wants and that has the power to exact concessions including respecting Magna Carta from him if he wants to collect tax money still qualify as a dictatorship? ...

You could make much the same arguments to show that no dictatorships have ever existed anywhere on Earth.

I take it that's a "No". Actually, I haven't the skillset to make much the same arguments to show that no dictatorships have ever existed anywhere on Earth. Feel free to show us how you could do it -- tell us about the times the Cortes blocked Franco from doing whatever the heck he pleased.

It's consistent with my arguments to describe pretty much all the regimes listed by Wikipedia as dictatorships. "Dictatorships can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies." Here's what Wikipedia says about absolute monarchies:

"1.2.1 Kingdoms of England and Scotland
James VI and I and his son Charles I tried to import the principle of divine right into Scotland and England. Charles I's attempt to enforce episcopal polity on the Church of Scotland led to rebellion by the Covenanters and the Bishops' Wars, then fears that Charles I was attempting to establish absolutist government along European lines was a major cause of the English Civil War, despite the fact that he did rule this way for 11 years starting in 1629, after dissolving the Parliament of England for a time.​

As for what "along European lines" means, the article covers that:

1.2.2 Denmark–Norway
1.2.3 Habsburgs
1.2.4 Hungary
1.2.5 France
1.2.6 Prussia
1.2.7 Russia
1.2.8 Sweden​

 

[lpetrich]

 Coronation of Charles III and Camilla - currently planned for Saturday, 6 May 2023, at Westminster Abbey.

Compared with previous coronations, the ceremony will undergo some alterations to represent multiple faiths, cultures, and communities across the United Kingdom, and will be shorter than Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953. The ceremony will begin with the anointing of Charles, symbolising his spiritual entry into kingship, and then his crowning and enthronement, representing his assumption of temporal powers and responsibilities. Camilla will be crowned in a shorter and simpler ceremony. The royal family will travel to Buckingham Palace afterward, in a state procession, and appear on the balcony to celebrate the occasion.

In addition to the coronation ceremony, the event will be marked by public ceremonies and celebrations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the British Crown Dependencies and overseas territories.

...
Due to Elizabeth's advanced age, Charles's coronation has been planned for years, under the code name Operation Golden Orb.[5][6][7] During Elizabeth's reign, planning meetings for Operation Golden Orb were held at least once a year, attended by representatives of the government, the Church of England and Clarence House staff.[5]

The article then goes into detail about what is planned for that day -- a *lot*.

 

[lpetrich]

Is Jamaica next?

Jamaica CRC reaches accord on removing monarchy

Jamaica’s Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC) has arrived at consensus to recommend the abolition of the constitutional monarchy as the form of government and has deliberated on the process by which a president would be selected.

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Minister Marlene Malahoo Forte:

Once we have abolished the monarchy from the make-up of our form of Government, it will be replaced by the Office of President of the Republic of Jamaica.

The president of the Republic of Jamaica is to be a separate office from the head of government of Jamaica.

She then said that the president is to be nominated by the Prime Minister and the opposition leader, and then elected by Parliament.

Gov't defends ceremonial head of State for a Jamaican republic - Jamaica Observer

Speaking with editors and reporters at the Jamaica Observer's Monday Exchange this week, Minister of Constitutional Affairs and Legal Reform Marlene Malahoo Forte pointed out that the consensus so far is that the office of the president should be the formal head of State, separate from the political head of Government. This means the office of president would essentially be vested with executive powers similar to those reposed in the governor general.

Jamaica full steam ahead towards a republic - Voice Online -- "Ms Malahoo Forte also said the government plans to have a referendum early next year regarding becoming a republic."

"Across the Caribbean, there is a growing republican movement, following Barbados’ highly publicised transition to a republic in November 2021"

 

[lpetrich]

Countries outside the UK with the British monarch as the head of state:

• Caribbean and nearby: Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Pacific islands and continent: Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, The Solomon Islands, Tuvalu
• North America: Canada

Each of these countries has a governor-general who acts as a deputy head of state -- a viceroy or provincial governor.

 List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom
 Territorial evolution of the British Empire
 List of countries by system of government

Systems of government at the present time:

• Parliamentary monarchy (British): Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu
• Parliamentary monarchy (native): Lesotho, Malaysia
• Parliamentary republic: Bangladesh, Barbados, Botswana, Dominica, Fiji, Guyana, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Kiribati, Malta, Mauritius, Nauru, Pakistan, Somalia, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu
• Semi-presidential system: Egypt, Sri Lanka
• Strong president with legislature: Cyprus, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Maldives, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, United States, Zambia, Zimbabwe
• Activist monarchy with legislature or council (native): Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Tonga, United Arab Emirates
• Absolute monarchy (native): Brunei, Eswatini, Oman
• Military dictatorship: Myanmar, Sudan
• "No constitutional basis": Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen

 

[lpetrich]

Gov't defends ceremonial head of State for a Jamaican republic - Jamaica Observer
... consultant counsel and Opposition nominee veteran attorney Hugh Small says:

So if we are determined that we want to have a Jamaican head of State and become a republic, we have to go to a model that is not going to divide the people. There is no chance of a snowball in hell that we're going to get approval by the Jamaican people for the creation of an executive president, and if we try to do that it means that we would have to revamp the whole constitution. We know what the history is, and among the things we have learnt is the bases on which both sides of Parliament can come together and agree on controversial issues, so why go back and spurn that history, it doesn't make sense.

In effect, what they most agree on is having a ceremonial sort of president, like what many parliamentary republics have, and not a US-style strong president. A ceremonial sort of president would be much like the British monarch and the country's Governor General. Also, the Caribbean islands that have become republics now have such presidents.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Brits do love putting on a uniform and wear a chestful of medals.

Russian generals have more medals, and theirs' are bigger, shinier, and gaudier.

 

[bilby]

The Brits do love putting on a uniform and wear a chestful of medals.

Russian generals have more medals, and theirs' are bigger, shinier, and gaudier.

It's not "The Brits", it's the British aristocracy, of which the King is the pinnacle.

It's a hangover from the medieval social structure, in which society was divided into three groups: The peasants, who laboured to produce food, clothing, and shelter; The clergy, who laboured to ensure protection against the wrath of God; And the aristocracy, who laboured to ensure protection against other people.

Those who work; Those who pray; and Those who fight.

Of course it never really worked that way. The clergy got the peasants to do a lot of prayer; And the aristocracy got the peasants to do a lot of the fighting.

But the honour and kudos for praying went to the clergy, increasing by rank. And the honour and kudos for fighting went to the aristocracy, also increasing by rank.

King Charles (and for that matter his parents and his sons) all served in the military, because it is a primary duty of aristocratic families, and particularly the royal family, to do so. Even if the King no longer leads cavalry charges towards enemy armies.