Head of the Commonwealth

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Hopefully she's deed by then...and the Monarchy

This year would be nice. Preferably with the funeral on a Friday. I could spin out a nice long weekend with some flexi thrown in.

[Chapelhall chap]

I might be wrong but is the English monarchy ,after 1688 deposing of James V11 (11) by the English Parliament, not by invitation of parliament to William and Mary as joint monarchs? This means that the "Crown in Parliament" does not have to follow Hereditary lines as Parliament chooses the successor. If the commonwealth does the same it will be following English constitutional convention?  I cant quite remember what the scots parliament decided then but it is the Westminster Parliament which has sovereignty over this. Then again I might be correct but I don't really care

[Antlion]

3 hours ago, RedRob72 said:

Gawd love her, she’s some gal though eh! If her old ma is anything to go by she’s got at least another 10 years at the top in here!
Her Platinum Jubilee celebrations in 2022 should be something special. I do love a right Royal street party with all the bunting, Union Jack paper hats and napkins, etc....the full works!! It brings the community a real sense of togetherness don’t you think Pep?
I for one just cannae wait.

When have you ever actually seen one of these in Scotland? I remember on the last big royal occasion, the BBC could only locate one street party in Scotland, in Glasgow, and the defeated interviewer was told by the organiser that it wasn’t to celebrate the monarchy but to bring people together. Perhaps you hop across the Irish Sea - or better yet, to the Motherland down south - to bask in the aura that we mere mortals get to enjoy on days that our divinely-appointed betters share their bounty.

[The_Kincardine]

1 hour ago, Chapelhall chap said:

I might be wrong but is the English monarchy ,after 1688 deposing of James V11 (11) by the English Parliament, not by invitation of parliament to William and Mary as joint monarchs? This means that the "Crown in Parliament" does not have to follow Hereditary lines as Parliament chooses the successor. If the commonwealth does the same it will be following English constitutional convention?  I cant quite remember what the scots parliament decided then but it is the Westminster Parliament which has sovereignty over this. Then again I might be correct but I don't really care

You're confusing a few things.  The Act of Settlement of 1701 and the earlier Bill of Rights states that the head of state will be Protestant.  Parliament doesn't 'choose the successor' but the current constitutional settlement does maintain that The Crown is subservient to parliament.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

On a stake outside the Tower Of London would do.

[DrewDon]

11 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

needs to be someone who knows the institution inside out but maybe has free time on their hands now. Someone with a history of leadership.

 

10 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

Statesman, recently retired and born in the UK if Mugabe upsets the traditionalists.

The logical conclusion: 

#AnnounceSalmond

[Chapelhall chap]

3 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

You're confusing a few things.  The Act of Settlement of 1701 and the earlier Bill of Rights states that the head of state will be Protestant.  Parliament doesn't 'choose the successor' but the current constitutional settle does maintain that The Crown is subservient to parliament.

Thanks for your input. I think it still means in English constitutional convention/law that the Monarchy is indeed therefore not "hereditary" as Parliament can by pass any heritable successor should they so choose.  It gets back to the usual argument that English constitutional doctrines  continue after 1707 whilst Scottish ones disappear. I am easily confused being an Airdrie fan

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, Chapelhall chap said:

Thanks for your input. I think it still means in English constitutional convention/law that the Monarchy is indeed therefore not "hereditary" as Parliament can by pass any heritable successor should they so choose.  It gets back to the usual argument that English constitutional doctrines  continue after 1707 whilst Scottish ones disappear. I am easily confused being an Airdrie fan

Well it's Britain's constitution (rather than England's) and the essence of it is that 'what parliament wants parliament gets'.  As it stands the head of state is determined by being both hereditary and Protestant.  Not something I'd set out to design but, until we have another revolution, something we have to live with.

[Chapelhall chap]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

Well it's Britain's constitution (rather than England's) and the essence of it is that 'what parliament wants parliament gets'.  As it stands the head of state is determined by being both hereditary and Protestant.  Not something I'd set out to design but, until we have another revolution, something we have to live with.

When I was doing Politics at Uni in the 60s the prescribed book was Walter Bagehot 's "The English Constitution" from the late 19th Century ( a copy of which may be in my loft) and I think that pretty much sums up the situation.   But I do agree that your second point is correct in regard to Westminster always getting what it wants.

[The_Kincardine]

8 minutes ago, Chapelhall chap said:

When I was doing Politics at Uni in the 60s the prescribed book was Walter Bagehot 's "The English Constitution" from the late 19th Century ( a copy of which may be in my loft) and I think that pretty much sums up the situation.   But I do agree that your second point is correct in regard to Westminster always getting what it wants.

I think we all have a copy of both 'The Eng Const' and 'History of Western Philosophy' either in the downstairs' lavvy or our maw's loft.  Mandatory reading, no?  Bagehot is descriptive, partial and 'of his time'.  I'm pretty sure, though, that he'd agree with my take.

[Chapelhall chap]

I think we all have a copy of both 'The Eng Const' and 'History of Western Philosophy' either in the downstairs' lavvy or our maw's loft.  Mandatory reading, no?  Bagehot is descriptive, partial and 'of his time'.  I'm pretty sure, though, that he'd agree with my take.

He rarely uses the phrase British since England is supreme so he would agree with you but I think am a dissenter. I might have some philosophy books in the loft as well - no lavvy reading. Good to chat with you.

[The_Kincardine]

4 minutes ago, Chapelhall chap said:

He rarely uses the phrase British since England is supreme so he would agree with you but I think am a dissenter. I might have some philosophy books in the loft as well - no lavvy reading. Good to chat with you.

Likewise, bud.  We Chapelhall blokes always have something in common.

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, Chapelhall chap said:

Thanks for your input. I think it still means in English constitutional convention/law that the Monarchy is indeed therefore not "hereditary" as Parliament can by pass any heritable successor should they so choose.  It gets back to the usual argument that English constitutional doctrines  continue after 1707 whilst Scottish ones disappear. I am easily confused being an Airdrie fan

This is true. Marcus Merriman has traced the history of succession in both kingdoms prior to the establishment of a unitary state, and recognised that Scottish succession was predominantly according to heredity, whilst English succession involved parliamentary intervention. This goes back at least as far as Henry VIII nominating successors and seeking (and gaining) parliamentary assent. This would be the same Henry VIII who never ruled Scotland (despite declaring himself Lord Paramount), and whose powers are being invoked in the pursuit of Brexit. The “British” constitution is effectively the English constitution which incorporated Scotland and continued as was (the sitting, traditions, and operation of the English Parliament weren’t even interrupted when Scotland was added to the list of territories it ruled). 

[NotThePars]

This is true. Marcus Merriman has traced the history of succession in both kingdoms prior to the establishment of a unitary state, and recognised that Scottish succession was predominantly according to heredity, whilst English succession involved parliamentary intervention. This goes back at least as far as Henry VIII nominating successors and seeking (and gaining) parliamentary assent. This would be the same Henry VIII who never ruled Scotland (despite declaring himself Lord Paramount), and whose powers are being invoked in the pursuit of Brexit. The “British” constitution is effectively the English constitution which incorporated Scotland and continued as was (the sitting, traditions, and operation of the English Parliament weren’t even interrupted when Scotland was added to the list of territories it ruled). 

I mean if we were serious about Scottish independence we’d be inviting Franz Wittelbach and placing him on the Scottish throne thus undoing the tragedies of 1688, 1715 and 1745.

[Antlion]

7 hours ago, NotThePars said:

 

I mean if we were serious about Scottish independence we’d be inviting Franz Wittelbach and placing him on the Scottish throne thus undoing the tragedies of 1688, 1715 and 1745.

 

And then deposing and/or stabbing him to death, as was the style at the time.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

Give the gig to one of the colonials.

Paul Hogan or Justin Bieber would be my choice. Maybe even both of them.

 

[RedRob72]

When have you ever actually seen one of these in Scotland? I remember on the last big royal occasion, the BBC could only locate one street party in Scotland, in Glasgow, and the defeated interviewer was told by the organiser that it wasn’t to celebrate the monarchy but to bring people together. Perhaps you hop across the Irish Sea - or better yet, to the Motherland down south - to bask in the aura that we mere mortals get to enjoy on days that our divinely-appointed betters share their bounty.

Mon lighten up, it was a little tongue in cheek exchange with Pep!
Admittedly, I was recalling childhood memories from visiting family & Friends in Belfast but I can also remember the Queen visiting Glasgow on her Silver Jubilee to a huge rapturous welcome in 1977.
I’m not sure if the whole ‘street party’ thing hasn’t been consigned to the last century right across the UK.

[Ross.]

1 hour ago, RedRob72 said:

Mon lighten up, it was a little tongue in cheek exchange with Pep!
Admittedly, I was recalling childhood memories from visiting family & Friends in Belfast but I can also remember the Queen visiting Glasgow on her Silver Jubilee to a huge rapturous welcome in 1977.
I’m not sure if the whole ‘street party’ thing hasn’t been consigned to the last century right across the UK.

I recall them trying to throw a party in Kelvingrove Park for the last Royal Wedding. Tremendous viewing from my flat at the time.

[bob the tank]

Harry Hewitt and Miggy can draw a crowd, why not them.....

[Colkitto]

33 minutes ago, bob the tank said:

Harry Hewitt and Miggy can draw a crowd, why not them.....

As the STV News headline says..it's "Meghan mania" there. 

 

You can just make her out, she has a tartan coat on