Question; could an atheist and a christian be married?

Very true June. If any of the constitutional monarchies in the Commonwealth decide to become republics (by changing the constitution, which happens by referendum) the Queen (or her representative) is gone as the official head of state. So, in practice she remains the head of state by the will of the people not by divine right.

 

Plenty of (tax payers') cash though!

 

Thanks for explaining correctly the method set out for removing the monarchy should Britains wish to do so. I think it was a little different the last time they did it, wasn't it?

 

That would be an overthrow of the government, a coup, a revolution, and an establishment of a new nation. I agree that can happen. It did in 1776.

But until then, the British crown is head of state by divine right.

 

You have completely lost me here Henry. Unless you are saying that is how you feel rather than the actual legal situation, I can't follow your thinking.

 

The House of Commons has its authority by virtue of contract from the crown. Implicite in that contract is that the House of Commons cannot remove the crown from its position of authority. Because that House's authority arose from an agreement with the crown to convey it, to abolish the crown would cut off its authority to have done so. Therefore, to do so would be a breach of contract, null and void. So to persist in breaching the contract with the crown, removing the crown, would be an act of revolution, overthrowing the authority of the crown and establishing a new source of authority for a then new nation.

As I said, that is precisely what occurred in 1776, the source of authority for America is spelled out in the revolutionary document we call the Declaration of Independence. I will leave that there for now for you to digest. It does take some thought for sure.

 

Said another way, the House of Commons has no authority the crown did not have first, by virtue of divine right, and which it agreed to convey to it. That authority to the House came from the crown, but does not include the authority to overthrow the crown. Interestingly enough though, for both Great Britain and the United States of America, all sovereign authority originates with God, the difference being that in the US, authority first flows through the people on the way to the government. In Great Britain, tha authority flows from God, through the crown, to the government and then to the people. The House of Commons agrees to allow the people to vote its members. The House could change that, but at risk of overthrow by the people, a revolution, which would also be a revolution against the crown, which if successful would establish a new and different flow of authority. Again, that is what happened in 1776.

 

Hank,

I think we may all be talking at cross (or a little bit wonky) purposes here. The US is no longer part of the Commonwealth. Nation States which remain in the Commonwealth (e.g. those about to participate in the Commonwealth Games in India, those which haven't pulled out that is...) all have varying Constitutions. But, for those which remain Constitutional Monarchies they have a Governor General, who is the Queen's representative in that country. They are not elected by the people (the US is quite different, with many government positions directly elected by the people) but appointed by the Government. Their role, generally, is ceremonial, reflecting both their own reprenstative role (of the Queen) and the Queen's own largely ceremonial role.

Sooooo, in those Commonwealth countries, removing the Queen/becoming a Republic, would not need to occur as an overthrow of Government. It would be formally put to the people as a referendum. A referendum is not a 'popular vote' as such, it is purely about changing the Constitution. And it is hard to do (rules of same). So, there's be no revolution in the traditional sense of the word.

So. the point here is that the US model and history is actually quite different to that of the Commonwealth nations. So, we need to be clear which Nation State we're talking about.

 

No cross purposes here. You are right that the political bands which connected the American British Colonies to the Crown of Britain were severed on July 4, 1776. That is no question at all. So the Crown of Britain, by revolution, is no longer the source of authority of the new nation of the US. No Cross purposes. However, the British Crown is the sovereign, under God, for the nation of Great Britain. Her title, conferred at her coronation, in full view of the British people including both houses of parliament, and in full view of the entire world, states that clearly.

 

The Queen gets to be queen because the people let her. When sentiment changes and they don't want a monarch as head of state, they will change that. Laws made by the parliament over the years have changed succession. When they want the role of the monarch to end it will. When they don't want to support the royals, they won't. The Queen is now for all intents and purposes a hired hand not a ruler.

 

And quite frankly the British people are not completely sold on that, well, nutter Prince Charles. If the Queen passes the crown to Prince William they're cool with it, but not if it goes to Prince Charles. Which it's meant to. So, people appear to want the Queen to act as a person, in selecting another person, rather than God's will.

But look, the Brits are so bonkers do we really want to use them as an example? I mean, Prince Charles talks to plants. Uses homeopathy. Bangs on about modern architecture. Wants to be his wife's tampon. Not Quite Right In The Head.

 

June,

Perhaps for practical purposes, you are correct. Whoever has the power can do what he or she wants. But there is a difference between power and authority. Although backed by the masses in revolt against the crown, the House of Commons could move to remove the crown from the British chain of command. But that would be without authority. That is because the authority for the House of Commons came to it by contract with the crown.so to use power to unseat one's own source of authority would be to lose one's authority to do so. The unauthoritative use of the power of government is the definition of despotism. Therefore, removing the crown, with no authority to do so, would be an act of despotism. The House of Commons does not own the authority necessary to unseat the British crown.

 

Believe it or not, the rest of the world thinks the same of Americans. Especially of the right-wing, ultra-religious, Fox News watching, gun totting, hillbilly, ultra-religious, Americans.....(aka Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, etc.)

 

Just for the record, I like the Brits and I wish people wouldn't use hillbilly in a pejorative way, being from the hills and hollers myself.

 

One of my friends call me a yanka-billy.. since I'm from Northern Ohio but moved to TN 15 yrs ago.. I'm not offended, ya'll have a great day, bless your hearts.

Perses, please do not put us all in the same catagory as .....Imnoscientist.. he's not a nice person, he has problems playing nice. As an American and a proud one, I feel the need to apologize for him because he doesn't know better. We Yanka-billys have names for people like that, but I'm now to Southern to be so rude...

 

No problem Carolyn! I live in Toronto, anada and travel frequently to your great country, especially the southeastern states! I can wholeheartedly say that I have not experienced warmth and hospitality from people the way I do when I am in these states...and trust me, I have travelled extensively throughout my own country and the rest of the world. Some of the places I have travelled to in the Southeast USA are:

Miami, Florida
Clearwater, Florida
Tampa, Florida
Mobile, Alabama
Houston Texas,
Atlanta, Georgia
South Carolina


Have exceptional times at all places!

I guess what I was saying to Imnoscientist is that, just as he lumped all Britons into one description, there are ignorant people out there that do the same for Americans. Both are wrong!

Cheers!!! (as the British would say!)

 

You're right there sure are ignorant people.
Later (as a Yankee would say)
Come and sit a spell when you're in town (as a Southern would say) Interested in where my next move will take me..ha

 

LOL.

I find myself defending the US a lot in Sydney. I think a lot of people who haven't been there think it's the way the TV shows portray it: crazy cities with people blowing each other's heads off with guns and mediocre freaks on shows like Jerry Springer. One of the best trips I went on was just me and my GF just driving across the midwest for weeks in a camper van. Fond memories too of camping down the East coast, especially around Cape Cod and New England.

 

Not true Carolyn. He's just frustrated with trying to explain a few simple points elsewhere. He's a very good person.

 

Hey,

I love the Brits too, that's why I can make a joke about them and they, with their great sense of humour will get it. I also happen to hold British citizenship (some of by best parents are British) and have lived there. Loved everything except the weather (one week of summer is just not enough).

I also love the US. For all its flaws it remains one of the greatest countries on earth. The committment to the freedoms of democracy - including the right to free speech - are worth fighting for. Even on places like this forum.