MovieChat Forums > To Play the King (1996) Discussion > Abdication?

Abdication?

posted 16 years ago by zboston3
15 replies | jump to latest

Maybe it's a British thing, something to do with "constitutional monarchy", but apparently FU forces the king to abdicate because the king and the government are in disagreement.

I don't buy it. It seems to me that if that should happen then the government and the king should just soldier on unhappily together. Otherwise, every time there was a change in government would the king have to abdicate and be replaced by a new member of the royal family. Are there enough of them to do that or would pretty soon they be down to the baron of the East End or so?

If that were the case, why not do as one character almost suggests and just elect them and call them presidents.

[–] maestro-45 16 years ago

whether it is precisely accurate or not, the show is an extraordinary drama, with extraordinary characters. by conniving to control the govt, win the election by any means necessary, and the king's oopposition, we see fu as a protagonist of shakespearean dimensions. the series is brilliant -- and for ian richardson it was the role of a lifetime, ranks with i claudius. too bad richardson died recently. [make a point of seeing all three chapters: house of cards, to play the king, and final cut.]

[–] zboston3 16 years ago

Yes, I agree. Great acting, great lines. FU is the most seductive villain since Richard III. I'm watching Final Cut now - it isn't quite like the first two so I'm curious where it will go.

[–] RetroChic1963 16 years ago

I think (although I'm not an expert, even though I am British) that FU forces his abdication because the King openly opposed the Government. It is British constitutional law that the Monarchy are not allowed to get involved in Party Politics. They're allowed to disagree with the Government personally but they're not allowed to voice it. The Monarchy are figureheads only.

Hope that's clearer...it's all very confusing. It makes my brain hurt.

Still though, like the other guy said, brilliant programme!

[–] loverofsheep864 16 years ago

Thing about England is the importance of informal rules, as is called for by an unwritten constitution. As such there no real mechanism to force a Monarch to abdicate, but its a convention that if the informal agreement that exists in a Constitutional Monarchy, i.e. Monarch=figurehead with no independent political stature, is broken then the only way to restore balance would be for the Monarch, and not the government, to give way.

As such I think he MIGHT have been able to keep his crown with a public apology and an agreement on both parts of mutual complicity, but considering FU's character that wasn't an option.

In a way the simple idea that the King could be political in any way, shape or form, goes against ALOT of constitutional principles. If this happened in the present, the King would be opposed ON BOTH SIDES out of principle. Makes for good drama though.

[–] RetroChic1963 16 years ago

The idea of the Monarchy getting involved in politics does send me a little cold, considering their privileged lives.

I still feel really sorry for the King though, I think he was more than a little manipulated by Chloe Carmichael, who chose her position a little unwisely. If you want to make big changes in the world I don't think you should start by working for the Monarchy.

[–] Selebii 16 years ago

Well the idea is that they are a final check against corruption in tri-maceraal system of Commons, Lords, and King, so it all depends how you look at it. Theoretically, the king has the power to dismiss the very parliament and the prime minister who is supposedly the king's rep. I can see a king being involved as good.

[–] puirt-a-beul 16 years ago

It's a wee bit different from what you're saying.

It wasn't that the King and FU simply disagreed, it was that the King had in effect taken a partisan position on domestic political issues -- something that is forbidden under the Bill of Rights that came into effect for Britain at the start of the 18th Century -- and he had de facto sided with the Opposition against the elected Government. He was intemperate in listening to Chloe Carmichael and letting his passions speak, rather than trying to be guided by political acumen.

So with the King having taken a political position, when FU went to the polls and was re-elected, it could be taken under the conventions of the system of Constitutional Monarchy that the electorate had voted against the stance of the King. So Urquhart forced the position that the King had no choice but to abdicate. If he hadn't abdicated, it would have precipitated a constitutional crisis that he knew Urquhart would push to the maximum. So although Urquhart couldn't force him from the throne in any written legal sense if the King was unwilling to go, at least probably not without a military uprising, the King also knew Urquhart could make it impossible for the country to function until he did abdicate. Since he'd said that his main concern was for the good of Britain as a whole, he was left with no choice.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] Selebii 16 years ago

Whatever happened to the good old days of drumming up support and fighting for what is right and not convenient or politically correct? *Sigh* modernism

[–] puirt-a-beul 16 years ago

Well said ! Hear hear !!

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] ray-lurie 11 years ago

The question of whether or not the King is involving himself in politics is one that is raised by the characters themselves. The King objects strenuously to the suggestion that his position is partisan, but it becomes increasingly impossible to deny that he is personally involved in politics. This debate in the show reflects contemporary debate over the public positions taken by Prince Charles (the obvious model for the King: Both have studied at university, and comment is made about the King's interest in architecture, the field of Prince Charles' degree). Charles was widely seen as taking a public stance opposed to the Tories and was heralded by some as representing a moral force against the excesses of Tory rule and as more effective than the Labour Party, by others as acting unconstitutionally for meddling in politics. The issue of forced abdication obviously held real political piquancy in Britain.

[–] The_Devonian 15 years ago

Under the British system, the Prime Minister is perfectly entitled to demand the abdication of the Monarch at any time, if he deems it "for the good of the country".

The Monarch is, as others have noted, just a figurehead with no actual power. The government may act in the Monarch's name, but the government is elected by the people, and therefore the Prime Minister, as head of the government, holds the real power. In this day and age, the Monarch is little more than a very expensive rubber stamp for government legislation.

Monarchs are not elected or even appointed, so they have to stay - in public, at any rate - politically impartial. Failure to do this could trigger a constitutional crisis which could potentially destroy the Monarchy.

You can question FU's means and motives, but constitutionally, he was perfectly within his rights.

"Vegetable rights and peace!"

[–] Izzit249 15 years ago

If you remember in the series, the PM advises his PPS that to force the monarchy to do as the PM pleases politically has never been done, but to force the abdication of a king from the throne, "that has been done before...."

What he was referring to was QE 2's father's brother, Edward the VIII. In 1936, he ascended the throne, but expressed his desire to marry a twice-divorced American socialite, Wallis Simpson. The PM of the day, Stanley Baldwin, informed the king he could not do so without causing a political and religious constitutional crisis, which is usually based around, civil war, a clash between central and federal governments or governments over values which hold sovereignity, and was told to abdicate the throne should he wish to marry her. He abdicated and the throne was passed to his younger brother, King George VI, father to Queen Elizabeth 2.

In this instance, as the king became the undefined leader of the opposition, declaring war on the PM and his government over his policies towards the homesless and struggling etc, when the ppl voted Urquaht back in, he asked for the abdication of the king as he could be seen to be at a civil war or disagreement with the monarch. Given the public giving him victory, Urquaht was fully within his rights to demand the abdication of the throne as he feared the country would see him and the monarchy at lodgerheads.

izzit249
(1984-i get shagged to death by a FIT blonde!!!!)

[–] billdz-geo 11 years ago

I had seen pieces of this show in the past but just watched HOC and then this show from start to finish. Will need to watch The Final Cut soon, all are so great.

Like many others, I was wondering why the king apparently abdicated. I'm not British but most of the discussion on this thread and elsewhere has been about the politics and whether FU had the right and the power to force him to abdicate.

I just wanted to point out that is not clear that the king abdicated because FU demanded it. We are shown the meeting after the election where FU asks the king to abdicate, but the king does not agree to do so, at least not at that meeting. The next thing we see is the king's young son being crowned. We do not know how much time has passed between the meeting and the coronation of the new king. For all we know, it may not have been a political thing at all, maybe (as he did with several others) FU later got photos/videos of the king in a compromising position and used that to make him abdicate. Maybe FU even had him killed.

At least to this American, it seems unlikely that a PM with a thin majority could successfully force a popular king to abdicate just for some implied criticism.

If this is all explained in The Final Cut, which I have not yet seen, I apologize for the bandwidth.

[–] Noddy_Comet 11 years ago

The fact we see the new king being crowned at the end tells us everything we need to know - FU demanded the old king's abdication and got it, if not immediately then within a very short time.

The size of the prime minister's majority is irrelevant in this case. The fact is, governments are elected, kings and queens aren't. In the UK, the monarch has no place in politics other than to sign off government legislation, keeping their mouth shut and their nose out.

In TPTK, the king got himself involved in party politics and actively opposed a democratically elected government - a government which is acting in his name. Constitutionally, this is shaky ground for a monarch, however popular they may be. So when FU was returned as PM after an election, the king's position was untenable.

Although I think in reality, a PM would probably give the monarch a final chance to toe the line and behave, rather than demand an abdication immediately. In TPTK, FU took his feud with the king very personally, so from his point of view there could be no other outcome.

Make tea, not war.

[–] marktayloruk (2380) 2 years ago

Have thought of writing a political thriller with a popular monarch taking on the government and leading a King's Party to.a landslide majority.