Constitutional monarchs exist by the permission of the country’s government, and disappear when that permission is withdrawn. Thus, there is a straightforward remedy for these kinds of things if/when the people’s representatives choose to use it.
The idea of a family with codified preference and privilege is odd. An entire nation of people basing their personal identities off the curated choices of a single family dependent on social-welfare to survive.
UK's constitution doesn't exist in the way the US constitution does. There's really nothing straightforward about the law of the UK, and in fact, parliament is held at the pleasure of HRH.
But given that the Succession is based on an act of Parliament, isn't it a deadly embrace - where both halves of the state rely on each other. Still, what was encoded once can be encoded again...
I think you have a lot wrong in your brief comment.
> HRH
That's "HMQ". Her children are mostly Her or His Royal Highness. The monarch is Her Majesty.
I raise this not to be petty but to point out a basic error that no taxpayer in the UK would have made, since they would be familiar with HMRC (which collects the taxes), and almost certainly with the initialism HMG.
While sometimes styles are abstruse, the misuse of the most commonly encountered one for the head of state does not support the idea that the misuser knows much about the operation of "her" government or system of law.
The assertion by a previous monarch that Parliament met only with his consent was significant in the start of the English Civil War 1642-1651 (and that monarch's death in 1649).
In recent years vigorous litigation, legislation, and debates about how and when ministers may advise the use of the prerogative powers of the monarch to suspend ("prorogation") and dissolve Parliament (for an election to occur) have all been especially clear on the central point that the person wearing the crown has no personal say in these matters; the Queen can only use them as directed by ministers, and only when that direction is lawful (see e.g. the Miller II and Cherry cases 2019 UKSC 41).
> UK's constitution doesn't exist in the way the US constitution does
The U.S.A.'s consolidates several shared aspects into a single codified instrument, but both have significant unconsolidated and even unwritten aspects.
The principal difference isn't in "existence" but in the entrenching scheme wherein the U.S.A.'s federal legislature cannot change certain aspects of itself without the consent of numerous states, whereas there is no such bar on Parliament. Canada's system is a mid-way point: its federal Parliament is able to use the Parliament-alone section 44 amending formula to adjust many aspects of itself and the federal executive, but it must have the consent of one or more provincial legislatures for other changes to parts of the Canadian constitution. The UK Parliament's supremacy means that there is no aspect of the law it cannot change entirely on its own from a legal point of view, however some matters are politically entrenched. It could abolish the Scottish Parliament, for example, from a legal perspective, but with some caveats (see next paragraph). It is unlikely to try to do so, because of the (possibly violent) consequences. Neither Congress nor the Canadian federal Parliament has the legal power unilaterally to abolish a state or provincial legislature.
Canada's constitution is not fully consolidated into the Constitution Act <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_constitutiona...>. The UK has almost no consolidation whatsoever, and its Constitutional documents (e.g. the Scotland Act 1998) are in almost all respects just like ordinary Acts of Parliament: the UK Parliament can amend them or repeal them or replace them at will. A Constitutional Act of Parliament, however, will be read by the courts slightly different...
“Last year, the Guardian reported on how the Queen’s consent process had been used to allow the royal family to vet more than 1,000 laws during the reign of Elizabeth II before parliament was permitted to debate them.
Buckingham Palace has repeatedly claimed that Queen’s consent is a purely formal process that does not result in substantive changes to policy. However, that claim has been undermined by documents relating to various laws passed throughout the Queen’s reign suggesting that she or her representatives took advantage of the process to secure personal carve-outs.” [1]
> One constitutional expert warned that the carve-outs undermine the notion that everyone is equal before the law
A monarch is unequal under the law by definition.
This editorial seems to be arguing there’s a distinct “private persona” that should be equal under the law, while their “public persona” lives a hereditarily granted, opulent lifestyle fully subsidized by the state and decidedly unequal under the law.
That distinction makes no sense.
If you (rightfully) don’t want a hereditary constitutional monarchy, just don’t have one.
> If you (rightfully) don’t want a hereditary constitutional monarchy, just don’t have one.
I'm wondering about why it would be right to not have a constitutional monarch, seeing as monarchs are really old and likely the default governing structure for human civilizations.
There is absolutely no reason why a constitutional monarch would automatically need to be exempted from so many laws. In fact, the UK is the only European monarchy that has such broad exemptions. Liechtenstein might come close though.
Elizabeth 2 is as far as I know the only European monarch who extracts enough wealth from their country to be the richest person in it.
Apparently she is only the richest person if you include crown estate properties - which I agree mostly shouldn't count as personal property. The personal wealth is still considerable, with 500 million dollars being the low estimates.
So let me amend: the only European monarch obscenely rich.
I do not have primary sources but according to GPC Grey in the video the royal family receives £45 millions and gives ~£200 millions
In the same sense that the queen is the richest person in the UK it is also true that almost the entirety of her possession are handled (and profited) by the state.
> On his accession, the Crown lands produced relatively little income; most revenue was generated through taxes and excise duties. George surrendered the Crown Estate to Parliamentary control in return for a civil list annuity for the support of his household and the expenses of civil government
I have no opinion on the british royal family and honestly I don't see them keeping the title for more than two other generations, but it does not look like they are (currently) bleeding the country
17 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 56.3 ms ] thread> HRH
That's "HMQ". Her children are mostly Her or His Royal Highness. The monarch is Her Majesty.
I raise this not to be petty but to point out a basic error that no taxpayer in the UK would have made, since they would be familiar with HMRC (which collects the taxes), and almost certainly with the initialism HMG.
While sometimes styles are abstruse, the misuse of the most commonly encountered one for the head of state does not support the idea that the misuser knows much about the operation of "her" government or system of law.
There are more substantial things you have wrong.
> pleasure
Not since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and in particular the Bill of Rights 1689 <https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofp...> and <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/intro...>.
The assertion by a previous monarch that Parliament met only with his consent was significant in the start of the English Civil War 1642-1651 (and that monarch's death in 1649).
In recent years vigorous litigation, legislation, and debates about how and when ministers may advise the use of the prerogative powers of the monarch to suspend ("prorogation") and dissolve Parliament (for an election to occur) have all been especially clear on the central point that the person wearing the crown has no personal say in these matters; the Queen can only use them as directed by ministers, and only when that direction is lawful (see e.g. the Miller II and Cherry cases 2019 UKSC 41).
> UK's constitution doesn't exist in the way the US constitution does
The U.S.A.'s consolidates several shared aspects into a single codified instrument, but both have significant unconsolidated and even unwritten aspects.
The principal difference isn't in "existence" but in the entrenching scheme wherein the U.S.A.'s federal legislature cannot change certain aspects of itself without the consent of numerous states, whereas there is no such bar on Parliament. Canada's system is a mid-way point: its federal Parliament is able to use the Parliament-alone section 44 amending formula to adjust many aspects of itself and the federal executive, but it must have the consent of one or more provincial legislatures for other changes to parts of the Canadian constitution. The UK Parliament's supremacy means that there is no aspect of the law it cannot change entirely on its own from a legal point of view, however some matters are politically entrenched. It could abolish the Scottish Parliament, for example, from a legal perspective, but with some caveats (see next paragraph). It is unlikely to try to do so, because of the (possibly violent) consequences. Neither Congress nor the Canadian federal Parliament has the legal power unilaterally to abolish a state or provincial legislature.
Canada's constitution is not fully consolidated into the Constitution Act <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_constitutiona...>. The UK has almost no consolidation whatsoever, and its Constitutional documents (e.g. the Scotland Act 1998) are in almost all respects just like ordinary Acts of Parliament: the UK Parliament can amend them or repeal them or replace them at will. A Constitutional Act of Parliament, however, will be read by the courts slightly different...
Buckingham Palace has repeatedly claimed that Queen’s consent is a purely formal process that does not result in substantive changes to policy. However, that claim has been undermined by documents relating to various laws passed throughout the Queen’s reign suggesting that she or her representatives took advantage of the process to secure personal carve-outs.” [1]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/what-does-qu...
A monarch is unequal under the law by definition.
This editorial seems to be arguing there’s a distinct “private persona” that should be equal under the law, while their “public persona” lives a hereditarily granted, opulent lifestyle fully subsidized by the state and decidedly unequal under the law.
That distinction makes no sense.
If you (rightfully) don’t want a hereditary constitutional monarchy, just don’t have one.
I'm wondering about why it would be right to not have a constitutional monarch, seeing as monarchs are really old and likely the default governing structure for human civilizations.
A president is still pretty much monarch[0].
[0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_family)
Elizabeth 2 is as far as I know the only European monarch who extracts enough wealth from their country to be the richest person in it.
So let me amend: the only European monarch obscenely rich.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
I do not have primary sources but according to GPC Grey in the video the royal family receives £45 millions and gives ~£200 millions
In the same sense that the queen is the richest person in the UK it is also true that almost the entirety of her possession are handled (and profited) by the state.
Quoting Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III
> On his accession, the Crown lands produced relatively little income; most revenue was generated through taxes and excise duties. George surrendered the Crown Estate to Parliamentary control in return for a civil list annuity for the support of his household and the expenses of civil government
I have no opinion on the british royal family and honestly I don't see them keeping the title for more than two other generations, but it does not look like they are (currently) bleeding the country