Is the future King an alcoholic? British injustices may eventually come home to roost as Brits, Australians and other Commonwealth nations realize the scale of abuses domestically, most especially the way the police operate as a form of Gestapo, to quash the reporting of crimes. The latest scandal being the award of KG to Tony Blair, having been accused of war crimes. It does not help that Prince Charles appears to be mixed up in a charity scandal and that prince Andrew is ducking and diving amid a sex scandal. With Harry and Megan absent, that leaves William and Kate, and although they do good works on the environmental front, it is alleged that they are unlikely to reform the UK, but rather carry on, business as usual.

Another bone of contention is Boris Johnson being caught lying about proroguing of parliament, leaving the system wide open, and demonstrably corrupt to the core, along with part time politicians who are actually working elsewhere on the time the taxpayer has paid for.

It is alleged that Council's in England have been allowed to ruin citizens lives with lies as to history and institutionalised discrimination, as malicious vendettas, with the Crown failing to address the injustices persistently, hence, being part of the system. Or, indeed, sanctioning a system based on cronyism - making great efforts to deny the people an effective remedy. The present governance is not climate friendly, and has shown it cannot provide an effective administration where those in England may not understand what is happening and the State is working to keep it's slaves in the dark.

Apart from the expense of supporting the Royals, there are many good reasons for replacing the present Constitutional Monarchy, headed by the 95 year old Queen Elizabeth II - as no longer fit for purpose.

Don't get us wrong, we kind of like Elizabeth II, what she has lived through, and how much she has seen during her time as the Queen - excepting the level of corruption from the honours and secret society systems that are held to be invasive and infectious.

But things will never be the same, and to our mind she should be the last to not fully understand her subjects and stand up for their rights under the Universal Declaration, such as to have created generations of financial slaves to a corrupt banking and planning system, and fail to act in the best interests of the people time and again, as with the Poll Tax, and present lack of low cost housing.

The Royals should perhaps be divorced from running of the country with an act to abolish the position as head of state. No more and no less. If possible, and assuming the present sex scandal can be sorted without permanent damage to Britain and British interests, the Royals should be recognised for the part they played historically, in bringing us into the age of circularity, the eve of sustainability - and retire gracefully to a modern democracy and their privately owned properties. There is no need for head lopping as with the violent abolition of the monarchy with Charles I in February 1649.

Though Oliver Cromwell had just cause, in pursuing reform during the Second Civil War.

The departure of Harry and Megan, and the success they have made of their lives. Serves as a model for other former royals, as in carving a career for themselves - against all odds. 

Monarchies have been an important part of human history. The kings and queens of the past are an integral part of the national identity for countries that have embraced this form of government. Being interested in a royal family is more than “pop culture.” It is a way to feel connected with other people, express patriotism, and take pride in who that person is and what they do.

The pomp and ceremony - and pride - has now worn very thin with Buckingham Palace, Balmoral and other royal property being associated with the sex trade, as in the scouting and trafficking of young girls during social gatherings, for illegal purposes by Ghislaine Maxwell for Jeffrey Epstein, to satisfy the lust of the former Duke of York, now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, that apparently and allegedly, was the subject of a cover up with the US media network ABC from as long ago as 2015 - implicating other royals.

All of this shows a marked lack of judgment on the part of the Queen, in allowing such a situation to develop, along with massive corruption in local authorities - unchecked since 1986 at least.

Just as in the US Supreme Court, British courts are an extension of royal will, controlled by the honours system - providing us with a trail of evidence of awards for covering up constitutional and human rights wrongs, two of the worst being the grant of a lifetime peerage to David Blunkett for legally castrating men, and a KG to Tony Blair, widely criticised for being a war criminal.

The existence and alleged misuse of the honours system gives us a very good reason to scrap it. According to Article 6 of the HRA 1998, European Convention and Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a person accused of a crime must enter a court innocent until proven guilty - and the court must be an impartial tribunal. Clearly, this is not the case in the UK with masonic (secret society) infiltration and influence and judges and police being in-effect bribed by awards given by the State. But not for justice, more for keeping quiet about injustices. Or, maintaining the statue quo - to keep the Monarchy looking good: as if their governance is working. When from the state of the nation, the electorate are clearly up shit creek without a paddle.

Crimes committed by a nation against it's own citizens are dealt with by the International Criminal Court, as per the Rome Statute. This is where the State concerned refuses to accept they are acting illegally. Nobody is above the law, including royalty by birth.

We need to give a paddle back to British voters. To enable them to navigate the present Shit Creek, the United Kingdom has got itself into - where leadership is lax, policies even worse, and the City of London works to launder drug money internationally, allegedly.

The primary disadvantage of a constitutional monarchy is that it requires individuals to be in a position of political power, even if that is not what they want to do. Monarchs gain their position by a rule of succession, so there is no guarantee that the next monarch will be fair, just, or interested in the position.

This has always been the problem with inheritance. Something not earned, but acquired by default is typically squandered - or the beneficiary becomes corrupted as they immerse themselves in the mire they inherit - and revel in the exploitation, rather than square up to it.

The Queen appoints the Prime Minister and all the other Ministers, summons parliament, and gives royal assent to the laws passed by parliament.

The Queen is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and formally makes the appointment to many senior positions, such as the judges. And that, linked to the honours system, is the rub. In effect giving the monarch absolute control. Only judges who tow the party line, get awards. Those who buck the system as they discover corruption, will not last long as judges. The same applies to Planning Inspectors.

They will not be rewarded for telling the truth.

The constitution may be a formal document, but it could also be an unwritten set of stipulations that must be followed. An unwritten constitution is a dangerous thing.

The goal of a monarch in a constitutional monarchy is to stay neutral. Their job isn’t to make the head of the government look great or look bad. The monarch gets out of the way of most political processes to focus on building up the reputation of the country instead. If that is the goal, the British system missed by a mile.

A constitutional monarchy can offer zero formal authority, like it does in Japan. It may also offer the monarch a substantial amount of discretion when governing, like it does in Morocco.

The one benefit of a constitutional monarchy is that it provides some level of governing continuity. Instead of relying on a peaceful transition of power between different political parties, there is stability in knowing who the next monarch will be when the current individual steps away from their governing power. Sadly, in England, knowing who is stepping up to the lectern - offers little comfort. And can never remove the stains of the past.

DRAWBACKS

1. No matter how limited or expansive the powers of a monarch may be because of a constitution, there is still another layer of government that must be consulted before decisions must be made. If the monarch disagrees with an idea, then it may mean taking the entire thing back to square one. Using the United States as an example, imagine the President being forced to consult with a monarch before being able to sign legislation into law. That is the reality of a constitutional monarchy.

2. Oppressive - In the past, a monarchy was usually built upon the backs of the working class. The monarch received the wealth and outcomes of labor, while the working class got by with just enough to survive – if they were lucky. A constitutional monarchy is still a throwback to this era, which means it is seen as an elitist family in a position of privileged success that they didn’t work to earn.

3. This form of government can be quite difficult to change.

Constitutional monarchies are often very difficult to evolve because of the complexity of its structure. Unwritten constitutions even create difficulties because the rules, though unwritten, have a tradition of being followed - being unwritten they are open to corruption. A court ruling one day can change the rules overnight, with a contradictory ruling changing the rules yet again. There is no consistency. Judges under the influence of the Crown via honours, simply cannot be allowed to re-write the rules on the whim of the Head of State, to suit. These are hidden agendas. There is no place for a hidden agenda in a modern democracy. The voter needs to know where they stand.

Changing the rules creates objections within the various layers of government that must be resolved before any internal change would become possible.

REFERENDUMS

Monarchies have survived through commanding the support of their governments, and their people. The most formal way of testing support for the monarchy is through a referendum. Since 1900 there have been 18 referendums on the monarchy in Europe. In Italy and Greece the result went against the monarchy; in Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway and Spain it went in favour.

A less formal test of popular support is through opinion polls, which regularly show that between 60 and 80 per cent of people wish to retain the monarchy. Support is highest in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK, at 70 to 80 per cent (before the rape allegations); and a little lower in Belgium, Spain and Sweden, at 60 to 65 per cent. Arguably the expectation to respond to intense media scrutiny is a form of continuous accountability.

The UK sovereign is head of state in fifteen Commonwealth states (the ‘realms’) in addition to the UK. It is likely that a number will review their constitutional status when Elizabeth II dies. This is a decision that the monarchy and successive British governments have made clear is entirely a matter for the countries themselves to determine.

Some former monarchies became republics a while ago – for example, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ghana, South Africa and the Gambia. Australia, Barbados and Jamaica have considered becoming republics. Some others have held unsuccessful referendums to change – Australia, Tuvalu, St Vincent and the Grenadines. Australia’s 1999 referendum was defeated by 45:55. The co-founder of the Australian Republican Movement, Malcolm Turnbull, was Prime Minister from 2015 to 2018. In 2016 he said the issue would be raised again after the Queen’s death; but republicans would need first to decide whether the new head of state should be directly elected by the people, or selected by parliament (divisions on this issue led to defeat in the 1999 referendum).

Fresh to the task, in better times. The Duke of Edinburgh was a loyal companion.

INCAPACITY - THE KING & QUEEN'S HEALTH, MORAL JUDGEMENT ABILITIES

At present, retirement could be attained only by resort to regency or abdication, both of which would require commensurate action in all fifteen of the Commonwealth realms where the Queen is head of state.

Under the Regency Acts 1937-53, this would become possible only where the Queen was judged ‘by reason of infirmity of mind or body incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions’. Prince Charles would then become Regent. (The same procedure would apply should he in turn be declared infirm and unable to act as Regent). The people who can make a declaration of incapacity are at least any three of the monarch’s consort, the Lord Chancellor, Speaker of the House of Commons, Lord Chief Justice, and Master of the Rolls. Any declaration of incapacity needs to be supported by medical evidence.

The present poor health of the Queen, is a point of contention. In practice there may develop an informal, ‘soft’ regency where other members of the ‘working’ royal family take on more of the Queen’s non-constitutional duties. The Queen undertakes fewer visits, and does less for charities of which she is patron.

The Regency Acts provide for delegation by the sovereign to Counsellors of State nominated from those next in line to the throne to act jointly for the monarch; but only during temporary absences abroad or a passing illness.

Delegation may not include power to assent to a dissolution of Parliament (and subsequent general election) without the express consent of the monarch. Nor may any ability to grant honours or peerages be delegated. The arrangements are not available to facilitate retirement, being triggered only by illness or absence abroad.

For the Queen, abdication may be unthinkable, for two reasons:

A. The first is the bad example of Edward VIII: his abdication brought the Queen’s father onto the throne, unexpectedly and most reluctantly. This was the result of a sex scandal, in having an affair with a 

B. The second is her declaration on her twenty-first birthday that she would serve for her whole life whether it be long or short. She is also said to regard her oath at her coronation as imposing a sacred duty to reign as long as she shall live. 

Many people are asking if the Queen at 96, is up to the job. Or, if she is just hanging in there because of the scandals that the Royals now have to deal with, political and sexual. The monarchy has become relatively dysfunctional, as many members of the family may no longer play an active role, and Prince Charles is already past 71, a time when other monarchs tend to pass the baton.

ABDICATION OF PRINCE CHARLES

After ruling for less than one year, Edward VIII becomes the first English monarch to voluntarily abdicate the throne. He chose to abdicate after the British government, public, and the Church of England condemned his decision to marry the American divorcée Wallis Warfield Simpson.

In 1936 this created a constitutional crisis in the British Empire arose when King-Emperor Edward VIII proposed to marry Wallis Simpson, an American socialite who was divorced from her first husband and was pursuing the divorce of her second. This event and the events unfolding concerning the Duke of York, underscores the frailty of the present system - and the harm it can inflict on the nation.

Under common law, Prince Charles will automatically become King the moment the Queen dies. Prince William could only become King if Prince Charles chose to abdicate. That would require legislation, as happened with the Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. The line of succession is regulated by parliament (as in the Act of Succession 1700, and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013); it can be changed only by parliament and cannot be unilaterally altered by the monarch of the day.

Having waited over 60 years as heir apparent, it would be natural for Prince Charles to want to assume the throne and perform the royal duties for which he has spent so long preparing - if he is mentally capable and impartial enough. But it would be equally natural if, after reigning for a few years as an increasingly elderly monarch, he chose to invite parliament to hand on the throne to Prince William.

WHAT ABOUT OTHER EUROPEAN MONARCHS?

In the Netherlands the last three Queens have abdicated when they reached the age of around 70, presumably as their mental and physical faculties declined. In Belgium, King Albert II abdicated in 2013, at the age of 79, handing on the throne to his son King Philippe (53). In Spain, King Juan Carlos abdicated in 2014, at the age of 76, to be succeeded by his son Felipe (46). Emperor Akihito of Japan (84) - where the issue was framed as facilitating retirement – abdicated under a new law in April 2019.

But the Scandinavian monarchies do not practise abdication. King Harald of Norway, who reached the age of 80 in 2017, said ‘I took an oath on the Norwegian constitution. For me, this oath applies to my entire life’. Similarly, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark (aged 78, and recently widowed) has said ‘I will remain on the throne until I fall off’. None of the Swedish Bernadotte monarchs has abdicated. (It is possible that the difference of practice between these monarchies and the rest may be related to the fact that all the Scandinavian monarchs have to be – as in the UK - members of the national Protestant church. There is no similar formal religious requirement and its implication that may be taken of life-long commitment in the other monarchies.)

Thus, these systems are based on a faith, that many people today do not share today. Another weakness in a democracy, where the choice of Head of State, is in reality Hobson's Choice: no choice at all.

OTHER SYSTEMS

In many constitutional monarchies, the individual in power often pulls a hefty income, sometimes with very little responsibility to earn their salary. Some monarchs are even exempt from paying taxes. In a 2003 report by The Telegraph, the Emperor of Japan spends more than $200 million in public money annually. This includes having four doctors on call at all times, 5 wardrobe attendants, and 11 people who help with Shinto rites.

10 DECEMBER 2021 - CHARITY WATCHDOG INVESTIGATION PRINCE CHARLES'S SCOTTISH VILLAGE - A charity watchdog has launched an investigation into financial transactions used to bail out the Prince of Wales’s struggling eco-village in Scotland. The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) is already examining fundraising practices at the Prince’s Foundation, following allegations that the Prince of Wales' closest former aide co-ordinated with "fixers" over honours nominations for a Saudi billionaire donor. Britain is held to be the most corrupt nation in the world, where it is alleged to be the drug money laundering capital.

NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE - Under the present system where the Head of State is a royal, and there is no written constitution, politicians like David Cameron and Boris Johnson can lie with impunity - even to Queen Elizabeth - and not face penalties. Police officers can shoot unarmed civilians and not be sent to prison, and planning officers can deceive the Secretaries of State and High Court judges, and not be prosecuted. In effect, it is alleged that there is little justice in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We aver that such machinations are costing the ordinary taxpayer, Treasury and the Crown (being the state) significant sums of money, while adding to the UK's carbon footprint. Hence, the country is not being run effectively by the at present; defective administration, not to serve its citizens, but to sustain and profit itself. Unlike the US Constitution of 1791 that exists to serve the people. The honours system does not help, rather undoing the idea of an award, where some recipients of awards are for not revealing the truth, denying appeals, etc. Rather, then doing anything heroic, creative or scientific.

LINKS & REFERENCE

https://issuecounsel.com/issue-report/australian-republic-vs-monarchy/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/queen-issued-brutal-republicanism-warning-as-fork-in-road-looms/ar-AAS9jYD

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/monarchy-church-and-state/british-monarchy-faqs

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/monarchy-church-and-state/british-monarchy-faqs

https://issuecounsel.com/issue-report/australian-republic-vs-monarchy/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/queen-issued-brutal-republicanism-warning-as-fork-in-road-looms/ar-AAS9jYD

Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site