King Charles should just sack Truss

[katmeouws]

Cant King Charles just sack Truss? Wouldnt that be a popular move?

[EdithWeston]

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet

The monarchy should never, ever get involved in politics like that. the Queen never did and retained her popularity as a result

Well she sacked the Aussie Prime Minister, and installed the leader of the opposition

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

Both the monarchy and Australia survived.

But no, it shouldn't happen here. And unless there's a vote of 'No Confidence' I don't think we'll see a GE. The May example kyboshes that, and that's one they ought to have won.

[BonesOfWhatYouBelieve]

I can only guess but surely all the reform enacted since then will prevent the monarch from doing this?

No, I think technically the monarch can call a general election whenever. Realistically there would be such outcry that it would result in the end of the monarchy (and the general election probably wouldn't happen anyway).

[Iheartmykyndle]

Well we do seem to have gone back in time recently. Didn't know we were going all the way back to the 1800s.

[londonrach]

Much as I want truss to go he can't do that. Can you image if he has that much control...an un elected person getting rid of an elected person. No way. The royal family needs to be separate from politics.

[Againstmachine]

He really shouldn't interfere, one of the previous King Charles lost his head when Parliament and Royals clashed.

[notdaddycool]

If he did that the Monarchy would probably go within ac few years. This is a Tory party problem and it’s theirs to solve, I expect they will find a way to make a quick appointment without another vote.

[SudocremOnEverything]

What a ridiculous solution. A king whose single justification for being in the position deciding to sack liz truss would make everything a million times worse.

A constitutional crisis would really help the current economic crisis, wouldn’t it? 🤦🏻‍♀️

[Untitledsquatboulder]

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet

The monarchy should never, ever get involved in politics like that. the Queen never did and retained her popularity as a result

Actually the Queen lost a lot of respect when that turd Johnson illegally pirogued parliament and she just let it happen.

[ChrisS36]

Theoretically he could dismiss Parliament but this is highly improbable. Not impossible though his mothers powers were used to do this to the Australian Parliament in the 1975.

[itsgettingweird]

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet

The monarchy should never, ever get involved in politics like that. the Queen never did and retained her popularity as a result

I'd love to know what the queen said to Johnson behind closed doors!

And King Charles "dear oh dear" made me laugh at that very moment he reminded me of Prince Philip who always had the best dry comic timing.

[LikeTearsInRain]

He would be very popular if he did. But I think KC is wise enough to know not to interfere and leave it to the electorate to sort out at the first available opportunity

[LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet]

@EdithWeston

Well she sacked the Aussie Prime Minister, and installed the leader of the opposition

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

Both the monarchy and Australia survived.

But no, it shouldn't happen here. And unless there's a vote of 'No Confidence' I don't think we'll see a GE. The May example kyboshes that, and that's one they ought to have won.

I hadn’t before heard about this but a quick read of that Wiki page clearly indicates she didn’t just personally disagree with the PM’s politics, swoop in and sack him. A certain procedure happened within I get al Uasgfalian politics and the Queen rubber stamped it. That’s no more “getting involved in politics” than it is giving a PM permission to serve under her reign.

[Mischance]

I am sure he would if he could!

[LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet]

@Untitledsquatboulder

Actually the Queen lost a lot of respect when that turd Johnson illegally pirogued parliament and she just let it happen.

Did she? I don’t recall that at all

[limitedperiodonly]

He should be allowed to chop people's heads off too and sleep with any other men's wives he fancies and divorce wives that annoy him. Oh, Charles has already done the last two.

But obviously a king being able to do whatever he wants is a brilliant idea. Got any others from Google?

[Revolvingwhore]

Staggeringly stupid, ignorant suggestion. Why do you think this is within his power?

[limitedperiodonly]

@Untitledsquatboulder

Actually the Queen lost a lot of respect when that turd Johnson illegally pirogued parliament and she just let it happen.

Did Her Majesty tell you that personally?

[Untitledsquatboulder]

@limitedperiodonly oh Im sorry I was just going by what was in the media and by the statements put out by the Palace. What do you think she did?

[limitedperiodonly]

@Untitledsquatboulder I don't know because she never wrote, never called. I just thought you might have been a personal confidante.

I've never understood why people get cheered up to hear that the Queen did or didn't like someone and her opinion coincided with theirs. It never changes anything, it feels like gnawing on a bone you've been tossed from the banquet.

I don't like Boris Johnson and didn't like Margaret Thatcher either. Apparently the Queen used to mock her, especially her extravagant curtsies. But though I didn't vote for Thatcher, none of us voted for the Queen so why should I care what she or her son thinks about elected leaders? I reasoned that sooner or later they weren't going to like someone I voted for.

[limitedperiodonly]

It would, wouldn't it?

[Untitledsquatboulder]

@limitedperiodonly ah so you feel she was active behind the scenes? Didn't work, did it?

[limitedperiodonly]

@Untitledsquatboulder

@limitedperiodonly ah so you feel she was active behind the scenes? Didn't work, did it?

No and I think the unelected Monarch intervening in the actions of elected politicians either overtly or covertly is a terrible idea. To be fair to the Queen I think unreasonable of people to think she could or should do that. What do you think?

[Untitledsquatboulder]

I think the whole point of a monarch in a constitutional monarchy is to provide an ultimate check and balance in the event that the elected government starts undermining the democratic process by, say, illegally piroguing Parliament. Not just sit there pretending it's nothing to do with her.

[limitedperiodonly]

But what can a constitutional monarch do? What is the ultimate check and balance? I think it would be calling in the Armed Forces who swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, not the government. I don't think that would be a good idea.