SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Japan has passed legislation paving the way for 83-year-old Emperor Akihito to abdicate. The law sets the stage for the first abdication of a reigning monarch in two centuries, in a royal family which has a history stretching back 2,600 years.
[...] According to the 1947 Imperial House Law that regulates the line of imperial succession, the emperor cannot step down. The last Japanese monarch to abdicate was Emperor Kokaku, who left in favor of his son back in 1817.
Another issue the Japanese government will discuss is the continuity of the heirs, as women are not allowed to inherit the throne. Additionally, a woman from the imperial family who marries outside the family is then excluded. Akihito has another son, Prince Akishino, and a grandson, Hisahito, aged just 10. All the other members of the royal family are female.
Source: RT
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday June 12 2017, @05:46AM (11 children)
If only Queen Elizabeth would accept that it is time for her to abdicate ...
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday June 12 2017, @06:03AM (8 children)
That would make Charles King. I'm not all that sure the British population would react all that well from what I've heard over the years.
Now if Charles abdicated his claim to make William next in line to the throne she might decide to step down.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday June 12 2017, @07:30AM (2 children)
and hopefully speed up the process of Australia getting an Australian (non executive) head of state.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:57AM (1 child)
No thank you. I don't see how creating yet another pole of power can help Australia - the prime minister is quite enough thank you.
Besides, the governors of each state and the governor-general of Australia are Australians and do not govern based on the orders/indications/wishes of UK monarchy - the appointment is made by the queen/king solely by the proposal of the Australian prime-minister [wikipedia.org].
Why would we need a president? To have a bigger political circus? Isn't what's happening in US enough for "entertainment"?
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday June 12 2017, @11:36AM
The president without executive powers simply replaces the Queen as head of state - ie they have tea and biscuits with visiting heads of state (or their delegates) - no new pole of power.
And they can continue running the swearing at ceremonies for members of Parliament - no change there (apart from standing in for the president instead).
To be head of state. It's only a circus if the president has any executive powers - no reason they can't be appointed in the same way as the GG.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday June 12 2017, @05:44PM (1 child)
The Queen can specify an Heir. I believe she made it clear a few years back that Charles was not it. IIRC she said William would be the one.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday June 13 2017, @05:24AM
No, the succession is controlled by the Parliaments of the Commonwealth, they all have to agree to a change in succession such as the recent changes that allowed the oldest child to succeed whether male or female.
Charles can quit as soon as he is declared King but as long as he is alive, he is next in line.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday June 13 2017, @05:42AM (2 children)
Charles can't abdicate his claim, the best he can do is abdicate after being declared King. Might only be a King for an instant, but he still has to be King to abdicate. Of course the Parliaments of the Commonwealth could change the succession law again but it doesn't seem likely.
The Statute of Westminster, over the objections of the King, makes all the members of the Commonwealth equal, including in deciding changes to the succession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 14 2017, @12:44AM (1 child)
And he's got precedent, having married a divorcee.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday June 14 2017, @04:54AM
It's a good excuse if Parliament decided to push him out like they did with Edward. Parliament is Supreme, something Americans forget with all their talk about George the Third being a Tyrant, whereas the Supremacy of Parliament was settled back in 1688 or so when they fired James the Second along with his son.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday June 12 2017, @07:09AM
In April, she wore a hat instead of a crown when she opened Parliament:
-- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/27/queen-perform-dressed-state-opening-parliament-wearing-hat-instead/ [telegraph.co.uk]
Is that what you're thinking of?
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Monday June 12 2017, @01:35PM
Scrap the whole monarchy while they're at it. A useless expensive figurehead.