queen of england

[eggo]

i was wondering... does the queen of england have any actual (political) power anymore or just alot of influence. also what did he ansestors do to become monarchs?

eggo

[vlad621]

The queen is head of of government for all the countries in the commonwealth. All bills must be signed by her or the Govenor-General who represents her before they become law. She also has the power to fire the government, and is commander in chief of the military. In practice though she never interferes with the elected government and just acts as a figurehead.

[Guy Propski]

Short answer--no political power at all. She is the embodiment of the United Kingdom, but it is basically a figurehead role. Parliament does make some token requests of her, but I really doubt that her disapproval would stop them from doing their job.

As to your second question, that's too complicated to answer in this forum. You'd be better off getting a book on the Kings and Queens of England and reading that.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Both Vlad and Guy are correct. In theory, and in law, she has power. She holds this power, not by "divine right" but by Acts of Parliament -- this is called constitutional monarchy, although there is no written constitution.

In practice, she has not exercised that power. Were she to do so in confrontation with Parliament, there is little doubt that Parliament would change the law and reduce her powers.

[jinky]

One correction. She's not the 'head of government', she's the head of state. The head of government is the PM.

------------------
Bíonn caora dhubh ar an tréad is gile (there is a black sheep even in the whitest flock).

Eggo, as to what her ancestors did, it was pretty much get knocked up before the competing ancestors. I don't have my history books on-hand, but if I recall, when it got to George IV in the early 1800s, there was no direct descendent left to take over, and all the nieces and nephews began frantically boffing away to produce the first heir. Baby Queen Victoria was the lucky winner, and Elizabeth is her direct descendent (with a little detour for Uncle Edward's abdication). Before George IV, it was a matter of who got pregnant, who won wars, etc. It hopped from family to family for hundreds of years, so no, Elizabeth is not directly related to the earlier monarchs at all.

Just for the record, I am for the English monarchy--people are basically sheep and need a figurehead to look up to. Thus, religions, monarchies and, to a lesser extent, celebrities, serve a genuine purpose.

[Moonshine]

Dang, spent too long typing and now everything has been said. I agree she has no official influence, however my experience of the English civil service is still very much an old boys network, especially the Foreign Office, and I'm sure there is a lot of behind-the-scenes time spent on keeping Prince Philip away from any foreign head of state. As for where they got their money, they stole it, the same as almost every other hereditary monarch. Natch.

------------------
It only hurts when I laugh.

[glee]

This is just a personal opinion, but I do live under the British Monarchy and feel we could do a lot better.
It's true it's good for a country to have a figurehead. Meeting foreign dignitaries, attracting tourism, representing the country on State occasions - it all makes sense.
But I don't see why the hereditary principle should come into it.
Some things that irritate me:
- the Royal family are a mixture of European descent (and there was too much inbreeding a few generations back)
- they've only just started paying tax (and too many relatives get paid out of my taxes)
- you can't fire them (The Queen's husband regularly makes racist remarks; several of the current generation have had messy divorces)
- they can't marry Catholics (even though our Prime Minister has; it doesn't affect his work)
- they have a fanatic following who won't listen to criticism (e.g. it was recently claimed that the Queen's mother had run up about £4 million of gambling debts. Instead of suggesting a visit to Gamblers Anonymous, several papers claimed that she had an adorable little foible, and this was very popular with the country!)

In case I sound unreasonable, the above is a criticism of a group of people who are funded by the state, cannot be sacked and claim to lead the country by example.

[SkeptiJess]

Eggo, as someone else said, the question of how the current Royals came to run England is a complex one. And, as Flora said -- it essentially boils down to a mixture of conquest and heredity. However, the current Royals ARE descended from William the Conquerer, who conquered (hence the catchy name) England in 1066. The descent hasn't always been direct parent to child. The throne has often gone to a cousin or niece or nephew instead of a son or daughter of the monarch. With one exception, however, the monarch has, since William II, always been a blood relative of the Conquerer. The exception was Henry VII, a Welshman who won the throne by conquest. Henry VII married Elizabeth, the niece of Richard III (whom Henry had dethroned), therefore, all of Henry and Elizabeth's children carried the conquerer's blood through their mother. Whew -- see how it gets complicated? Anyway, here are some ideas for books on the subject, if you're still interested:

_The Idiots Guide to British Royalty_ -- obviously, this is an easy one!

_Queens of England_ by Norah Lofts -- I like this one because it focuses on the lives of the consorts -- the wives of the kings.

_The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England_ edited by Antonia Frazer -- pretty definative.

_The Kings and Queens of England and Scotland_ by Plantagenet Somerset Fry -- the author has a cool name and the book has a lot of great pictures.

Have fun -- it's an interesting subject, even if you wouldn't want to be ruled by them!

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

[Akatsukami]

Jess writes:With one exception, however, the monarch has, since William II, always been a blood relative of the Conquerer. The exception was Henry VII, a Welshman who won the throne by conquest.
Actually, Henry Tudor was a blood relative of William I; he was the son of Margaret Beaufort, a quasi-legitimate descendant in (I think; I'd have to go a genealogy to be certain) the fourth generation of John of Gaunt, fourth son of Edward III. That was his pretext for seizing the throne (the actual reason, of course, is not necessarily the same as th pretext).

------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

Oops, you see, Jess had his books handy and I didn't--is my face red!

Glee, I agree (that rhymes!), there ARE problems with royalty, but I'll match you problem for problem with our own system of gov't. I wish Russia had kept the Czar in place and given the Duma governmental poweras--as they nearly did, before the gosh-darned Bolshies took over and screwed everything up! The French, too, could have avoided a lot of the problems they've had, if they'de kept their royalty in place (don't even get me STARTED on the French Revolution!).

But no, I am still a loyal USA'r, in case you're wondering, vote in all elections and all that . . .

[glee]

Flora,
My main resentment of Royalty is personified by your closing sentence....you get to VOTE for a President!
Royalty just carry on, whether they're useless or not.

But you still do get to vote for the people who have the real political power, don't you? We have no "figureheads" in the U.S., and I think we lack for that. That's why we have our mini-celebs, and why we invest way too much emotionally in our politicians.

And ya gotta admit, the Queen Mum really IS cute as a bug's ear . . .

[C K Dexter Haven]

I sometimes wonder whether the lack of figureheads in the U.S. is the reason for the worshipful cults around families like the Kennedys, or the amazing ability of low-brained Hollywood actors to get elected to political office.

[John W. Kennedy]

There is a great deal to be said for the monarchy. After 25 years, America still hasn't recovered from Watergate. After 5 years, most people couldn't have told you who Christine Keeler was.

The monarchy also preserves the UK from the insane, quasi-religious flag cult we have in the USA.

By the way, the Queen actually does have one political power remaining. If Parliament were hopelessly deadlocked on choosing a new PM and a new general election hadn't helped, the Queen would have the power to pick the new PM on her own (she'd be expected to choose someone from the center or the plurality). And if Parliament and the Cabinet were to be wiped out by, say, a terrorist bomb, she'd be able to take over the government and run things while a new Parliament was being elected.

You might say (in programmer's jargon) that she's the exception handler.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[RealityChuck]

Though it's true Elizabeth II can trace her roots back to William the Conqueror, its not merely blood that made her queen. Henry VII and George I were not the "rightful" heirs to the throne -- Henry won by conquest, and George was named king over others by Parliament. There were also some questions as to whether Henry IV, V, and VI were legitimate (hence, the Wars of the Roses). William and Mary weren't the "legitimate" heirs, either -- again, Parliament made them rulers.

There has been some claim that Victoria wasn't legitimate, making someone else the current king. However, even if the claim were proven using DNA, it's highly unlikely that Elizabeth would be replaced.

In effect, each King or Queen claimed the throne upon the death of his/her successor and was able to make the claim stick.



------------------
www.sff.net/people/rothman (http://www.sff.net/people/rothman)

[Nickrz]

I am the Queen of England,
I love to sing and dance.
And if you don't believe me,
I'll punch you in the pants.

- you can't fire them

Oliver Cromwell did.

[hansel]

In Canada, the Governor-General (and the Lieuftenant-Generals, for each province) are political appointees who are pure figureheads. However, I was told that, were they to disagree with the prime minister (or the premiers in each province), the judiciary was obligated to back them, since their authority derives from the Queen.

Oh, thank you, Nickrz, now I'm going to have THAT running through my head for the rest of the day . . .

[SkeptiJess]

>> Oops, you see, Jess had his books handy and I didn't--is my face red! <<

Actually, while I did have my books handy, I didn't look inside them -- otherwise I'd have remembered the John of Gaunt - Henry VII connection that Akatsukami pointed out. Remember, kids -- don't spout off 'til you do your research!
Jess (who's a "her" not a "him," BTW)

[mr john]

Dang you Nick I saw this topic and showed remarkable will power. then it was too late. I gonna 'punch' you in the pants. Which is how I learned it.I think punch is funnier word than kick, and the visual is a bit funnier, but thats just my opinion. Seems the easiest way to become king or queen is to make sure one of your ancestors kills who ever is king at the time.

[Markxxx]

I believe a while back the Queen of England, who was as the time Queen of Fiji, tried to dismiss a government their and Fijians promptly declared themselves a republic. ( Seems the native Fijians are a minority in their own country and the majority Hindus elected democraticaly a government favoring them and the native Fijians overthrew it and the Q of E thought she could restore the proper elected government. She is also Queen of Canada too. And Queen of a bunch of other countries still.

[hansel]

She's queen of all the countries in the commonwealth. However, some of those countries are perfectly sovereign, such as Canada, which promulgated its own constitution in 1982. Prior to that, Queenie was still Queen of Canada in some political sense: promulgating our own constitution involved getting her to sign it.

Membership in the commonwealth is largely a matter of history and national self-identification. Anyone know which countries are still not independent?

[Big Iron]

[[I think punch is funnier word than kick, and the visual is a bit funnier, but thats just my opinion. ]] MrJohn


I agree that "punch" is the funnier word, but I think kicking more than holds its own visually and conceptually.

[Markxxx]

Q of E is still Queen of Canada. Canada is not a republic even with its own constitution. It is a Constituational Monarchy. So is Aussie and New Zealand. Not every country in the Commenwealth is a monarchy though. Some like India and Pakistan are Republics. In fact one of the memebers, Mozambique was never even a British Colony.

[hansel]

I'm on thin ice here without a political science degree (and thus have never studied the official situation in Canada). However, I believe Canada is a federation, not a constitutional monarchy. After getting a constitution in 1982, the Queen has zero legal or political power in Canada. The Governor-General and the Lieuftenant-Governers are purely ceremonial posts. In no case would any sort of deadlock or tie vote be passed to the queen for resolution. If the Governor-General refused to sign a bill into law, he would be fird and replaced.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a constitutional monarchy, the constitution limits the power of the monarchy, from which authority derives. In Canada, the authority of the government derives from the constitution itself, just like the U.S.

[jinky]

Membership in the commonwealth is largely a matter of history and national
self-identification. Anyone know which countries are still not independent?

Scotland. Yet.

------------------
Bíonn caora dhubh ar an tréad is gile (there is a black sheep even in the whitest flock).

[Northern Piper]

There's a lot to comment on in this thread.

1. There is no Queen of England. The last Queen of England was Queen Anne, who was Queen of England and Queen of Scotland. During her reign, in 1707, the English Parliament and the Scottish Parliament passed the Acts of Union, which created the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Queen Anne then became the Queen of the United Kingdom. A century later, a similar set of laws abolished the Irish Parliament and changed the name of the country to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Elizabeth II is "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

2. The Queen is also the "Head of the Commonwealth." This is a purely symbolic title, but was the compromise that allowed for republican countries, such as India, to retain a symbolic tie to Britain without giving the British monarch a formal constitutional role. Other countries, such as Canada, are constitutional monarchies, and the Queen is the Queen of those countries. That means she is the head of state, but as someone else notes, not the head of government. The Prime Minister is the head of government.

3. It was George IV's brothers that did the urgent boffing, after George's daughter died in childbirth.

4. Victoria did not inherit directly from George IV. He was succeeded by his younger brother the Duke of Clarence, who became William IV. Victoria was the daughter of the next brother in line, Edward, Duke of Kent, who died of an "inflammation of the lungs" or some such thing, well before George IV died. Victoria inherited from her uncle Billy.

5. In those countries where she is the head of state, the Queen (or her Governor-General) does have the power to determine who to call on to form the government, if Parliament or the Legislature cannot reach a conclusion. With the growth of party organizations, it is highly unlikely she will be called on to do so, but you never know. For example, in the Nova Scotia election 18 months ago, the people returned a house with (I think) 19 Liberals, 19 N.D.P., and 12 Progressive Conservatives. In a case like that, there is always the potential for a political deadlock, which could require the intervention of the Lieutenant Governor.

6. The Queen (or her Governor General) has the power to dismiss a ministry. In the 19th century, before the growth of party organizations, several provincial governments in Canada were dismissed by the Lieutenant Governor. More signficantly in 1975(?), the Australian Governor-General dismissed the Prime Minister of Australia.

7. I would have put Henry IV in the category of king by conquest - he deposed his cousin, Richard II, which was then ratified by Parliament, and then Richard died, quite by accident of course, and such a young man...

8. Edward II was also deposed, by a cabal led by his wife and her lover. They put Edward II's son, Edward III, on the throne, ratfied by the Parliament, and then Edward II also died.

9. Queen Anne, Mary's sister, also inherited by a mixture of blood and Act of Parliament.

10. The Queen (and her Governors-General, Lieutenant Governors, Governors Pinafore-esque] also have the power to refuse to give assent to a bill. In Britain, Queen Anne was the last monarch to exercise the power directly. In Canada, some Lieutenant Governors have occasionally refused assent. The last time was in Prince Edward Island, around 1945, when a teetotal Lt. Gov. refused royal assent to a bill repealing prohibition. The courts upheld the refusal of assent. The provincial government had the Lt. Gov. fired as soon as possible thereafter.

11. The monarch (and her Gov Gen, etc.) may also defer a decision. For example, in 1896, the Conservative government fell in Ottawa. In those cases, the Prime Minister stays in power pending the election. The Prime Minister in question, Tupper, asked the Governor-General to make some appointments to various offices. The GG didn't refuse to accept that advice, which would have been contrary to convention; he just told PM Tupper that he would not make the appointments until after the election. The Conservaitves were defeated, and of course the incoming Liberal Prime Minister, Laurier, advised the GG not to make those appointments. This established that the GovGen can ensure that the Prime Minister acts simply as a caretaker until the election is decided.

12. Canada did not get a new Constituion in 1982. The Constitution Act, 1867 is still in force. Rather, the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force, making some major amendments, such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a domestic amending formula. The 1982 amendments did not change the constitutional status of the Queen as Queen of Canada.

13. Canada is a federation, and a constitutional monarchy. The two are not inconsistent. Australia is also a federation and a constitutional monarcy (although they are thinking of going republican), while New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy and a unitary state. In all three countries, the Constitution is the source of legal authority for the Queen.

14. The most difficult part of the constitutional structure to understand with respect to the Queen is the difference between legal powers and constitutional conventions. The Queen has legal powers, assigned by the constitution (whether written or unwritten). There are also constitutional conventions which limit the way the Queen can use those powers. Thus, those who say in this thread that the Queen has no power are correct in the vast majority of cases, if you mean actual, practical, political power. For the great majority of cases, the Queen (and her Gov-Gen, Lt. Govs, Govs) always act on the advice of the first minister. However, there are rare exceptions, where it is conceiveable the monarch could have to make a decision.

[sunbear]

Queen Elizabeth is also queen for Jersey Islands, Channel Islands etc., little tax havens. They are very loosely connected to the UK, so the line runs to the queen. I suppose she might have to appoint a governor if all hell broke loose.

[Northern Piper]

I forgot about the Channel islands; thanks for reminding me.

Interestingly, they are the possessions that have been under the control of the Royal family for the longest time, longer even than England. They are the last remnants of the Duchy of Normandy that are still under the control of the Queen. They're not part of the U.K., although Parliament can legislate for them. Each of them has their own local system of government, derived from their feudal history.

[Olentzero]

I read up a little on the Channel Islands and a couple of them actually have their own royalty (eg L'Ecrehous) but those that do are so small and sparsely inhabited that the royalty generally makes up the entire population. Of course I read this in a bunch of travel guides so the info is probably a little suspect. Anyone?

------------------
Cave Diem! Carpe Canem!

[John W. Kennedy]

Actually, Mary II and George I were the legitimate heirs after eliminating from consideration all Roman Catholics. (William III came along for the ride when Mary, a good Protestant wife, refused to be Queen unless her husband got to be King, leading to the one occasion when England [and Scotland] had two joint monarchs.)

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[Northern Piper]

Actually, Mary II and George I were the legitimate heirs after eliminating from consideration all Roman Catholics.

I'm afraid I don't agree with this statement, because of the phrase "after eliminatinng all Roman Catholics." That was the nub of the crisis.

Prior to the accession of William and Mary ("England ruled by an orange"), there was no constitutional requirement that the monarch not be a Roman Catholic. James VII (II of England) was a Roman Catholic when he ascended the throne. After William came over to England and James fled, a convention (not a Parliament, since it had not been summoned by the King) met and offered the throne to William and Mary, on the condition that they would then grant royal assent to the Bill of Rights, which barred Roman Catholics from the throne. They accepted on those terms, became joint monarchs, and promptly gave royal assent. It was only at that point that being a Roman Catholic barred someone from the throne.

Thus, they became monarchs by means of a constitutional amendment (to use a modern term) that altered the terms of succession, not by strict hereditary claim. If heriditary claim had governed, James VII (II) would have been succeeded by his son, James, and then by Bonnie Prince Charlie.

Granted, William and Mary both had a heriditary claim (Mary was the daughter of James VII (II), and William was his nephew, grandson of Charles I, but their heriditary claim ranked them after James's son James (Seamus Mhic Seamus).

[matt_mcl]

Anybody who can deal with the fact that the thing you do when something is humourous is pronounced laff and spelled laugh can deal with the fact that the head of state of a Canadian province is pronounced leftenant-governor and spelled lieutenant-governor.

[John W. Kennedy]

Ah. I had forgotten for the moment about baby "James III".

But you must remember that the warming-pan story, true or false, was believed by many.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[Northern Piper]

John,

just how big was a warming pan in those days, anyway? I've always thought of them as about the size of a large frying pan on a long handle, but that obviously wouldn't hold even a wee bairn.

In any event, it's appropriate to comment on this thread that today is the 254th anniversary of Bonnie Prince Charlie's unfurling of the royal standard at Glenfinnan (August 19, 1745):

O Theàrlaich mhic Sheumais, mhic Sheumais, mhis Theàrlaich,
Leat shiubhlainn gu h-eutrom’n am éighlich bhith màrsal


matt,

hate to quibble with a fellow canuck, but the LtGov is not the head of state of a province; the Queen is. The LtGov acts in her name. For example, the LtGov gives royal assent to a bill, but the enacting clause of the bill usually reads, "Her Majesty, by and with the consent of the Legislative Assembly, enacts..." (Except in Quebec, where it reads "the Parlement of Quebec enacts...", which is the phrase they use to avoid mentioning HM.)

[Northern Piper]

correction: tomorrow is the anniversary, not today (I really shouldn't try to post things this early in the morning.)

matt's comments about the LeftGov. reminded me of a time I gave a tour of our Legislature to a friend from South Carolina. At the end of it, she asked me why we always required our Governor to be left-handed.

[John W. Kennedy]

I don't know -- newborns are quite small, and they were even smaller then; and I suppose a royal warming pan might also be a bit larger than the norm.

Again, many people at the time believed it, so it must have been at least superficially credible.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[Northern Piper]

thought I'd bump this, as it's one of our more detailed discussions on the role of the monarchy, a topic which comes up from time to time.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

So.
To sum up the thread...
The Queen of the United Kingdom is constitutionally (SP?) empowered to punch you in the pants.

My. my, my.
The Things We Learn On This Board. ;)

[PerfectDark]

Isn't the Monarch of the UK also the head of the defence force? Then couldn't he/she declare martial law and take back the power they're ancestors lost?

PerfectDark

[Crusoe]

No. The Queen could declare what he likes, but do you really think the armed forces would just go along with her? Parliament would engage in some rapid legislative smackdown, and the Queen would be on her knees before you could say "no more Civil List cash".

[APB]

One of the major reasons why the Queen's predecessors lost most of their powers in the first place was that they needed Parliaments to pay the wages of their armed forces. The same consideration is likely to discourage the armed forces from joining any royal-inspired coup d'etat in the future.

[Cerowyn]

Originally posted by APB
One of the major reasons why the Queen's predecessors lost most of their powers in the first place was that they needed Parliaments to pay the wages of their armed forces.

In fact, King John had the Magna Carta forced on him in 1215 CE for that very reason. The power of the monarch in England and it's modern inheritors (including Great Britain) has been constrained constitutionally ever since.