Elizabeth II

[Sarkus]

Not to mention being the head of the Anglican Church. ( Church of England - 110 million adherents as of 2001)

Just to correct you: the monarch is not the head of the Anglican Church, but the head of the Church of England. There is a distinction. The Church of England (CofE) is a member of the Anglican Communion, which is a predominantly Western Europe conglomerate of around 45 different churches, of which CofE is but one.
There will be some confusion as the CofE was (one of, if not) the founding church of the Anglican Communion, and has been referred to as the Anglican Church, but more strictly the CofE should be better referred to as the Anglican Church in England, thus distinguishing it from the Anglican Churches elsewhere. Each has its own governance, head etc. The UK monarch is only the head of the CofE (the Anglican Church in England).
The CofE probably only has about c.1 million active worshippers (i.e. church attendance), although possibly 20-30m or so might claim CofE in the census, being the number baptised.

 

[Sarkus]

A bit like the unenviable challenge that faced Gorbachev with the winding up of the USSR.

That tends to be the difference between an amicable divorce and an acrimonious one.

Keeping in mind the incredibly complex legal issues involved in transition, including possible reparations etc. the need to remain a-political throughout while being at the center of all the politics. Having to deal with the historic legacy her family has inflicted due to colonization. (remember we are talking about her actual family's legacy) certainly would not be a task I would aspire to.

The Queen pretty much did what she was told to do. No politics, just wave hands, smile nicely, and give a very non-committal and vague speech about harmony, union, prosperity, friendship, etc. Move on to the next country.
Just remember, the monarch is a figurehead only, even in the UK. They don't sign legal documents unless parliament authorises them to. They probably wouldn't even give a speech unless the PMs team have given it the "okay". They are the face, and all the machinations go on behind the scenes. Her only real task was to effectively give up her freedom for the sake of the country, and to live a rather pampered life, dictated by traditions, and in which nearly all the important decisions would be made for her.

 

[Sarkus]

Perhaps a rhetorical question can provide insight:
How do people (politicians, military etc) who have sworn allegiance to the ruling monarch pursue a republic agenda?

Just in case "perhaps not":

They would have to act treasonously. No joke.
We have the 1848 Treason Felony Act that makes it a crime to advocate in writing the replacement of the monarchy with a republic, with the punishment of lifetime imprisonment!
The Human Rights Act of 1998, however, has meant interpretation of the 1848 act would need to allow peaceful republican activity. I.e. a political party that advocates the abolishment of the monarchy would no longer be interpreted as committing a felony.

Outside of the legal matters, one is of course beholden to how strongly one considers one's oath. If one has always harboured a republican leaning then it is likely the oath was not personally held, and uttered only for formality. If you uttered the words but did not mean them, your conscience would likely be clear, even if others didn't see it that way.
If you took the oath and, at the time, meant it, but have subsequently tilted toward republicanism, then you'd likely rationalise away the oath (the "they've changed, they're not who I took the oath for!" or "I was ignorant of X, Y, Z, and had I known I would have not meant it" etc), but either way, you'd just dismiss the oath, and act as your conscience dictates.
Only a few would likely be paralysed by the matter.

 

[Sarkus]

I found it all much more interesting than I was expecting.

I didn't. I have respect for the monarchy, and am not a republican, but, meh, did nothing for me. But that's okay. We're a free country so I could just turn it off, and there was no forced attendance.
It was also a lot less ostentatious than I was expecting. But then it was a CofE funeral. Perhaps we'll get more of the grandeur with the coronoation next year.

Her strength, I think, was that she had a calm way about her, and then in later life became the "grandmother" figure with the mischievous smile.
If we had an "active" monarch who provoked the politicians, criticised, had their own agenda (as opposed to one agreed with parliament), was more brash, abrasive, then I'm sure the 70 years would have been very different. Better? Worse? Who knows.

 

[Michael 345]

We have the 1848 Treason Felony Act that makes it a crime to advocate in writing the replacement of the monarchy with a republic, with the punishment of lifetime imprisonment!

Is a speech, given in parliament, advocating replacing the monarchy with a republic covered by parliamentary privilege which stops courts from ruling on anything said / debated in parliament?

 

[geordief]

Better? Worse? Who knows.

Illegitimate (from a republican)

I may have sympathy for ,eg Charles' ecological views but it is no longer his place to air them except when called for.
If they want to be constitutional monarchs then they should do that job (as the last constitutional monarch did ,to her great credit)

He should not abuse his position (no idea whether he will or not at this point.Maybe he will attempt to delegate insufferable pontifications to his children from now on?)

 

[Sarkus]

Is a speech, given in parliament, advocating replacing the monarchy with a republic covered by parliamentary privilege which stops courts from ruling on anything said / debated in parliament?

I think parliamentary privilege grants immunity to prosecution, both civil and criminal, to anything said or done in the exercise of their legislative duties. Debating in the house about the question of becoming a republic would seem to therefore be covered.
However, since the early days of the privilege (1400's) the privilege has specifically excluded matters of "treason, felony, and breach of the peace", and (although I'm not sure) this may well still exist as an exception. If so, it wouldn't be covered.

That said, while the 1848 makes advocacy of a republic treasonous, and while this hasn't been revoked - so it technically is still treason - it is not something that will be prosecuted if advocacy is of peaceful transition. So I'm not sure if that means it is or isn't covered by the privilege, but then I guess it makes no difference if it won't be prosecuted either way.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think the point I was trying to make earlier was that the contraction or reduction of the Monarchs' power from say, hard to soft, has been under way for some time. It is the very nature of the reduction that makes it unenviable, as losing "power" is always harder to live with than gaining it.

To preside over a transition phase that most modern royals would probably agree is necessary is a bit like working hard towards becoming unemployed. Elizabeth II did a marvelous job of managing/accepting the slow but inevitable move towards a republic or at the every least a monarchy that is no longer fundamental to the nations legal/penal system.

 

[Sarkus]

I think the point I was trying to make earlier was that the contraction or reduction of the Monarchs' power from say, hard to soft, has been under way for some time. It is the very nature of the reduction that makes it unenviable, as losing "power" is always harder to live with than gaining it.

I'm not sure the Queen presided under any diminishment of her powers "from hard to soft". And nor will the new King. The powers of the monarch in the UK have been pretty much the same since the 19th Century. Victoria was the last monarch to exercise any "hard" power (in preventing certain appointments to the Cabinet), although, technically, they still remain with the monarchy. It's just now more established that they remain unexercised. Hence Parliament still need the official approval of things from the Crown - but it is a fait accompli as the monarch will not fail to grant that approval, even if they technically have the power to.

To preside over a transition phase that most modern royals would probably agree is necessary is a bit like working hard towards becoming unemployed. Elizabeth II did a marvelous job of managing/accepting the slow but inevitable move towards a republic or at the every least a monarchy that is no longer fundamental to the nations legal/penal system.

You really don't have a Scooby, do you.
Honestly, it's probably best you don't continue to talk on a matter that you really only seem interested in sensationalising and acting as doom-mongerer for, and in doing so opt to make things up.

To clarify: the UK is not moving towards a republic, and the monarch is already not fundamental to the legal/penal system. And, I repeat, very little if anything changed on either front during her reign. Yes, most individual countries within the British Empire were granted their independence and a large number of those dropped the British monarchy as their head of state. I.e. they became republics, or whatever other form of rule they wanted, mostly (I guess) to try and make a clear cut from the country that colonised / invaded / ruled them. But that does not mean that there is any "slow but inevitable" move towards the UK becoming a republic. The more likely future is simply a much reduced level of pomp and circumstance, and the monarchy becomes more like those found in Sweden, or Spain, or even New Zealand. They remain Ceremonial constitutional monarchies, like the UK, but the grandeur and ostentatiousness is much reduced.
There has certainly been talk about the UK becoming a republic, as there has been probably for as long as there has been a monarch (and the word "republic" was understood). Am I saying that even in the distant future it will never become a republic? No. Strange things do happen. But there is no "slow but inevitable" move towards it at this time.

So, the point you were trying to make is unfortunately irrelevant because it is a fiction.
But feel free to have another go.

 

[Saint]

King Charles III showed impatience a few times when signing documents, he is a spoiled child. Very less people respect him.

 

[Sarkus]

King Charles III showed impatience a few times when signing documents, he is a spoiled child. Very less people respect him.

What documents has he shown impatience signing?
Less people do respect him, you're right. Because it is quite difficult to be as respected anywhere near as much as a monarch who, by all accounts, has ruled the country well for 70 years.
Is he a spoiled child? Many would say that being a Royal spoils you, yes.

 

[Michael 345]

What documents has he shown impatience signing?
Less people do respect him, you're right. Because it is quite difficult to be as respected anywhere near as much as a monarch who, by all accounts, has ruled the country well for 70 years.
Is he a spoiled child? Many would say that being a Royal spoils you, yes.

I would be curious as to the cause of his impatience

Is his impatience due to his being required to sign? Not a good reason since it is part of the job
OR
Is his impatience due to the frivolity of the subject that really really did not require his signature? I'm OK with his being impatient with that
OR
Is his impatience due to his opposition to the subject matter. I'm not in favour of that impatience

 

[Sarkus]

Or, is there actually no impatience at all, and saint just making stuff up?

 

[Michael 345]

Or, is there actually no impatience at all, and saint just making stuff up?

Could be

Saint is on my Iggy list

 

[geordief]

Or, is there actually no impatience at all, and saint just making stuff up?

No I also read about that and it is really quite unacceptable on your first day in the job.

He gets a pass from me as ,well it is his first day and he has to learn

But it is a poor indication of his attitude which is no surprise but we will have to see if he can learn on the job.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So, the point you were trying to make is unfortunately irrelevant because it is a fiction.

I suppose the sacking of a duly elected government and installation of the opposition as a caretaker is a fiction? (Australia : 1975)
Reigning (not ruling) with reserve powers that underpin your government/laws is all well and good until things are not ok...

 

[Sarkus]

No I also read about that and it is really quite unacceptable on your first day in the job.

Okay, I hadn't read anything. Do you have a source/details? I read something about a pen not working when he was signing something?

 

[geordief]

Okay, I hadn't read anything. Do you have a source/details? I read something about a pen not working when he was signing something?

No offense but I couldn't really be bothered.I t must have been on the BBC or RTE website(unless it was in one of the newspapers like the Mirror or the Express.

It was just noted that he seemed to be irritated by one of the documents he was dealing with.

Fairly inconsequential I would say but he seems to have dropped his guard very early on.
.

Well if it was the pen not working that would be more forgivable as they are the bane of my life too(I had assumed it was the task at hand but can't be bothered to find out)


I have very few good expectations from C3 after his previous iterations but I suppose we never know until after few months in

 

[Sarkus]

I suppose the sacking of a duly elected government and installation of the opposition as a caretaker is a fiction? (Australia : 1975)

Nor is it fiction that Man City won the English Premiership last season. You're going to therefore have to show how it is any way relevant to your previous comments.

Reigning (not ruling) with reserve powers that underpin your government/laws is all well and good until things are not ok...

Yet they are not fundamental as you claimed. If you did away with the role of governor general, what would actually change to your government and legal/penal system. Okay, your country would have been in deadlock for as long as it took a general election to have otherwise been called, or fall due naturally, and the GG forced it. Other than that...?

If you're going to claim something as fundamental, support it with an argument that shows it to be so. How, for example, does the legal/penal system of Australia rely fundamentally on the monarch?

 

[Sarkus]

No offense but I couldn't really be bothered.I t must have been on the BBC or RTE website(unless it was in one of the newspapers like the Mirror or the Express.

It was just noted that he seemed to be irritated by one of the documents he was dealing with.

Fairly inconsequential I would say but he seems to have dropped his guard very early on.
.

Well if it was the pen not working that would be more forgivable as they are the bane of my life too(I had assumed it was the task at hand but can't be bothered to find out)


I have very few good expectations from C3 after his previous iterations but I suppose we never know until after few months in

Understood, and no offence taken.

I think it was the pen issue rather than what he was signing, especially given the situation when you'd expect everything to be working perfectly for such a momentous occasion.
But I'll await Saint providing other details if it wasn't that.