Republic Monarchy

[Wokingham]

All this fun about the king and if we should have one, I thought today we had a federal UK could we not still have a king? With six or so first ministers?

 

[Bevan Price]

All this fun about the king and if we should have one, I thought today we had a federal UK could we not still have a king? With six or so first ministers?

Might work in theory, but almost certainly there would be a time when someone had an ego trip (or power grab) and wanted to become "top dog" and "downgrade" the status of the others.

 

[Wokingham]

Agreed my random question came how do we collect bins and blow up the world plus have a northern powerhouse

If can still afford have I should have bought a sports car

 

[Cloud Strife]

All this fun about the king and if we should have one, I thought today we had a federal UK could we not still have a king? With six or so first ministers?

With a federation, the King would still be the head of state, but he would be recognised as the King of Scotland, King of England, etc.

A proper federation would have a single Prime Minister, with each nation having their own First Minister.

 

[Noddy]

I don’t see how having a federal UK makes any difference to the monarchy at all (other than more state parliaments to open and legislation to sign off etc). The UK state would still exist and there would still be a central UK government in overall charge, just like there are central US/Canadian/Indian/Brazilian/every-other-federal-country governments. The King would still be King of the UK of GB and NI, just as the King is the King of Canada and not the King of Quebec or British Columbia, and President Biden is President of the US but not President of Virginia.

I don’t think anyone is proposing a confederation (apart from possibly a very small number of Scottish nationalists) which is what I think the OP is conflating a Federal UK with(?), and which would be different.

EDIT: the title of this thread could doing with being changed as I’m not sure what the Republic in the title has to do with the question!

 

[birchesgreen]

Agreed my random question came how do we collect bins and blow up the world plus have a northern powerhouse

If can still afford have I should have bought a sports car

Er what?

 

[Magdalia]

All this fun about the king and if we should have one, I thought today we had a federal UK could we not still have a king? With six or so first ministers?

Monarchies and republics are about how the Head of State is appointed.

Monarchies are hereditary. Republics appoint the Head of State in other ways: some are elected, directly or indirectly, others become Head of State by force. Some republics become de facto monarchies, and the clearest current example of this is North Korea.

Federation is about how the country is governed, centrally or regionally. Although the UK has some devolved government, it is not a federation, like for example the United States of America or Germany.

It would be possible to have a federation and a monarchy, but I can't think of any examples.

The monarchy isn't the main obstacle to the UK becoming a federation. But that's another topic.

 

[duncanp]

Monarchies and republics are about how the Head of State is appointed.

Monarchies are hereditary. Republics appoint the Head of State in other ways: some are elected, directly or indirectly, others become Head of State by force. Some republics become de facto monarchies, and the clearest current example of this is North Korea.

Federation is about how the country is governed, centrally or regionally. Although the UK has some devolved government, it is not a federation, like for example the United States of America or Germany.

It would be possible to have a federation and a monarchy, but I can't think of any examples.

The monarchy isn't the main obstacle to the UK becoming a federation. But that's another topic.

And not all republics have their president elected directly by the people.

Germany is one such example, where the president is elected by the Federal Convention, which comprises members of the Bundestag plus other electors chosen by the state parliaments.

 

[Magdalia]

And not all republics have their president elected directly by the people.

Germany is one such example, where the president is elected by the Federal Convention, which comprises members of the Bundestag plus other electors chosen by the state parliaments.

Indeed, I tried to cover that as an indirect election.

Strictly speaking the President of the United States of America is indirectly elected by an electoral college appointed by the States. It is possible for a candidate to win the "popular vote" but lose in the electoral college.

 

[duncanp]

Indeed, I tried to cover that as an indirect election.

Strictly speaking the President of the United States of America is indirectly elected by an electoral college appointed by the States. It is possible for a candidate to win the "popular vote" but lose in the electoral college.

As happened with Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The electors in the US electoral college are not even legally bound to vote for the candidate who won a particular state.

 

[PeterC]

Indeed, I tried to cover that as an indirect election.

Strictly speaking the President of the United States of America is indirectly elected by an electoral college appointed by the States. It is possible for a candidate to win the "popular vote" but lose in the electoral college.

Back in the days when you might have more than two serious contenders candidates didn't necessarily run in every state. In 1860, in a 4 way race Lincoln gained a majority in the electoral college despite not even running in 10 slave States.

 

[XAM2175]

With a federation, the King would still be the head of state, but he would be recognised as the King of Scotland, King of England, etc.

A proper federation would have a single Prime Minister, with each nation having their own First Minister.

I don’t see how having a federal UK makes any difference to the monarchy at all (other than more state parliaments to open and legislation to sign off etc). The UK state would still exist and there would still be a central UK government in overall charge, just like there are central US/Canadian/Indian/Brazilian/every-other-federal-country governments. The King would still be King of the UK of GB and NI, just as the King is the King of Canada and not the King of Quebec or British Columbia, and President Biden is President of the US but not President of Virginia.

I don’t think anyone is proposing a confederation (apart from possibly a very small number of Scottish nationalists) which is what I think the OP is conflating a Federal UK with(?), and which would be different.

Yes, as Noddy says, a federal arrangement for the UK in a similar style to that of Australia or Canada wouldn't affect the structure of the monarchy.

Scottish independence would, in theory, demerge the crowns and leave a Kingdom of Scotland on one hand and a Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland on the other.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Scottish independence would, in theory, demerge the crowns and leave a Kingdom of Scotland on one hand and a Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland on the other.

Yes, Charles would become King of Scots in his own right, just as he's recognised as the King of Canada and so on. There is an argument that this should already be the case.

 

[Fleetmaster]

I'm quite sure Charles is already King of Scotland in his own right. The Act of Union joined the two monarchies together, it didn't merge them (hence why the royals have different titles in Scotland).

 

[XAM2175]

Yes, Charles would become King of Scots in his own right, just as he's recognised as the King of Canada and so on. There is an argument that this should already be the case.

I'm quite sure Charles is already King of Scotland in his own right. The Act of Union joined the two monarchies together, it didn't merge them (hence why the royals have different titles in Scotland).

No, the crowns were merged to create the Kingdom of Great Britain, and later the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and later still the arrangement today. The monarch has one style for use throughout the UK; "by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, etc etc". No royals have special titles for use in Scotland - it's simply that many of them hold Scottish dukedoms and the like alongside English ones (for example, Prince William, as heir apparent, is automatically Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, and so on) and the more relevant one is used.

There are separate Royal arms and standards for use by the monarch in right of Scotland, but these - generalising enormously - are more to do with the continued existence of the Scots legal system. It could be argued that the British crown today has a distinct Scottish "personality", perhaps, but the separate crowns that had been held in personal union since the accession of James VI and I in 1603 were merged in 1707.

That said, Elizabeth II did allow use of the style "Queen of Scots" at the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1997.

 

[Fleetmaster]

But it stands to reason that if Scotland became independent tomorrow, Charlie can issue a proclamation that he is the rightful King of Scotland, this is my banner, these are the royal bagpipes, etc. The Scottish Parliament don't have to pass a new Act to say that yes, they recognize this new King of Scotland and they are restoring the Monarchy of Scotland to legitimize it. He just is, by right. They can pass an Act that dissolves the Monarchy of Scotland, passing the Powers In Crown in Scotland or whatever it is called to the presumably elected office that replaces it. Maybe if they're feeling cocky they can pass an Act that dissolves the Monarchy of UKGBNI to the extent that such a law can only affect the rights and privileges of the UKGBNI monarch in Scotland, just to ruffle some feathers.

 

[XAM2175]

But it stands to reason that if Scotland became independent tomorrow, Charlie can issue a proclamation that he is the rightful King of Scotland, this is my banner, these are the royal bagpipes, etc. The Scottish Parliament don't have to pass a new Act to say that yes, they recognize this new King of Scotland and they are restoring the Monarchy of Scotland to legitimize it. He just is, by right.

I suspect that it would be sorted out in very exacting detail as part of the parliamentary process for independence at Westminster. Given that legislation will be required to end the political union, it's absolutely certain that the process of demerging or otherwise dividing the crown will be considered at the same time.

 

[yorksrob]

And not all republics have their president elected directly by the people.

Germany is one such example, where the president is elected by the Federal Convention, which comprises members of the Bundestag plus other electors chosen by the state parliaments.

Perhaps the indirect election of the German president has echoes in the way the Emperors of the old Holy Roman Empire were elected by regional princes.

(Our own George I was the elector for Hannover).