The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne

[aj00192557]

wow, i didn't know about the crown estates. where is this income coming from? why does she give back the crown estates to the governtment? this fact should be advertised to the public to shut them up once and for all.

[Elspeth]

It won't make any difference. Republican sympathisers will just say the Crown Estates are an anachronism and should be confiscated or something.

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

It won't make any difference. Republican sympathisers will just say the Crown Estates are an anachronism and should be confiscated or something.

Something like that, most likely.

[Idriel]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

It won't make any difference. Republican sympathisers will just say the Crown Estates are an anachronism and should be confiscated or something.

Can they really do that?
Isn't it Royal private property? So unless the UK go communist, it would be totally illegal to do so, no?

[Elspeth]

I'm not sure what the status of the Crown Estates would be, but I don't think they're private property. The properties that make up the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster aren't the private properties of the Prince of Wales and the Queen; these great estates are tied up pretty tightly legally so that a particular owner can't sell them without a lot of legal and financial trouble.

[ElisaR]

I think you're right, Elspeth.
If no one talk about the Crown Estate, there's a reason. Probably they are trying to avoid that it becomes an issue.
It's not old fashioned. I think that a thing is not old fashioned until it works. Of course these people think they can substitute the C.E. with something more efficient!

[ysbel]

Elspeth, I think you bring up a good point, but the Royals can't convert the Republican sympathizers no matter how hard they try. Its the apathetic majority that they need to be concerned about. Great Britain has had its core group of ardent republicans but until recently no one listened to them and they really didn't have an effect.

[ElisaR]

Perhaps there are a few republicans who could be converted.
I read a story - I think it was on the BBC site - about a girl who had just met the Queen. She told reporters that she had been a republican until that day, but, in the very moment she met the Queen, she changed her mind and became a supporter of the monarchy.
Apparently, they should meet the Queen. Maybe some of them would convert.
I think that the problem is that there are too many people who have never met the royals (particularly the Queen, who is the best one). How many people say, after meeting the Queen, "I didn't know/think she was so kind/nice/elegant/intelligent/interesting/interested/..." and "now I love her/it has been one of the greatest day of my life/..."?
Until people go on reading tabloids, there's no much hope.

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by ElisaR

Until people go on reading tabloids, there's no much hope.

Quite right! So much of public opinion about (any) Monarchy, but particularly the Monarchy of The United Kingdom, is gained from sensationalist media, and womens' interest magazines. If opinion is based on reading articles mainly focussing on what Royals wear, what they're eating, who they've kissed, or who they employ, then I don't take it seriously. Those who are willing to adequately evaluate the facts of media-born information about the Royal Family, would know it's usually about a dosen words of truth, dressed up in text telling very few facts. An so the public is lulled into thinking they know about monarchy, and make their decision form there.

When considering the enormus symbolic change which would come if there were an end to our Monarchy, I think opinions from the Guardian, Womens Weekly, and 45 seconds on the six o'clock news are dangerously un-informed ones!

[Aussie Princess]

Originally Posted by ElisaR

Perhaps there are a few republicans who could be converted.
I read a story - I think it was on the BBC site - about a girl who had just met the Queen. She told reporters that she had been a republican until that day, but, in the very moment she met the Queen, she changed her mind and became a supporter of the monarchy.
Apparently, they should meet the Queen. Maybe some of them would convert.
I think that the problem is that there are too many people who have never met the royals (particularly the Queen, who is the best one). How many people say, after meeting the Queen, "I didn't know/think she was so kind/nice/elegant/intelligent/interesting/interested/..." and "now I love her/it has been one of the greatest day of my life/..."?
Until people go on reading tabloids, there's no much hope.

The Queen will be comming to Melbourne to open the Commonwealth Games next year, and I'm hoping to see her. I doubt I'd actually get the chance to meet her, but there'll probably be some chance for the public to see her.:)

[ElisaR]

Originally Posted by Aussie Princess

The Queen will be comming to Melbourne to open the Commonwealth Games next year, and I'm hoping to see her. I doubt I'd actually get the chance to meet her, but there'll probably be some chance for the public to see her.:)

Good luck!

[Aussie Princess]

Thanks, I may need it!:)
If you ever hear where she's making an appearance, let me know yeah?
I'd love to see the Opening ceremony, as those sorts of things are really exciting and interesting, but I didn't even try to get tickets. They are just in such huge demand, and they are charging crazy prices! you have to go into draws and lotterys....sports madness here!

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by Aussie Princess

sports madness here!

Hmm, quite! I sometimes despair for how the world looks apon Australia. We're only ever really mentioned if one of our sporting celebrities does something amazing, divorces, is diagnosed with a something awful, or wins another medal/championship...

I'm sure there'll be plenty of opportunities to see Her Majesty about Melbourne and other capital cities. A friend of mine was successful in his audition to be one of those playing the part of the mascot, I believe he'll get the chance to be rather close to the official party.

[amadeus]

I live in China.We don't vote for a president, nor the Congress,we vote for people's delegates who will vote for everything.
Totally democracy is only a utopia.No matter where you live,you face one problem or anoter.Just think about us,you feel you are much more advanced,but that is opposite of what Marxism said.

[Elspeth]

Welcome to the forum, Amadeus. I hope you enjoy posting here.

Please note that this forum doesn't permit political discussions. We're trying to keep this thread on the topic of monarchy, not to digress into a discussion about the relative merits of democracy and Marxism.

[KathyMoore]

What's the official procedure for a British king/queen to give up the throne?

Does he/she send some sort of abdication letter to the parliament, the prime minister, or the next in line?

Thanks!

[Avalon]

Though there were Monarchs in Britain, who were forced to abdicate or were removed from power, there is no provision in the British law for the sovereign to abdicate.
The Monarch, after ascending the Throne, must reign until death. They are not allowed to unilaterally abdicate. The only Monarch, who voluntarily abdicated was Edward VIII (in 1936). He did so with the authorisation of a special Act of Parliament, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936.
His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 was and Act of the British Parlament that allowed King Edward to abdicate the throne and passed the succession to Prince Albert, Duke of York (King George VI).
The Act was passed through the both Houses of Parlament in only one day, with no amendments. The Governments of the British Dominions (Australia, New Zeland, Union of South Africa and Canasa) gave their permission for the Act to apply in their realms (a requirement of the Statute of Westminster 1931); the only exception was the Irish Free State, to which the Act did not apply, and which instead passed the External Relations Act, which recognized Duke of York as King.
There were 2 reasons, that made the Act neccessary.
First of all, as I have said before, there is no provision in British Law for the sovereign to abdicate. The Act of Settlement (1701) ensured that the senior descendant of Electess Sophia of Hanover was sovereign in England. The Acto of Union (1707) confirmed this for Great Britain. This means that the senior descendant of Electress Sophia is the Sovereign, regardless of their wishes. If the Sovereign decides to abdicate, however, an Act of Parlament is required to give it a legal power.
Then, the Act ensure that the throne was passed to Prince Albert but ut did not exclude other descendats of the Electress Sophia from the line of succession. However any future descendants of Edward VIII would not have a claim to the British Throne.

[Queen Katherine]

Remember when Edward VIII abdicated and he gave that speech. I wasn't alive of course but the speech has been played numerous times. So that might be part of the procedure.

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by Queen Katherine

Remember when Edward VIII abdicated and he gave that speech. I wasn't alive of course but the speech has been played numerous times. So that might be part of the procedure.

No speech was necessary. It wasn't part of the procedure.

[Royal Fan]

Was that his own Idea , What happens when a Monarch Passes Away Like if (God Forbid) E II R Passed on lets say August 10th what would happen who would be notified first and things like that ect and when would Charles most likely come to the throne?? sorry im just so curious about all this especially since I Think itll be in my lifetime.