Question:

Is it true that the British parliament has the right to choose the monarch if it so wishes?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

Is it true that the British parliament has the right to choose the monarch if it so wishes?

 Tags:

   Report
Answer The Question I've Same Question Too

19 ANSWERS

Sort By: Date  |  Rating

  1. No, because royal assent would need to be given to such an act.

    When Edward VIII was determined to marry Wallis Simpson, his ministers advised him against it.  Had the King done so against his ministers' advice, they would have resigned and prompted a constitutional crisis.

    Edward VIII signed the instrument of abdication, but was still King until Parliament passed enabling legislation declaring a "demise of the Crown" in favor of his brother, the then-Duke of York.  Once Edward gave royal assent to Parliament's legislation, he ceased to be King.

    What do we learn from this?  Neither Parliament nor the monarch can unilaterally remove the monarch.  They must act in concert to make it happen.


  2. The monarch is chosen by right of succession. No commoner can change that. Neither can the House of Lords. Instead, the ruling monarch can exercise a veto over laws passed by Parliament. But this would create a crisis in Parliament and would be tantamount to a no-confidence in the government of the day and by implication a motion of no-trust in the electorate.

    Thus, it is not done although it can be done.

    Indeed Parliament retains the power to get the ruling monarch to accede to Parliament's wishes. An uneasy peace reigns between Parliament and the Monarchy with both exercising extreme caution not to transgress on the rights, privileges and power of the other.

  3. The line of succession to the British Throne is an ordered list of the people in line to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom. The succession is regulated by the Act of Settlement 1701, which limits it to the heirs of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, as determined by male-preference primogeniture, religion, and legitimate birth:

    A person is always immediately followed in the succession by his or her own legitimate descendants (his or her 'line'). Birth order and gender matter: older sons (and their lines) come before younger sons (and theirs); a person's sons (and their lines), irrespective of age, all come before his or her daughters (and their lines).

    Anyone who is Roman Catholic, becomes Roman Catholic, or marries a Roman Catholic is permanently excluded from the succession; this provision removing "papists" from the succession has never been tested.

    A person born to parents who are not married to each other at the time of birth is not included in the line of succession. The subsequent marriage of the parents does not alter this.

    Act of Settlement 1701 was established by the British Parliament signed by the monarch, since Kings/Queen cannot pass laws. In order to overule a law, the British parliament must pass another Act in order to make it legitimate. As of now, the British Parliament does not have any right to "elect" a monarch, however, they could always change the law in the future.

  4. Forget the so called 'constitutional' arguments (and England does not have a written constitution, does it?) because in effect parliament has done it before. In terms of succession, James II was the legitimate King back in the 17th century. It was the folks in the two houses of parliament who didn't like his catholic (and religiously liberal) ways, so they replaced him with the Dutch William of Orange.

    Then of course there were the 2 English Civil Wars, resulting in the execution of Charles I and the creation of the republic or commonwealth. Ah, those were the days!

  5. No, it isn't. It's that simple.

  6. No, but there has been talk in the past from time to time about bypassing the natural successor for the next in line.  This happened when Edward VIII abdicated.  Queen Elizabeth's father, who became George VI, was looked upon as not strong enough to become King.  They wanted to bypass him and go for the next in line, the Duke of Kent, but he was a bisexual drug addict so that was never seriously pursued.  There is no way  that would ever be allowed to happen.  It always has to go to the natural successor, unless of course they do not accept the throne.

  7. Completely untrue.  Parliament can only advise the monarchy on what is constitutional and what is not!

  8. no they do not

  9. Yes. We have a constitutional momarchy and in theory Parliament has the power to decide who will be the Head of State.   Act of Settlement 1701 was the last time this power was used but it could be used again.

  10. no

  11. no one elects a king

  12. No, it isn't true! Monarchy is not elected!

  13. In a purely technical sense, they could.  Right now, succession to the throne is automatically given to the next person in line in accordance with several British laws.  However, the laws regarding succession could conceivably be amended by Parliament to change who is eligible.  They could theoretically amend the law to allow equal status to women (as has been suggested from time to time), or to eliminate the ban on Catholics, or even to remove dippy guys named Charles.

  14. since it was the parliaments of these islands that invited William II and Mary II to be joint monarchs it has been parliament which has regulated who is the monarch

    it is not a case of electing the monarch but it is fact that parliament has made laws which decide who is the head of state

    when Edward VIII wanted to abdicate it was actually an act of parliament which made this happen

    otherwise he would have remained king

    in the same way it would be parliament who would have to decide if (for example The Prince Charles did not want to be king following the death of The Queen)

  15. No.  If anything, it's the other way round.  The Prime Minister has to ask the Monarch for permission to form a new government every time there is an election (as well as permission to dissolve the old parliament).

    It would be so much more fun if The Queen actually wielded her constitutional power a bit more.

  16. Since when does a democratically elected body have the right to choose a head of state who is in the post by birthright alone? Wouldn't that be a big step towards Britain becoming a Republic, and thus becoming a mature country where the general populace are treated as equals rather than 'subjects'?

  17. No. But the monarch does have the right to dissolve Parliament.

  18. Actually, they do.

    The British monarchs have very little power, and serve more as a figurehead.

    But they can only chose a new monarch at times deemed 'absolutely nessesary'.

  19. no,,,we have no choice in the matter..
You're reading: Is it true that the British parliament has the right to choose the monarch if it so wishes?

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 19 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.
Register Now