what happens to parliament when the monarch dies?
829806
I understand that it goes into temporary recess out of respect, but only for a very few days, until the Proclamation of Accession takes place. \nThe Accession Council is a ceremonial body which assembles on the death of a monarch to proclaim his or her successor king or queen and to receive a religious oath from the new monarch.\nIt is made up of Privy Councillors, Members of the House of Lords, the Lord Mayor of London, the Aldermen of the City of London and the High Commissioners of some Commonwealth countries. The Council meets in St. James's Palace and makes a formal proclamation of the accession of a new monarch, and receives an oath from him or her to uphold the Church of Scotland. This proclamation, though traditional, has no legal force as the succession will have passed automatically to the new monarch under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701.\nThe Council's Proclamation of Accession, which confirms the name of the heir, is signed by all the attendant Privy Counsellors. The Proclamation is traditionally read out at several traditional locations in London, Edinburgh, Windsor, and York. It is also read at a central location in each town or village. The proclamation is usually worded:\n\nWhereas it hath pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy our late Sovereign Lord King/Lady Queen N (the #th) of Blessed and Glorious Memory by whose Decease the Crown is solely and rightfully come to the High and Mighty Prince/ss N: We, therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm, being here assisted with these of His/Her late Majesty's Privy Council, with representatives of other members of the Commonwealth, with other Principal Gentlemen of Quality, with the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of London, do now hereby with one voice and Consent of Tongue and Heart publish and proclaim that the High and Mighty Prince/ss N is now, by the Death of our late Sovereign of Happy Memory, become King/Queen N (the #th), by the Grace of God King/Queen of this Realm and of all His/Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to whom His/Her lieges do acknowledge all Faith and constant Obedience, with hearty and humble Affection; beseeching God, by whom Kings and Queens do reign, to bless the Royal Prince/ss N (the #th) with long and happy Years to reign over us. \n\nThe proclamation is not always worded consistently; for instance, on the accession of George VI, the proclamation had to be reworded because Edward VIII had abdicated, rather than died, and "Emperor of India" was added at the end of the list of titles until that title was relinquished by George VI.\n\nThe new Sovereign, who is traditionally present, takes an oath to preserve and defend the Church of Scotland. (Queen Elizabeth II was in Kenya when she acceeded to the throne, and the Accession Council therefore met twice, first for the proclamation and again so that the new Queen could take the oath.) The new Sovereign must also take an oath relating to the Church of England, but that is done in the presence of Parliament. This oath, known as the Accession Declaration, runs as follows:\n\nI, N, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments to secure the Protestant Succession to the Throne of my realm, uphold and maintain such enactments to the best of my power. \nThis oath, first taken by George V in 1910, is a moderated version of the oath which was taken by every monarch since William and Mary II in 1689 until Edward VII in 1901, and which, by the early 20th century, was deemed too overtly anti-Catholic:\n\nI, N, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that t
936786
That's an interesting question. Are you referring to Her Majesty's immediate family?\nThe list of successors to the throne is very long. (Too long to list them all here, in fact.) So, unless every person on the list died, someone would succeed Queen Elizabeth to the throne.\nIf all the successors somehow died, it would be tragic, to be sure. But the British government would continue to function, without missing a beat. This is because the royal family no longer wields any real political power.
407198
yes.  they don't need a monarch but they need a form of parliamentary government that will hold the prime minister (executive) more accountable to the legislature and provides for his dismissal.  the american model of an antagonistic presidency has only allowed it to grow into a criminal agency for the national elite and not a representative democracy.
837642
MAKE A LAW FOR MY CONTNUATION OF PRIME MINISTER FOR FUTURE ALSO
949146
Wait a minute... you mean there were 2 Lords?  Then who was the King?  What about the Queen?  Were there 2 Ladies?  Now I'm really confused?
771378
When Her Majesty enters the halls of Her Parliments, the Head of State arrives to address Her Government. \n\nWhen Her Majesty walks into a room the entire environment changes. Those who were once "anti-monarchy" are suddenly transformed to charmed admirers, and fall in love with HM.\n\nWhy? In Herself is the State, She is England. She represent history. She represents the present. She and Her heirs represent the future. It is awesome to find oneself in Her persence. \n\nYou may not agree with the need to have monarchy any longer. But once you meet The Queen, you may change your miind.\n\nLove live The Queen!
100459
It was King Charles I (Stuart). He was beheaded in 1649 and Thomas Cromwell then took over the reigns of government. The throne was restored to the Stuarts in 1659-1660 when Charles II took over. It was called the "Restoration" period. Tina
980295
commons is elected, lords isn't, but its inherited.\nlots of people are there.\nfor more infor, check out http://www.parliament.uk/
132103
The modern parliamentary system has its roots in the Roman Republic's senate, which was essentially a ruling council made up of the elite of society. Even after the Republic became the Roman Empire, the senate still had immense influence and power. However, as time went on, the autocratic nature of later emperors eventually reduced the senate's prestige and power, and ushered in centuries of relative autocratic rule by monarchs. Under feudalism in the Middle Ages, all members of a kingdom were technically under the protection of a ruling monarch (and the Church), who gave land to nobles in exchange for support. However, nobles would occasionally challenge the ruling monarch (as would the Church). Under the customs of Feudalism, groups of nobles would meet to decide on whether they would support the monarch on important issues. These groups sometimes clashed with the autocratic nature of some monarchs. The most important clash, in the evolution of the nation state and Constitutional rule of law, came with Magna Carta of 1215—it was the first true challenge to the unrestrained powers of a king, attempting to constitutionally limit King John after he committed a series of debacles. The kingdom of England had become too big, the groups of nobles believed, for any one man as crazy as John to make decisions. The statements made by Magna Carta were a direct challenge to the Divine Right of Kings, a philosophy held by convention at the time, and led to many civil wars, perhaps the most famous of which was the English Civil War.\n\nParliaments throughout Europe systematically replaced the powers of the monarch, often holding complete financial control of the state. In many cases the monarchs finally signed over all actual power, and became ceremonial figureheads. In others, the entire monarchy fell, and were replaced by the parliaments. As time went on, most states began to give suffrage to decide the makeup of the parliament, often with two houses. One was hereditary and made up of nobles, and the other made up of elected officials, for example the House of Lords and House of Commons in the United Kingdom. Initially, the house of the elite, or upper house, held most of the power, but most parliaments now invest almost complete power in the elected or lower house. Some parliaments have abolished the upper house completely, while others have altered them to be elected as well. The parliamentary system has come full circle from its ancient beginnings.\n\nThe executive is typically a cabinet, and headed by a prime minister who is considered the head of government, but parliamentarism has also been practised with privy councils. The prime minister and the ministers of the cabinet typically have their background in the parliament and may remain members thereof while serving in cabinet. The leader of the leading party, or group of parties, in the parliament is often appointed as the prime minister. In many countries, the cabinet, or single members thereof, can be removed by the parliament through a vote of no confidence. In addition, the executive can often dissolve the parliament and call extra-ordinary elections. Under the parliamentary system the roles of head of state and head of government are more or less separated. In most parliamentary systems, the head of state is primarily a ceremonial position, often a monarch or president, retaining duties that aren't politically divisive, such as appointments of civil service. In many parliamentary systems, the head of state may have reserve powers which are usable in a crisis. In most cases however, such powers are (either by convention or by constitutional rule) only exercised upon the advice and approval of the head of government.\n\nBecause the executive is directly related to the legislature, some argue the executive is actually more accountable than many fixed term presidential systems, as the executive, being linked to the legislative, can face an early election in the face
19942
In Great Briton the Head of State is the Queen.  The Head of Government is the Prime Minister.\n\nThe Head of State can be more of a ceremonial post while the Head of Governmentis the person in charge.  In some countries the Head of State and the Head of the Government are the same person.
784760
its a Constitutional monarchy\n\nthe queen owns it all and is the supreme power, but Parliament run and administer the country.\n\nthe powers she is suppose to have can't ever really be used, she's more of a big walking advertisement for the UK - but...she's the head of some parts of the army, all the navy and all the air force...so she could...in theory. do what the king of Thailand did a while back...if needs be.
594823
Prime Minister and a Parliament.
116439
I think the convention goes that it's passed to the Progeny, so Wills comes after Elizabeth and Charlie.  As for the Edward VIII question, there are a couple of ways that could've played out.  There's some guy in Australia who could've inherited the throne by now instead of Elizabeth.
704978
After the revolution in France the Government sat on the right hand side of the chamber from the front and the opposition on the left. This is the other way around in the British parliament.
1052123
I think first it depends if the monarchy will even be around when William assumes the throne.  As it has been mentioned, the Queen could live to be as old as her mother did, and that means we might have to wait a long time before William is King.  I do not see anything wrong with William giving his mother royal status again, that would be a nice way to honor her, especially since she will be the late King's mother and she should be afforded all the perks and pomp that goes along with it, even in death.
773780
The monarch is not susceptible to prosecution for offences either created by statute or of the common law, so no
958597
Kings and Queens of which country??\n\nIn the olden days in some countries even brothers or cousins would seek to wrest the throne from each other.\n\nMany years ago the passage of the Monarchy became more civilised, following normal Line of Succession. Since 1700/1701 the Line of Succession follows that set down in the Act of Settlement as recently revised.\n\n>Can Royalty be evicted into the streets and some one else rule?\n\nWell, not necessarily into the streets. Just check what actually happened in Russia about 1918.\n\nAnd it might be said that "William the Conqueror" (also known by less flattering names) did take the Throne of England by conquest and crowned himself as King.\n\nUsually, though, there is an orderly succession. This is good. It provides stability for the country. Unlike countries who have a new head of state every four or eight years.\n\nThe UK's Royal Family has been in the "business" for over 1,000 years.