Either you set a good example or you don't. To say that is not to denigrate or sneer. A better, kinder, more pious and God-fearing person would have abdicated in 1967.
Not only is that an offensive remark about HM it fails to understand two things. Firstly had she abdicated in 1967 her son would have had to give his consent as a nineteen year old King Charles III. Secondly looking to use the Royal Veto - last used as we know to get her government out of a mess if their own making in 1708 by Queen Anne, and on his own, but wise, initiative in 1696 by her brother-in-law - to stop a piece of legislation we might deplore is to miss the point that it should have been defeated in its passage through the two Houses of Parliament, not using the Crown as a long stop. The fact that politicians and Bishops of the established Church failed to do so is much more worthy of investigation than a hypothetical use of a veto that was, I suspect, used rarely in an age of personal monarchy because monarchs had usually learned how to manage Parliament.
I am not sure what else she could have said. She could have abdicated for the day, as happened in another constitutional monarchy (Belgium?) But would that have been any better? It would have made no difference to the legislation. In the end, Her powers are limited to advising and warning. Do you think she had other options which would have secured a better outcome?
It’s my understanding that the last time a monarch vetoed a bill was in 1708, when Queen Anne withheld consent to the Scottish Militia Act 1708. James Francis Edward Stuart was known to be planning a landing in Scotland with a large French contingent and did attempt that, unsuccessfully, a couple of weeks after her veto.
Anne withheld consent on the advice of her ministers. Scholars differ on whether a monarch can veto without that being recommended by her or his ministers. Most seem to say no.
It was indeed that pious and devout Catholic monarch King Bauduin of Belgium who abdicated for a day, so as not to sully himself by signing Belgium's Abortion Act. He resumed the throne the next day. His memory is still revered in Belgium. May he rest in peace and rise in glory.
This post and the comments sent me into the constitutional undergrowth.
In Belgium, the relatively modern constitution allows Parliament to legislate without the monarch, if necessary. So abdication for the day was a watertight way for King Baudoin to dissociate himself from the legislation.
In the UK, if the monarch abdicated or lacked capacity, the Regency Acts would automatically ensure that the next in line to the throne would immediately assume the monarch's functions, including assenting to legislation.
So, without a procedure for temporary disablement of the Regency Act, there is no way for the monarch or their heirs to avoid giving their assent to legislation which has passed both Houses of Parliament.
I agree with Fr Hunwicke's sentiments about the 1967 Act, but I am more certain than I was before that The Queen had, in effect, no choice at all.
What's the general opinion on the Belgian traditional Catholic Eastern Front commander Leon Degrelle? Before WW2 ended,he made a daring successful escape from Allied and Soviet forces by flying from East Europe to Spain,almost being shot down several times. The next 4 decades,he stayed married,raised children,and never veered from his Catholic faith and spoke out against the new mass,communist subversion of the West,and attended the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass into his death.
I think it most unfair to lay blame with Her Majesty for something over which she has no control.
When a Bill has passed through all readings in both houses of Parliament the Royal Assent is given automatically. The Queen simply cannot withhold it.
I do not know about the situation in Belgium but I always thought Baudouin was fudging the issue by not being king for a day.
Another difference to remember is that Baudouin was Catholic. Elizabeth II is not so one would not expect her to have a Catholic view. Indeed, I do not think anyone knows The Queen's personal opinion on abortion.
I have often thought how fortunate the Houses of Austria, France, Stuart and so on really are, never to have had to put their names to certain things.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWould that he had instead said "La reine s'avisera" ; but methinks that might have raised certain constitutional issues!
Either you set a good example or you don't. To say that is not to denigrate or sneer.
ReplyDeleteA better, kinder, more pious and God-fearing person would have abdicated in 1967.
Not only is that an offensive remark about HM it fails to understand two things.
DeleteFirstly had she abdicated in 1967 her son would have had to give his consent as a nineteen year old King Charles III.
Secondly looking to use the Royal Veto - last used as we know to get her government out of a mess if their own making in 1708 by Queen Anne, and on his own, but wise, initiative in 1696 by her brother-in-law - to stop a piece of legislation we might deplore is to miss the point that it should have been defeated in its passage through the two Houses of Parliament, not using the Crown as a long stop. The fact that politicians and Bishops of the established Church failed to do so is much more worthy of investigation than a hypothetical use of a veto that was, I suspect, used rarely in an age of personal monarchy because monarchs had usually learned how to manage Parliament.
I am not sure what else she could have said. She could have abdicated for the day, as happened in another constitutional monarchy (Belgium?) But would that have been any better? It would have made no difference to the legislation. In the end, Her powers are limited to advising and warning. Do you think she had other options which would have secured a better outcome?
ReplyDeleteFor someone uninformed from across the pond, which bill is Father referring to?
ReplyDeleteNeither can I, Father. There's a prior duty to the King of kings.
ReplyDeleteIt’s my understanding that the last time a monarch vetoed a bill was in 1708, when Queen Anne withheld consent to the Scottish Militia Act 1708. James Francis Edward Stuart was known to be planning a landing in Scotland with a large French contingent and did attempt that, unsuccessfully, a couple of weeks after her veto.
ReplyDeleteAnne withheld consent on the advice of her ministers. Scholars differ on whether a monarch can veto without that being recommended by her or his ministers. Most seem to say no.
Abortion Act 1967
ReplyDeleteIt was indeed that pious and devout Catholic monarch King Bauduin of Belgium who abdicated for a day, so as not to sully himself by signing Belgium's Abortion Act. He resumed the throne the next day. His memory is still revered in Belgium. May he rest in peace and rise in glory.
ReplyDeleteThis post and the comments sent me into the constitutional undergrowth.
DeleteIn Belgium, the relatively modern constitution allows Parliament to legislate without the monarch, if necessary. So abdication for the day was a watertight way for King Baudoin to dissociate himself from the legislation.
In the UK, if the monarch abdicated or lacked capacity, the Regency Acts would automatically ensure that the next in line to the throne would immediately assume the monarch's functions, including assenting to legislation.
So, without a procedure for temporary disablement of the Regency Act, there is no way for the monarch or their heirs to avoid giving their assent to legislation which has passed both Houses of Parliament.
I agree with Fr Hunwicke's sentiments about the 1967 Act, but I am more certain than I was before that The Queen had, in effect, no choice at all.
What's the general opinion on the Belgian traditional Catholic Eastern Front commander Leon Degrelle? Before WW2 ended,he made a daring successful escape from Allied and Soviet forces by flying from East Europe to Spain,almost being shot down several times.
DeleteThe next 4 decades,he stayed married,raised children,and never veered from his Catholic faith and spoke out against the new mass,communist subversion of the West,and attended the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass into his death.
Interesting that by contrast, a Governor General can dismiss a Prime Minister without advice.
ReplyDeleteI think it most unfair to lay blame with Her Majesty for something over which she has no control.
ReplyDeleteWhen a Bill has passed through all readings in both houses of Parliament the Royal Assent is given automatically. The Queen simply cannot withhold it.
I do not know about the situation in Belgium but I always thought Baudouin was fudging the issue by not being king for a day.
Another difference to remember is that Baudouin was Catholic. Elizabeth II is not so one would not expect her to have a Catholic view. Indeed, I do not think anyone knows The Queen's personal opinion on abortion.