A Royal Prerogative - A UK AAR

[stnylan]

All in all that seems a fairy solid foundation on which to build a constitutional relationship. Leastways no immediate disasters!

Which, let's face, is probably the most important thing Britain needs right now. No disasters, especially not in India .... oh ....

 

[Historywhiz]

“We have received a request from the Yugoslavians. They apparently want to purchase military aircraft from the leading powers. I was wondering if Your Majesty would consent to offer a royal element. Perhaps, ah, one of your brothers, as a host for the visit.”

“Georgie,” the King said instinctively. “Georgie and Marina could do it. Perhaps a dinner or reception?”

“I think so, Sir. Kingsley Wood and Swinton will arrange, with their ministries, the rest.”

The obvious choice: Prince George is the pilot of the family and Marina is the sister-in-law of Prince-Regent Paul. I rather suspect Eden already was planning for them and just wanted to see if the new King was sharp enough to pick up the lead.

As for the update as a whole: it’s interesting. I get the sense that people want the government to go back to the way it was before and the monarchy to be knocked down a few pegs, and Eden is calmly trying to bumble into making his end of the equation happen while King George VI is pulling every trick that he can think of to stop it. OTL is significantly clouding my perception of both men, but my money is on the King.

 

[Historywhiz]

Elizabeth probably got lucky getting a somewhat lucid Churchill rather than off his meds Eden.

I’m not so sure. If meeting Churchill was a traumatic experience for the Almighty, I can only imagine how it had to be for the Queen.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

OTL is significantly clouding my perception of both men, but my money is on the King.

vs the old establishment of the TOry party with a majority in parliament? Not going to happen. It would require a strong monarch and PM, who agreed with each other, to even try at this point. And given what just happened, collusion between the two offices is going to come off as filth.

No, no. The Crown is going down, just a bit.

 

[Historywhiz]

vs the old establishment of the TOry party with a majority in parliament? Not going to happen. It would require a strong monarch and PM, who agreed with each other, to even try at this point. And given what just happened, collusion between the two offices is going to come off as filth.

No, no. The Crown is going down, just a bit.

Yeah you’re probably right.

 

[Bullfilter]

Why on Earth Schuschnigg would want to restore the Hapsburgs is beyond me. Perhaps, ah, to signal his distance from Herr Hitler.

This HOI4 butting in again or did they actually float this? Impossible to tell given Austrian history...

My question too.

the Austrians really did (not seriously) talk about the Hapsburgs (but don’t worry, HOI4 has a mad focus tree if you want to try restoring them!)

Mainly answered in the notes. It seems this was a contemporaneous narrative reference rather than from the game. Though one can always ‘hope’ such madness may still arise in-game

Prime Minister Blum in Paris has assured me that he will not receive, ah, er, Lord Sunningdale.

“Quite right too,” the Queen said fervently.

And so say all of us. I still think he may gravitate to Berlin at some point. Like a fly to shite!

"We shall do what we can," Eden said, an air of resignation creeping in.

I think he is likely pessimist and realist in equal parts on the situation ahead.

You may be disappointed in this AAR...

Never, my friend!

 

[Director]

Hey guys, remember AUSTRIA? Remember from before the Ottomans were the sick man of Europe?

The Ottomans were the sickest man of Europe, Austria-Hungary was only one rung up the ladder. Spain, of course, was one rung up from that - so they are now the sickest man of Europe, I suppose.

If meeting Churchill was a traumatic experience for the Almighty, I can only imagine how it had to be for the Queen.

If meeting Churchill was traumatic for the Almighty, we will never hear about it - for Churchill would write the account of the incident.

Should the Almighty request a bit of advice, or need someone to take over the running of the establishment for a bit, I am sure the former PM could be prevailed upon to accept.


It is good to see a bit of order restored.

 

[Bullfilter]

Should the Almighty request a bit of advice, or need someone to take over the running of the establishment for a bit, I am sure the former PM could be prevailed upon to accept.

So long as he doesn’t arrange an amphibious landing on the sixth circle of Hades - using Dominion troops - then ok.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

If meeting Churchill was traumatic for the Almighty, we will never hear about it

Especially considering he probably went to the other place.

 

[El Pip]

I found that all quite reassuring, as has been said the foundations of a solid relationship have been laid and I think there is a reasonable path out of this that Parliament and the King will find acceptable.

Key I think is the fact that the George VI probably doesn't actually want some of the theoretical powers the monarchy has, if the form is maintained but stripped of substance then both sides can be happy. A return to the pre-abdication status quo but with it made a bit clearer which bits are actually a formality is where I see things landing, all the various special bits to deal with Eddie, future regencies and other such matters being where the real fight will be.

Don't bet on it; I think that reform of the senior civil service has to feature

It is probably a damning indictment of my interests, but I am looking forward to this bit.

Eden, if he was honest, didn’t care if Monckton joined the International Brigade and fought for the Spanish Republic

I would love to read this spin-off. Monckton in Spain where, through a series of shenanigans, the conflict has ended up as a contrived court case.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

It is probably a damning indictment of my interests, but I am looking forward to this bit.

As the two loudest (and therefore, most important) readers, Pip and I will of course be demanding our full ten chapters each on the reform of the civil service, and the crown establishment acts.

 

[Director]

But on the other hand, given that the full awfulness of the crisis was averted with only some unseemly vomiting and mistress-wagging, is any reform really necessary? After all, here in the States we kill a hundred people a day with handguns, but no-one goes so far as to change anything.

(My favorite light-bulb joke, told about Mobile, Alabama: How many Mobilians does it take to change a light-bulb? Change? Why ever would we do that?)

And, having gone for an extended flop in the pig-pen, how much appetite (urk) will there be for a public debate if the King, Queen and Queen Mother decide to, um, leak their thoughts to sympathetic newspapers and the like? George VI may or may not want the controversy, but his wife and mother do have iron in the spine and the legacy to be handed to the daughter(s) firmly fixed in their targeting reticule.

Indeed, if the Queen Mother had been permitted to take over after her husband's death we might find civil service reform going in the other direction.


Civil-service reform, indeed... printed in Paris on postcards, no doubt, or carved in Latin on the stones of Pompeii. If you must dwell on reform of the civil service, have the grace to do so with taste, decorum and discretion... which means not at all... and for those as prefer such mind-rotting filth, I recommend the US Congressional Record, volumes 1 to Infinity, with annotations, addenda, amendations and (for the truly perverse) footnotes. Not that I would know anything about that, of course... I believe I am liberal in my friendships, forgiving in my nature and as laissez-faire about other people's relationships as anyone can be - but I do draw the line at reform.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

But on the other hand, given that the full awfulness of the crisis was averted with only some unseemly vomiting and mistress-wagging, is any reform really necessary? After all, here in the States we kill a hundred people a day with handguns, but no-one goes so far as to change anything.

Unlike your...interesting system, the party has a majority in parliament and an electoral mandate to change things up. That is, they have the power to change whatever they like about the Crown, and they have sort of promised they were going to do something.

Given the alternative is to do nothing and risk labour later on doing it instead...and really booting the Royal Prerogative out of the monarchs hands, no...the party will be changing things up. They want it, the cabinet wants it, the public wants it, and the monarchy NEEDS it if it wants to survive.

 

[Director]

@TheButterflyComposer - our 'interesting' system came about as a direct consequence of our experience with your 'interesting' system.

I do think there will be some strong sentiment, especially from the Old Tories, to simply leave things as they are - but I do agree that, if you are going to reform, now is the time.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

our 'interesting' system came about as a direct consequence of our experience with your 'interesting' system.

Indeed. Receiving American legal history, its fascinating watching a setup that was designed so that you couldn't get a parliamentary dictatorship (I.e. a party with a majority can change any law easily, which is the case in the UK), and have it warp into something that 'technically' isn't that but with the federal government having some absurdly broken powers anyway, on the grounds of 'national security'.

But yes, I certainly think with the parliament that they have right now, the government are going to have to change something about the Crown and their role, if only to make sure this can never happen again (most of parliament, regardless of party, will vote for that one).

PM office being a gift of the sovereign has to go.
Perouging parliament has to be legislated.
Maybe something automatic about what happens if the government really cannot control a majority or even hold a vote in Parliament. A requirement for parliament to sit, perhaps?
And probably some greater scrutiny over what the monarch is told/allowed to know outside of official parliamentary business.

The last one is the most likely to be dropped or not carried out in practice.

 

[El Pip]

Indeed. Receiving American legal history, its fascinating watching a setup that was designed so that you couldn't get a parliamentary dictatorship (I.e. a party with a majority can change any law easily, which is the case in the UK), and have it warp into something that 'technically' isn't that but with the federal government having some absurdly broken powers anyway, on the grounds of 'national security'.

The American system certainly serves as a valuable warning to others if nothing else.

PM office being a gift of the sovereign has to go.

I'm really not sure about that. The King-Byng Affair shows the value of having someone above the PM, as a backstop if nothing else, and that was less than a decade ago in story terms.

The issue was DLG dodging a vote of no confidence, so the solution there is an automatic Vote of Confidence after the PM meets the monarch, with it being clear in legislation that they don't have any actual power until that vote has occurred. Keeps a lot of the ceremony, polite constitutional fiction and indeed the small but sometimes vital backstop role, but would prevent the previous unpleasantness.

Perouging parliament has to be legislated.

Yes because that always goes well. Again, I refer you to the King-Byng Affair and the challenges of writing a set of rules that covers that, Eddies recent debacle and is likely to actually get passed by Parliament and the Lords.

A requirement for parliament to sit, perhaps?

You are Lady Hale and I claim my £5.

That I suppose is a plus, the Law Lords would never dream of touching this with a barge pole (being bright enough to recognise a political question when they saw one) so we will at least be spared that.

 

[roverS3]

And I'm back up to date here. It was a tad disappointing to find out that Edward's abdication was unavoidable in the game, but the drawn out timeline and all of the political strife that happened in the meantime are sure to have meaningfully changed things compared to OTL.

At least now we can get back to the business of preparing for the coming war... though inevitably, preparations will be worse than OTL due to the prolonged abdication crisis.

I loved the human side of the new king and the new prime minister trying to figure out how to interact and fulfil their respective roles within the delicate interaction between government and monarchy. A reminder of how fragile the chain of transmission of experience and custom can be especially at the very top.

 

[Director]

The American system certainly serves as a valuable warning to others if nothing else.

And yet, the more your system changes the more it seems to resemble ours. That's not intended to be a snark - your system works for you and ours for us and I suspect that if we swapped we'd both be miserable.

The American system is indeed imperfect - that imperfection makes it tolerable to many, many people, of many cultures, spread over a vast territory, and the ability to change and adapt it has let it last thus far. We are in the process of finding out whether a determined minority can overthrow it... and everyone, whether they like the United States or not, had better hope the answer is 'No'.

PM office being a gift of the sovereign has to go.
Perouging parliament has to be legislated.
Maybe something automatic about what happens if the government really cannot control a majority or even hold a vote in Parliament. A requirement for parliament to sit, perhaps?
And probably some greater scrutiny over what the monarch is told/allowed to know outside of official parliamentary business.

Moving to a more formal, written and binding system seems a good idea to me. The issue with running a government on precedent is that there is always a precedent somewhere for anything you choose to do... Some far-sighted statesmen may, however, wish to leave some powers to the monarch. Monarch, parliament or whomever, unchecked power is eventually a bad thing.

I'm not trying to pick on your mis-spelling (Heaven knows I do it myself all the time, and as long as meaning is conveyed, it is all good - where would the wlak be without it?) but I was taken on a flight of fancy somewhere between pirogue and pre-rouge... thank you for the smile I got from imagining Parliamentary members being smacked in the face by giant feather-dusters filled with red powder as an opening ceremony.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

And yet, the more your system changes the more it seems to resemble ours.

Horrifying, isn't it?

thank you for the smile I got from imagining Parliamentary members being smacked in the face by giant feather-dusters filled with red powder as an opening ceremony.

The actually opening is already over stuffed with pageantry. I think, if it could be slotted in, some members might not even mind it.

Anyone else wondering how the hell the UK supreme court is going to work long term? Do its members, who all seem to have come from law Lords, go back to the Lords afterwards? Etc etc.

 

[El Pip]

your system works for you and ours for us and I suspect that if we swapped we'd both be miserable.

This is indeed true and I humbly suggest it applies below;

Moving to a more formal, written and binding system seems a good idea to me.

If a formal and binding set of rules works for your system then I could not be more pleased for you and doubtless this is why it seems like a good idea to you. But it is very much not the British system and I believe steps in that direction to import a written and legalistic approach would, as you rightly say, just produce a miserable outcome no matter how well they work elsewhere.

Anyone else wondering how the hell the UK supreme court is going to work long term? Do its members, who all seem to have come from law Lords, go back to the Lords afterwards? Etc etc.

They at least have the option to go back to the lords after they retire and some have done, though some have not. I think that was a tenable situation when nobody outside legal circles had any idea who the judges were or any reason to particularly care about them as individuals beyond wanting them competent and qualified. If the recent publicity seeking unpleasantness proves a temporary aberration then I think it will remain tenable, at least until some future government is unable to resist the temptation to ill-advisedly muck about with the House of Lords again.

Given the recent conduct and direction of the court, as well as the general sense that a system of politicised partisan judges is not really ideal in the British context (no matter how well it works for other nations ), I'm hopeful it was just an aberration and normal service will be resumed whereby most of the general public would struggle to name a single supreme court judge, meaning they can return to the Lords and help strengthen the legislative-political mutual understanding that the Law Lords had and that the current system has occasionally lacked.