Elizabeth II has died

[lpetrich]

Is Jamaica next? The Caribbean island, not the New York City bay.

Jamaica Taking Steps On Road To Becoming Republic. - The St Kitts Nevis Observer - February 16, 2024

The Jamaican Government implemented “critical aspects” of the Road to Republic Public Education Programme during the recently concluded Parliamentary Year, says Governor-General, Sir Patrick Allen.

...
“The Government continues with the preparation of the Constitution of Jamaica (Amendment of Section 61) Bill to modernise the Words of Enactment as the first legislative step in a proposed series of amendments intended to give effect to a Constitution enacted by the Parliament and approved by the people of Jamaica,” the Governor-General said.

...
With Barbados having already become a Republic and severed most ties with Britain, there is a great deal of interest in following a similar path in Jamaica, however one stumbling block is that the Jamaican constitution requires a referendum with a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament plus a referendum to make any constitutional changes.

Jamaica on track to remove King Charles as head of state by 2025, minister says | The Independent - Thursday 25 April 2024 09:37 BST - "Jamaica is still lobbying the UK to remove visa restrictions for its citizens, since it is the only country with Charles III as king which is subject to the demands"

“We remain hopeful that by 2025 we would have completed those reforms and removed the British monarch as the head of our democracy,” he said, adding “notwithstanding it being a figurehead and that real power resides with the government of Jamaica and the people of Jamaica.”

...
“I’ve always maintained that we owe it to our ancestors who fought and died so that we could be free, we owe it to the framers of our constitution, the work done by our national heroes, for Jamaica to now walk as truly liberated and independent,” said Mr Terrelonge, during a visit to London.

“With having a Jamaican head of state, every single young king and young queen in Jamaica can aspire to one day be the head of state of their own country, and we’ll no longer have to, figuratively or not, pay respect or swear allegiance to a foreign monarch.”

Jamaica’s road to a republic hits a major snag - May 15, 2024
A disagreement about what will be Jamaica's Supreme Court after independence from the British monarchy.

 

[ZiprHead]

Seeing this thread pop up made me wonder if the queen died again.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, and I thought Willie Mays was already dead too, so...

 

[Derec]

Yeah, and I thought Willie Mays was already dead too, so...

That was Billy Mays ...

 

[lpetrich]

No more recent news on Antigua and Barbuda or on Belize.

Grenadian prime minister 'hopes' country will become republic under his leadership | World News | Sky News - Thursday 4 May 2023 22:55, UK - "Sky News spoke to Grenadian Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell who "believes" the West Indian island nation would cease being a constitutional monarchy, with the British monarch as its head of state, during his lifetime."

St Kitts and Nevis to consider becoming a republic - Voice Online - 4th October 2022 - "Foreign Minister and former prime minister of St Kitts says now is the time to discuss removing the British monarchy as the head of state"

New Zealand leader says he favors nation becoming a republic | AP News - 10:22 PM PDT, April 30, 2023

New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Monday he personally favors his country becoming a republic, but it’s not a change he intends to push for as leader.

Australia puts republic referendum plan on hold - 8 January 2024

It is a longstanding policy of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to hold a referendum on becoming a republic.

But a minister has told local media that such a vote is "not a priority" and there is "no timeline" for it.

No more recent news on any of them.

 

[lpetrich]

I recently discovered some recent research into the rise and fall of monarchy more generally, but I will be posting it in this thread instead: Are Constitutional Monarchies More Stable? | Internet Infidels Discussion Board

 

[lpetrich]

Since this is UK-related, I'm posting it here.
If the Queen has no Reserve Powers Left, What Is the Modern Monarchy For - UCL Discovery - 2017

Ever since the English Civil War, which determined that the Monarch reigned subject to Parliament, the powers of the Monarchy have gradually been reduced. In each century, those powers have grown less, and this process of attrition has continued into modern times, so that Queen Elizabeth II has less power than she did on her accession in 1952.

"In writing about the royal prerogative, it is customary to distinguish between those powers still remaining in the hands of the Monarch and those powers which are now exercised directly by government ministers."

The monarch's powers:

• to appoint and dismiss ministers, in particular the prime minister
• to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament
• to give Royal Assent to bills passed by Parliament

About the first, "The last time a prime minister was dismissed was in 1834: few would maintain that this power could be exercised today." and "The power to appoint a prime minister retained a discretionary element for longer, but that too is
now gone. In 1931, King George V persuaded Ramsay MacDonald not to resign, but to head a National government dominated by the Conservatives after his Labour government had broken up."

About the second, "But any doubt or dispute is now academic, because the prerogative power of dissolution has been abolished by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011." which states that outside of regular elections, “Parliament cannot otherwise be dissolved.”

About the third, "Royal Assent to a Bill was last refused in 1707, when Queen Anne, on the advice of her ministers, withheld Royal Assent to a bill to arm the Scottish Militia. It is inconceivable that the Monarch would withhold Royal Assent today, save on the advice of ministers."

So the British monarch has very little actual political power.

 

[bilby]

"The last time a prime minister was dismissed was in 1834: few would maintain that this power could be exercised today."

The last time the English monarchy dismissed a Prime Minister was on November 11th, 1975.

Until it happened, few would have maintained that it could. But it did.

 

[Bomb#20]

"The last time a prime minister was dismissed was in 1834: few would maintain that this power could be exercised today."

The last time the English monarchy dismissed a Prime Minister was on November 11th, 1975.

Until it happened, few would have maintained that it could. But it did.

You still griping about Kerr firing Whitlam? Kerr was appointed by Whitlam and rubber-stamped by the queen. That isn't the English monarchy dismissing a Prime Minister; that's Australia running its own government according to its own constitution. In Australia a guy doesn't get Kerr's job without a ceremonial English monarchy formality. Whoop de do -- in the U.S. a bill doesn't become law without a ceremonial English monarchy formality. The Australian system of government gives King Charles as much royal discretion as Queen Victoria's desk has when Biden signs bills on it.

 

[lpetrich]

But does the British monarchy have a lot of soft power?

The article quoted from the British royal family's site, so I went there and found what it says: The role of the Monarchy | The Royal Family

In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.

Although The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation.

As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.

Back to that article at UCL. It next discussed "The National Monarchy", describing some official ceremomies that the royals do:

Although primarily ceremonial, these functions have important political and social content. The Sovereign formally opens each session of Parliament, which now commences in May or June. Travelling in a state coach in ceremonial dress, with a mounted cavalry escort (usually with her husband and other members of the royal family), the Queen delivers a speech from the throne in the House of Lords. The members of the House of Commons are summoned to attend and remain standing throughout the proceedings. The speech, prepared by the prime minister, outlines the most important measures that the government — the Queen’s government — plans to bring forward in the forthcoming session.

Then

Typical of Britain, the ceremonies belie the reality. Whereas the procedures seem to exalt the House of Lords as the more important of Parliament’s two Houses, the reverse is the truth. It is an example of how a state, once a personal Monarchy, has become effectively a democratic republic whilst retaining monarchical forms.

So some researchers into the recent decline of monarchy were right to code recent UK as a republic. I like the term "crowned republic".

 

[Jarhyn]

But does the British monarchy have a lot of soft power?

The article quoted from the British royal family's site, so I went there and found what it says: The role of the Monarchy | The Royal Family

In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.

Although The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation.

As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.

Back to that article at UCL. It next discussed "The National Monarchy", describing some official ceremomies that the royals do:

Although primarily ceremonial, these functions have important political and social content. The Sovereign formally opens each session of Parliament, which now commences in May or June. Travelling in a state coach in ceremonial dress, with a mounted cavalry escort (usually with her husband and other members of the royal family), the Queen delivers a speech from the throne in the House of Lords. The members of the House of Commons are summoned to attend and remain standing throughout the proceedings. The speech, prepared by the prime minister, outlines the most important measures that the government — the Queen’s government — plans to bring forward in the forthcoming session.

Then

Typical of Britain, the ceremonies belie the reality. Whereas the procedures seem to exalt the House of Lords as the more important of Parliament’s two Houses, the reverse is the truth. It is an example of how a state, once a personal Monarchy, has become effectively a democratic republic whilst retaining monarchical forms.

So some researchers into the recent decline of monarchy were right to code recent UK as a republic. I like the term "crowned republic".

Elizabeth may be dead but with your thread-reviving powers perhaps you can do her a solid, and free GB from he progeny's dark reign (just look at his portrait FFS... Then I heard someone did some rather hilarious editing on it?)

That said the British royal family has a lot of understated power just from how wealthy they are and how much property they control and whose ears they have access to.

They can't rule by decree anymore, but I suspect that it doesn't pay to look away from their interests either.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Seeing this thread pop up made me wonder if the queen died again.

Lost her valiant struggle to remain dead.

 

[lpetrich]

"The international Monarchy"

Uniquely amongst remaining world monarchies, the British Monarchy is not contained by its geographical boundaries. The British Sovereign is both “head” of the Commonwealth of fifty-three independent sovereign countries and actually head of state in fifteen of these countries — the “realms” — other than the UK.

...
These arrangements are a residue of empire, the outcome of local political maturation, and British withdrawal, forced or otherwise.

"The Religious Monarchy"

About the British monarch as the head of the Church of England. However,

Government control of the Church of England is attenuated to the point that the Church is, for all intents and purposes, autonomous. Committees of the Church recommend and, in effect, appoint to all senior posts: the prime minister nowadays automatically advises the Sovereign to appoint the Church’s nominees.

"The Welfare/Service Monarchy"

More perhaps than any other, this aspect shows how far the Monarchy has travelled in recent generations. From an august, heavily ceremonialized imperial presence, it has moved to a much more demotic (including as to speech accent) and visible head of state form, interacting with the general population far beyond confined court circles.

Like being involved in several charities.

 

[lpetrich]

Then a discussion of the future of the monarchy.

King Charles has succeeded his mother as head of the Commonwealth of Nations, the former British Commonwealth, a loose organization of ex-British-Empire countries.

Then about the realms getting their own heads of state. About the royal family,

Privately, it might actually welcome such decisions because they would reduce the additional time and workload involved in being head of 15 other states, and also reduce scope for embarrassment (e.g. Australia’s dismissal of the prime minister in 1975, the invasion of Grenada in 1983, Fiji’s two coups in 1987). It would enable the British Monarch to focus on Britain.

Since the publication of that article, Barbados got its own head of state, becoming a republic and reducing that number to 14. Jamaica is slowly moving to doing so, and may get its own head of state by next year, giving 13.

I've found discussions for Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Belize, Grenada, New Zealand, St Kitts and Nevis -- that leaves the Bahamas, Canada, Papua New Guinea, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu  Commonwealth realm

If Jamaica goes, then the rest of the Caribbean islands may go. If Australia goes, then New Zealand may go. Not sure about Canada, because the monarchy distinguishes it from its fellow ex-British-Empire neighbor to the south and northwest.

 

[bilby]

"The last time a prime minister was dismissed was in 1834: few would maintain that this power could be exercised today."

The last time the English monarchy dismissed a Prime Minister was on November 11th, 1975.

Until it happened, few would have maintained that it could. But it did.

You still griping about Kerr firing Whitlam?

No, I am contradicting (with evidentary example) the false claim "The last time a prime minister was dismissed [by a British monarch] was in 1834".

Kerr was appointed by Whitlam and rubber-stamped by the queen. That isn't the English monarchy dismissing a Prime Minister; that's Australia running its own government according to its own constitution. In Australia a guy doesn't get Kerr's job without a ceremonial English monarchy formality. Whoop de do -- in the U.S. a bill doesn't become law without a ceremonial English monarchy formality. The Australian system of government gives King Charles as much royal discretion as Queen Victoria's desk has when Biden signs bills on it.

That was a very popular take on the whole affair, right up until the declassification of documents that showed the Queen's direct involvement. Kerr wasn't game to take such a big step without the knowledge and approval of the big boss.

 

[Politesse]

If Jamaica goes, then the rest of the Caribbean islands may go. If Australia goes, then New Zealand may go. Not sure about Canada, because the monarchy distinguishes it from its fellow ex-British-Empire neighbor to the south and northwest.

In a good way? I'm sure they exist, but I've never met any Canadian with as much attachment to the Royal Family as has your average Brit. They are proud of their mostly bloodless transition to mostly independent statehood, but that will still be true after they cut the cord.

 

[lpetrich]

The article then got into "Gerontocracy and abdication" - since its writing, Queen Elizabeth II lived to 96 before dying, and Charles III became king at age 74. If he lives to 100, then his son William will be 67 when he becomes king.

We may be in for a series of elderly monarchs, succeeded by heirs apparent who have spent all their adult life in waiting, only to assume the throne in old age. It may reasonably be asked whether it is kind to our monarchs to expect them to go on like this, or whether it is kind to their people to have a succession of monarchs who are all very old.

As the article acknowledges, a solution is for a monarch to abdicate, but one has to get all the realms to acknowledge this abdication. But many recent monarchs have abdicated because of old age.

Netherlands:

• Wilhelmina: b 1880 - c 1890 - a 1948 - d 1962 - (a 68)
• Juliana: b 1909 - c 1948 - a 1980 - d 2004 - (a 71)
• Beatrix: b 1938 - c 1980 - a 2013 - (a 75)
• Willem-Alexander: b 1967 - c 2013 -

Others:

• Luxembourg - Jean: b 1921 - c 1964 - a 2000 - d 2019 - (a 79)
• Cambodia - Norodom Sihanouk: b 1922 - c 1941 - a 1955 - c 1993 - a 2004 - d 2012 - (a 82)
• Bhutan - Jigme Singye Wangchuck: b 1955 - c 1972 - a 2006 - (a 51)
• Qatar - Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani: b 1952 - c 1995 - a 2013 - (a 61)
• Belgium - Albert II: b 1934 - c 1993 - a 2013 - (a 79)
• Spain - Juan Carlos I: b 1938 - c 1975 - a 2014 - (a 76)
• Malaysia - Muhammad V of Kelantan: b 1969 - c 2016 - a 2019 - (a 50)
• Japan - Akihito - b 1933 - c 1989 - a 2019 - (a 86)
• Denmark - Margrethe II - b 1940 - c 1072 - a 2024 - (a 84)

Most of these abdications were due to old age.

 

[lpetrich]

Then there is the problem of living one's life in public view.

A final threat to the Monarchy is the self-sacrifice involved on the part of the Monarch and those in direct line of succession. We have already mentioned the requirement of lifelong service, with no prospect of retirement. Second is the loss of freedom. The Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William have to abandon freedoms which the rest of us take for granted: freedom of privacy and family life; freedom of expression; freedom to travel where we like; free choice of careers; freedom of religion; freedom to marry whom we like. For the Royal family these basic human rights are all curtailed. The question is whether future heirs are willing to make the self-sacrifices required of living in a gilded cage.

Bagehot observed of the Monarchy, “Its mystery is its life. We must not let daylight upon the magic.” But we have, especially through relentless invasions of privacy by the press. Prince Charles and his sons have been the main victims, and Prince William and Kate are caught up in celebrity culture. But the press is insatiable, and also fickle; if the popularity of the Monarchy comes to depend on the support of the press, that Faustian pact may prove, in the long run, to be the greatest threat to the future of the Monarchy.

It's interesting that Queen Elizabeth II had much fewer scandals than her children and grandchildren and their spouses.

 

[Bomb#20]

The Australian system of government gives King Charles as much royal discretion as Queen Victoria's desk has when Biden signs bills on it.

That was a very popular take on the whole affair, right up until the declassification of documents that showed the Queen's direct involvement. Kerr wasn't game to take such a big step without the knowledge and approval of the big boss.

If you're talking about the "Palace Letters", I'm not clear on why you think they make any difference. From what I've read, Elizabeth and Charles didn't tell Kerr anything different from what the High Court justices told him -- that legally he had the authority to do it and the choice was up to him. They didn't tell Kerr to do it and they didn't tell him not to; and I have to assume the royals checked with some expert on Australian law before they answered Kerr's questions. Buckingham Palace takes its studied political neutrality seriously. So even if Kerr thought of the monarch as "the big boss", she didn't boss him. I don't see a case for calling this the English monarchy dismissing a Prime Minister.

Whitlam handed the authority to fire him to an Australian he took for a party hack, and he guessed wrong. Takeaway: if you want somebody who's accustomed to following orders and not judging for himself, don't hire a Supreme Court Justice.