[handojin]

Let's say for a second the King (or Crown, it makes no odds) owns your swans, but you'd rather he not own them. What'd be your recourse?

Presumably the King (or Crown, it makes no odds) once owned all the swans in Ireland too. Then one day didn't. Now those swans are free swans living in an actual, honest to God, Republic. Technically the ones in the North are still his but their ownership status is disputed. The swans that fly back and forth I'm not sure what to do about, post Brexit arrangements being shoddy at best.

All this talk of ownership seems to confuse power with right, right with tradition, tradition with law, law with power.

And power grows from the barrel of a gun.

[hnfong]

Don't be silly. The republic would inherit whatever the crown owned and either keep it for themselves or gift them to their cronies. Or do you think they'd just chop them up into a couple million pieces and serve them to everyone?

No, your recourse would be to just do whatever you want with the swans, and risk being sued by the crown in the form of a criminal prosecution.

[quickthrower2]

Not a gun really. The person holding a gun is a soldier, who is serving the power. Power comes from fear/game theory/people desire to fit in and survive etc.

[petesergeant]

> What'd be your recourse?

Vote in a Parliament who'd pass a law to stop him owning them

[dontlaugh]

Which he could simply not give royal assent to.

I think the parent suggested the correct solution: revolution.

[ithkuil]

I think the correct solution is to first try a bloodless course if possible and resort to more violent means only if absolutely necessary. The monarch could decide to give royal assent (not necessarily because from the goodness of his heart but because the mere threat of repercussions would sway his judgement in favour of your cause)