If he can withhold assent then he is somewhat responsible for the result. What would happen if he tried?
Realistically it will just be passed anyway one way or the other. e.g. the UK will become a republic, or they will bypass the monarch like they did in Belgium when the king refused to sign the abortion law (parliament declared the king "incapacitated" in which case the PM could sign things in to law, and a few hours later they declared him "capable" again – whether this really was keeping with the spirit or even text of the law is dubious, it's not in my reading, but no one really cared; the only reason Belgium still has a monarchy is because the king didn't object to this hack).
edit: for the ignorant (hello downvoters), this is a true statement.
the last King of England was William III (who died in 1702)
the Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707 with the Act of Union when it merged with the with the Kingdom of Scotland to become the Kingdom of Great Britain
The parent comment said "England's king", not "The King of England"
with brexit [1].
Royal assent is a hangover from the settlement of the English civil war. It exists as a backstop to allow the monarch to safeguard their rights and privileges from encroachment by parliament. It does not exist to prevent bad laws. The way to prevent bad laws is to not elect bad governments.
[1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/decision-of-the-supreme...
That's an option? I, from the land of lesser evils, am jealous.
In the US you have the second amendment to protect you against the state, but in the UK we have the Monarch. In theory the Monarch could tell the government to get lost, but their ability to do that in practise would depend on whether the police and military would side with them.
If Charles withheld consent for this he would probably be overruled in one way or another, but if it was about entering an unpopular war you could see how his consent would become much more important.
Technically the military in Canada swear allegiance to the monarchy in Canada.
The monarchy of Canada is legally completely distinct from the one in the UK. Or Australia. Or New Zealand. Or any other of HRHs realms and dominions.
It’s just that they all share the same monarch and the rules of succession.
It’s actually theoretically possible for Charles to abdicate the throne in the UK but still remain the King of Canada. Which would be utterly ridiculous and it’s not going to happen, but theoretically it could.
In any case it's a distinction that leads to the same guy.
they're not, they're different sovereign entities that have the same office holder and follow the same rules of succession (from the Act of Settlement)
in the same way a single person can be a director of multiple different companies
>y're different sovereign entities that have the same office holder and follow the same rules of succession (from the Act of Settlement)
Brother he lives in the same place cause he's the same guy. He's in the UK.
this "argument" makes no sense whatsoever
No, its technically a separate monarchy that happens to have the same current monarch and current rules of succession.
A monarchy is an abstract system instantiated within the country to which it applies.
The monarchy of Canada does not reside in the UK .. perhaps you're thinking of the current appointed monarch.
> The monarchy of Canada is the monarchy in the UK.
is false.
As it so happens for the moment.
It's not a bound requirement that such be the case .. as any true student of the history of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, England, and the Union would well be aware of.
HRMs [edit: just HMs] realms and dominions, actually.
Especially after Brexit the British people have learned the lesson of fucking around for years when it comes to any change, this will happen with lightning speed and determination.
He would probably be either asked to abdicate, or it would be the end of the British monarchy altogether.
It would cause a massive constitutional crisis in the UK where not only the monarchy would be called in question, but also the nobility (i.e. House of Lords)
Charles can withhold consent in the same sense as he can shoot himself in the face.
Philip had his fair share of completely out of touch gaffes, but even he wasn’t so stupid as to believe it wouldn’t ruin everything for him to exercise their “power”.
Just because he’s selfish and doesn’t want to jeopardize the things his position brings him, doesn’t me he bears no responsibility or culpability.
Maybe refusing royal assent wouldn’t change anything (it likely wouldn’t), he still assents and the law goes forward with his name on it.
There's case law on this matter actually, coming from the trial of King Charles I.
> The court challenged the doctrine of sovereign immunity and proposed that "the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern 'by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise'."
So no, granting the Royal Assent doesn't happen in the name of King Charles III.
History can figure out who held the office when. Maybe we can’t sue either of them personally for those actions (which is what sovereign immunity relates to), but history can sure as shit remember which King took which actions. You think we don’t remember which George lost the American colonies, because it was the Office that lost the colonies?
essentially whether or not he'd be on the side of whoever won the next election (that would be swiftly triggered)
if the same government was re-elected he'd be made to abdicate
otherwise he'd be ok
No. The only reason why the British monarchy still exists is because they are completely apolitical.
If that changed, it would very quickly become a bipartisan issue to end the monarchy, irrespective of which side he’d support.
a very similar scenario played out this way in another commonwealth realm in 1975
the monarchy endures