Actual Political Powers of Queen of England.

[Jim B.]

I just know from snippets of information I hear here and there. Apparently the queen of England can theoretically veto a piece of legislation in Britain, although the last monarch to do that was Queen Anne, who according to my dictionary, reigned 1702-1714. I know the queen appoints people to the House of Lords, which is a big power unto itself, since the House of Lords still has some powers, like to delay legislation and as a final court of appeals, from what I've heard. And interestingly the queen is the head of state, not the head of government, although I don't know for sure all that involves.

Well, that is all I know for sure. So what other actual (political) powers does the queen have?

Thank you in advance to all who reply

[Derleth]

Somewhere between "effectively none" and "absolutely none", modified by the fact the UK doesn't have a single written Constitution you can point to but instead operates on a system of history, tradition, various written documents, and shouted insults in the House of Commons. There's an old saying to the effect that if Parliament handed HRH his/her own death warrant, HRH would have to sign it.

[PaulParkhead]

The Monarch can veto legislation in theory, but absolutely cannot do so in practice. He or she has the technical right to refuse "Royal Assent", without which an act of Parliament cannot become law. However, Parliament is sovereign, and could pass another act overruling this veto, and probably abolishing the Monarchy in the process. So no matter how much Brenda despises any law, she has to hold her nose and sign it.

The Monarch is the head of state. Not all countries combine the functions of head of state and head of government - the USA does, but even other republics (like Ireland) do not. The Monarch represents the UK as a kind of embodiment of the state. This is ceremonial. Of course. The UK armed forces technically answer to her, not to Parliament. She is the Big Army Boss, or whatever her rank is.

The Monarch appoints people to the House of Lords*. She does so on the advice of the Prime Minister. There is no law that I know of that says she can't add her own people to the list but if she made a habit of it, there soon would be.

The Monarch calls elections to the House of Commons. She does so on the request of the Prime Minister - see a pattern here? She "dissolves Parliament" by Royal proclamation, at which time all members must seek re-election on a date declared by her but, of course, determined by the Prime Minister.

When those elections are complete, she invites the leader of the winning party to form a government, henceforth to be known as "Her Majesty's Government".

Her Prime Minister must discuss national affairs with her regularly - once a week in normal circumstances. When the Parliamentary session begins each year in the autumn, she makes a speech (written by the Prime Minister's staff) detailing what her government will do in this session. This speech is made in the chamber of the Lords; she is not allowed to enter the Commons, at all, ever.

All this said, her political informal political influence is hard to quantify.

*House of Lords is a weird one. You are correct in assuming that it is not trivial - since it does indeed have the power to delay legislation. The Government Act of, um, 1928? allows the Commons to ultimately overrule the Lords but still, it's not a power invoked lightly. When it is invoked, the bill is presented back to the Lords, who don't get to vote. They are simply told that the bill is passed "because the Queen wishes it".

Edit for accidentally omitted negatation.

[aldiboronti]

The 1911 Parliament Act stripped the Lords of their power to block legislation.

[chowder]

[quote=PaulParkhead]The Monarch can veto legislation in theory, but absolutely cannot do so in practice. He or she has the technical right to refuse "Royal Assent", without which an act of Parliament cannot become law. However, Parliament is sovereign, and could pass another act overruling this veto, and probably abolishing the Monarchy in the process.

In which case Liz would be required to give assent to the overruling act, somehow I doubt she would go along with this

[The Seventh Deadly Finn]

She can sit on a lollipop and tell you what flavor it is. I'm not sure that's really a political power, but it's still pretty cool.

[Elendil's Heir]

Here are three good summaries of Her Majesty's (not "Her Royal Highness," Derleth) remaining powers and responsibilities.

From the official British monarchy website: http://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/output/Page4682.asp

and http://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/output/Page4683.asp

And from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_powers

[jjimm]

She's not officially "The Queen of England", either, though that's a subset of her position. She's the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[LSLGuy]

Originally Posted by thetruewheel

She can sit on a lollipop and tell you what flavor it is. I'm not sure that's really a political power, but it's still pretty cool.

That wasn't very nice.

[RealityChuck]

Originally Posted by Jim B.

And interestingly the queen is the head of state, not the head of government, although I don't know for sure all that involves.

The head of state is generally a ceremonial position; the job involving representing the government at celebratory functions or things like state funerals. Many countries do have a head of state separate from the head of government, since it frees up the head of government to concentrate on governing.

[commasense]

Brenda?

[jjimm]

Originally Posted by LSLGuy

That wasn't very nice.

Are you claiming she doesn't have hereditary ass-taste-buds?

[chowder]

Originally Posted by commasense

Brenda?

Yes, obviously PaulParkhead is being scolded by his wife and typed her name in a moment of panic

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by commasense

Brenda?

It's what satirical magazine Private Eye calls her.

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by chowder

In which case Liz would be required to give assent to the overruling act, somehow I doubt she would go along with this

Um, not necessarily. Since the British constitution is easily mutable, all that would need to happen is for everyone to ignore the fact that the monarch failed to give assent, and stop treating the monarch as a monarch. The constitution would thus have changed.

At least they don't need majority 5-4 opinions redefining ambiguous English phrases in a centuries old document to accomplish it.

[jayjay]

Informally, the queen has decades of continuous involvement in the governmental and diplomatic arenas and interpersonal relationships with most heads of state/government in the world and can give her government very effective advice when the PM consults with her.

[Mk VII]

Private Eye has for many years had not-very-complimentary nicknames for the various Royals, 'Brenda' is the Queen, Prince Charles was 'Brian', Princess Di was 'Cheryl', no doubt others can supply the rest (none of the others seem much used now)

[Polycarp]

Technically the Crown (note I'm not saying "the Queen") has a wide assortment of powers still remaining in the Royal Prerogative -- things the Crown does as opposed to things Parliament or the Courts do. Declaring war, dissolving Parliament, granting honors, IIRC awarding municipal charters are all things formally done by the Queen without Parliament. The catch is that QE2 can only do the overwhelming majority of them on "advice" (courteous language for "explicit instructions") of her Ministers.

A very few of them remain her personal prerogative. Naming people to a specific subset of honors (knighthoods, nobility, medals) is one -- and I'm not positive which are her private prerogative and which are at the disposal of her ministers. One with a 1975 Australian precedent is that if there is ever a dispute between P.M. and Parliament, she is empowered to refuse him a dissolution of Parliament (with the intent of getting a Parliament that would support him). There seems to be unanimity that if a P.M. attempted to govern dictatorially, she would be entitled to fire him, though there's never been precedent for doing so since ministers became answerable to Parliament.

One power regularly used that is nearly always laughably minute but is potentially quite important is that it is the Queen, herself, with only such advice (in the normal sense) as she chooses to ask for, who names the Prime Minister. The catch is that she is obliged to name someone as Prime Minister who can command a majority in the House of Commons -- and nearly always that makes the choice offered her equivalent to that offered by Mr. Hobson. But in the event of a Commons where nobody has a majority with no coalition in sight, and/or the leader of a coalition dying, or in a crisis where a National Government seems indicated, the Queen is free to choose from a select list of people who might be able to form a Ministry that the Commons would support. The present Queen did this twice for other reasons, no longer valid, in 1957 and 1963, where nobody was the acknowledged leader of the Tories on the resignation of the incumbent P.M. They have since adopted by-laws defining how to resolve this.

So much more is done by behind-the-scenes compromise and cooperation in the British system that the answer is almost undefinable in American terms. And example might be: Can the President sign a matter into law? Well, yes, in two ways: in the areas where he is empowered to issue Executive Orders, his prerogative is unlimited; but the things he signs into statute are bills which have passed both houses of Congress. So he has the right to refuse to make a law (veto) but the right to make one (by signing it into law) only when Congress has first passed it. Likewise, QE2 has very few things she can do by her self, and a great many things she does as the spokesperson for her Government.

[BrainGlutton]

In the BBC miniseries To Play the King, the liberal king locks horns with his ultraconservative PM, Francis Urquhart ("F.U.") -- not by trying to revive the monarchy's old constitutional powers, but by using it as a bully pulpit to sway public opinion. I wonder how that would work out IRL.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Mk VII

Private Eye has for many years had not-very-complimentary nicknames for the various Royals, 'Brenda' is the Queen, Prince Charles was 'Brian', Princess Di was 'Cheryl', no doubt others can supply the rest (none of the others seem much used now)

Wow, those nicknames are hilarious.

By "hilarious," I mean "not hilarious at all."

That must be the least funny magazine ever.

[TheLoadedDog]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

One with a 1975 Australian precedent is that if there is ever a dispute between P.M. and Parliament, she is empowered to refuse him a dissolution of Parliament (with the intent of getting a Parliament that would support him). There seems to be unanimity that if a P.M. attempted to govern dictatorially, she would be entitled to fire him, though there's never been precedent for doing so since ministers became answerable to Parliament.

This is blurred by the fact that, unless the Queen is present in the country, the Crown is represented in Australia (and Canada etc) by the Governor-General, himself appointed by the Prime Minister, and thereby adding a kind of buffer layer to the whole thing. The Queen could have overridden Kerr in 1975, as I understand it, but again it came down to "taking advice" **cough cough** from him, even though he's not technically a politician. She could hardly refuse. Still, in the UK, this buffer doesn't exist, and I wonder what would have happened if the Whitlam government had been in London rather than Canberra.

[Mk VII]

The Eye's humour is frequently of the schoolboy variety, but they have done some good over the years by breaking stories which the mainstream press missed (or dared not touch). Local government corruption is a favourite, though national scandals have also been exposed.

American contributors round here frequently seem to be fascinated by what the Crown 'could' do, discounting the likelihood that such actions would very likely be its last action.

[jjimm]

Originally Posted by RickJay

That must be the least funny magazine ever.

Not quite sure how you can conclude this from a teensy foible of the editorial team. Private Eye is an institution, and the last bastion of decent investigative journalism in the country. It used to be edited by Peter Cook. It's still pretty funny.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq

Um, not necessarily. Since the British constitution is easily mutable, all that would need to happen is for everyone to ignore the fact that the monarch failed to give assent, and stop treating the monarch as a monarch. The constitution would thus have changed...

Alternatively the Lord Chancellor could simply affix the Great Seal of the Realm on letters patent appointing a group of Lords Commisioner to grant assent to the act in Her Majesty's name. That's how George III was stripped of his powers and the future George IV became Prince Regent.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

In the BBC miniseries To Play the King, the liberal king locks horns with his ultraconservative PM, Francis Urquhart ("F.U.") -- not by trying to revive the monarchy's old constitutional powers, but by using it as a bully pulpit to sway public opinion. I wonder how that would work out IRL.

That's a great movie (although not as good as its predecessor, House of Cards). The irony was that the good-guy king was entirely in the wrong, while the villainous PM was entirely in the right, constitutionally speaking.

See also Jeffrey Archer's excellent British political novel First Among Equals for a pretty credible depiction of the Sovereign's discreet powers and authority, especially when the elected politicos are in gridlock.

[chowder]

[QUOTE= if a P.M. attempted to govern dictatorially

Maggie Thatcher?

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by chowder

Maggie Thatcher?

And she was only saved by the Falklands War. If that fortuitously timed little contretemps hadn't happened, she'd have been out on her iron butt after her first term.

[Ximenean]

Debatable. What about Labour's unappealing leader Michael Foot, or their mainfesto, called "the longest suicide note in history" by one of Foot's colleagues? Either way, this is not really the stuff of GQ.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Mk VII

American contributors round here frequently seem to be fascinated by what the Crown 'could' do, discounting the likelihood that such actions would very likely be its last action.

There was a really nice sarcastic answer to this perennial question a few years back: "Anything. Once." With the implication that unless s/he chooses right in taking an extraordinary step, it's likely to be the last step s/he takes as monarch.

[chowder]

As Charles I found out to his cost

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by PaulParkhead

TSo no matter how much Brenda despises any law

Brenda? I've heard "Bess," before.

Not all countries combine the functions of head of state and head of government - the USA does

The U.S. president has been treated as the head of state and head of government. But the constitution doesn't actually say that. I think the United States isn't supposed to have a head of state at all.

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by acsenray

Brenda? I've heard "Bess," before.



The U.S. president has been treated as the head of state and head of government. But the constitution doesn't actually say that. I think the United States isn't supposed to have a head of state at all.

On the contrary, the head of state is clearly the President. But to assert that the President is the "head of government" is quite a stretch, since he exerts no control over the legislative branch, or the judicial branch. See for an introduction to the concept Wikipedia: Head of State.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq

On the contrary, the head of state is clearly the President.

This is conclusory. Start with a definition of "head of state" and show me where the Constitution addresses such characteristics.

Accepting the Wikipedia article's definition:

His or her role generally includes personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state and exercising the political powers, functions and duties granted the head of state in the country's constitution.

There is nothing in the Constitution that assigns to the president the role of "personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state" and there are no "political powers, functions and duties" granted to a "head of state" in the constitution.

The constitution does assign a combination of executive, legislative, and other powers to the president.

But to assert that the President is the "head of government" is quite a stretch, since he exerts no control over the legislative branch, or the judicial branch.

All that means is that in the United States, the powers of a "head of goverment" are divided among three entities. It is not proof that the constitution creates a "head of state" of any kind.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Originally Posted by jayjay

And she was only saved by the Falklands War. If that fortuitously timed little contretemps hadn't happened, she'd have been out on her iron butt after her first term.

In your opinion, how did Thatcher attempt to govern dictatorially?

[Lust4Life]

[QUOTE=Jim B. I know the queen appoints people to the House of Lords, which is a big power unto itself, since the House of Lords still has some powers, like to delay legislation and as a final court of appeals, from what I've heard. And interestingly the queen is the head of state, not the head of government, although I don't know for sure all that involves.

Well, that is all I know for sure. So what other actual (political) powers does the queen have?

Thank you in advance to all who reply [/QUOTE


In practice the Queen doesn't actually appoint people to the House of Lords,the prime minister "recommends"people usually elder statesmen or experienced businessmen,senior trade union leaders and the like for life Peerages and the Queen always follows his advice.

There is method in our madness,the life peers usually have a great deal of political and other experience and not being reliant on being voted into their position dont feel compelled to smooth the way for vote winning but flawed legislation,they are also less susceptible to political blackmail or political bribery from their colleagues in the house of Commons.


The Queen with a lifetime of experience "Queening" and the advice from her parents about the job is completely aware that if she attempts to stray from the ethics of her job that she can be removed and replaced.

In the past we have removed Kings whos interests have not been considered the interests of the nation,the last being Edward.

Its a polite fiction that Edward voluntarily abdicated,The Royal Family and the government of the day joined forces and gave him the choice of jumping before he was pushed and he chose the face saving option.


It is also a fiction that the reason for his abdication was because he couldn't be allowed to marry a divorcee.


Mrs. Simpson was what we would call today a "swinger" and enjoyed some very liberated sexual practices and had some very shady friends but even that wasn't the reason he was forced out.

He was an admirer of the German(then Nazi)state and was friendly disposed towards their leaders,even at that time it was obvious that Britain and Germany would almost certainly be at war in the near future so he had to go.


The Queen CAN refuse to give Royal assent to legislation but would only do so under the gravest of circumstances like a government refusing to step down after losing an election or declaring a state of emergency without just cause or other undemocratic attempts to usurp power.

Apart from that boosting our tourist industry and boosting foreign heads of state self esteem are her main jobs.

A politician from anywhere in the world who has been received by the Queen or the P.O.T.U.S. feels that he/she has experienced the greatest accolade their job can give.

Russia and Chinas H.ofSs,huge and powerful though their countries are,are not even in the same league.

[chowder]

[quote=Lust4Life][


.







It is also a fiction that the reason for his abdication was because he couldn't be allowed to marry a divorcee.

Are you sure about this?

As I understand it, Edward was informed that the British people would never ahve accepted Wallis Simpson as queen. Baldwin, the then PM, would have resigned and Edward would have been forced into calling a General Election which would have damaged whatever respect the British had for him.

His only alternative if he wanted to marry Simpson was to abdicate

[Bayard]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

In the BBC miniseries To Play the King, the liberal king locks horns with his ultraconservative PM, Francis Urquhart ("F.U.") -- not by trying to revive the monarchy's old constitutional powers, but by using it as a bully pulpit to sway public opinion. I wonder how that would work out IRL.

I was thinking of the same thing. I enjoyed that miniseries, and I wondered if it is realistic at all with respect to the kind of influence the monarch can weild.

P.S. I agree with Elendil's Heir that its predecessor was better. I'm still freaked out by the scene which includes the line "I want to call you daddy." Shudder.

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by acsenray

This is conclusory. Start with a definition of "head of state" and show me where the Constitution addresses such characteristics.

Accepting the Wikipedia article's definition:



There is nothing in the Constitution that assigns to the president the role of "personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state" and there are no "political powers, functions and duties" granted to a "head of state" in the constitution.

The constitution does assign a combination of executive, legislative, and other powers to the president.



All that means is that in the United States, the powers of a "head of goverment" are divided among three entities. It is not proof that the constitution creates a "head of state" of any kind.

First of all, you didn't quote the definition of "head of state" from the Wikipedia article. That is given here:

individual or collective office that serves as the chief public representative of a monarchic or republican nation-state, federation, commonwealth or any other political state.

Clearly, regardless of whether or not the Constitution names the President the "head of state," he acts as the "head of state." He acts internationally as the embodiment of our government, especially since he has the power to establish treaties (with the advice and concurrence of the Senate). He appoints our ambassadors. He is the single, solitary person in whom we as a people consider the power of our government to be embodied.

To assert that he is not the "head of state" because the Constitution doesn't say, "The President is the head of state" is to be needlessly pedantic. It wasn't that I disapproved of your assertion that the Constitution doesn't say that. I was disapproving of your assertion that we aren't supposed to have one; clearly even the authors of the Constitution thought of the President as the most important person in the government and the personification of our nation's power.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

A politician from anywhere in the world who has been received by the Queen or the P.O.T.U.S. feels that he/she has experienced the greatest accolade their job can give.

Russia and Chinas H.ofSs,huge and powerful though their countries are,are not even in the same league.

I'll say this for you, your posts are always...

...well, pretty strange, really.

Nobody particularly wants to meet the Queen, mate. Frankly, nobody really wants to meet the PM anymore, either. Foreign heads of state want to meet the other heads of state and/or goverment who are propping up their dictatorships/investing in their flagging nationalized enterprises/selling them subsidized arms, etc.

Since HM doesn't personally do any of this stuff, and nor does the PM really these days, given the massive drop in British foreign aid over the years, nobody outside NATO really gives a toss about meeting the Queen. And not even NATO, really.

Russia has tons of oil. China has enough spare productive capacity to build you... well, anything you want, really, and twice as cheaply as the next bidder; also, lots and lots of surplus foreign currency, which is quite handy too.

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

Russia and Chinas H.ofSs,huge and powerful though their countries are,are not even in the same league.

Absolute rubbish, the sort of nonsense spouted by the English simply to make themselve still feel important. I would doubt highly that you could find evidence to support your opinion that a foreign diplomat considers a reception by the Queen of Great Britain to be more important an achievement than reception by, say, the President of the People's Republic of China. You'll note that the United States doesn't even usually favor Great Britain with an ambassador of high diplomatic quality, preferring instead to send to London someone with the financial ability to "put on a good show."

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by acsenray

All that means is that in the United States, the powers of a "head of goverment" are divided among three entities. It is not proof that the constitution creates a "head of state" of any kind.

Regardless of whether the Constitution appoints one, you kind of have to have one, as a state, unless you're an anarchy, in which case the question of your statehood is moot.

In the absence of a defined head of state, the head of government IS the head of state.

The Wikipedia definition is nonsense. There are plenty of nation-states which don't have a constitution, so using the concept to define an essential feature of a state is silly.

Not to mention, there are lots of states whose constitutions make no mention of a head of state. This is certainly not to say that there isn't one. What would you call Pervez Musharraf? Even if you don't consider him a legitimate example because he wasn't elected, the Pakistani constitution is entirely silent on the powers and duties of the HoS.

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Foreign heads of state want to meet the other heads of state and/or goverment who are propping up their dictatorships/investing in their flagging nationalized enterprises/selling them subsidized arms, etc.

The UK being the largest foreign investor in the US probably does help prop up the regime...

Cite.

Relevant part:

Total foreign direct investment (FDI) in the US reached $1,635 billion in 2005. The UK continues to be the leading investor in the US with $282 billion in 2005 (US Bureau of Economic Analysis) representing some 17% of total FDI in the US.

More tea, ma'am?

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq

He acts internationally as the embodiment of our government, especially since he has the power to establish treaties (with the advice and concurrence of the Senate). He appoints our ambassadors.

These points certainly encompass some of what goes into to making a head of state, but in my view they aren't necessarily sufficient.

But these statements ....

[quote]He is the single, solitary person in whom we as a people consider the power of our government to be embodied.

clearly even the authors of the Constitution thought of the President as the most important person in the government and the personification of our nation's power.

... I believe are not clearly supported, either by the text of the constitution or by history.

I think there's a very good argument that the authors of the Constitution believed that Congress was the most important entity of the government.

And I don't think there's much evidence at all that they intended any single governmental entity to constitute the "personification of our nation's power."

[alphaboi867]

[quote=chowder]

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

...It is also a fiction that the reason for his abdication was because he couldn't be allowed to marry a divorcee...

It wasn't just that she was divorced (although that certainly didn't help). She was also twice divorced and an adultress. And she was a commoner. And American. She even started to prematurely act as Edward's consort while she was only his mistress. There were also rumours that she had an abortion and slept with other men while sleeping with Edward (and while still married to her husband). And Edward was pretty careless with the secret state documents he was sent. Letting her see them and such. Not only did Baldwin and his cabinet threaten to resign the Leader of the Opposition and other senior polictians refused to consider forming one if His Majesty asked.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

...
[1] Its a polite fiction that Edward [VIII] voluntarily abdicated,The Royal Family and the government of the day joined forces and gave him the choice of jumping before he was pushed and he chose the face saving option.

[2] It is also a fiction that the reason for his abdication was because he couldn't be allowed to marry a divorcee.

[3] Mrs. Simpson was what we would call today a "swinger" and enjoyed some very liberated sexual practices and had some very shady friends but even that wasn't the reason he was forced out.

[4] He was an admirer of the German(then Nazi)state and was friendly disposed towards their leaders,even at that time it was obvious that Britain and Germany would almost certainly be at war in the near future so he had to go....

I've read a lot about the 1936 abdication crisis. I'd agree with paragraph 3, but disagree with the others. The King's minor flirtations with the Nazis really didn't loom large at the time. Note that Winston Churchill, out of power but vehemently anti-Nazi, was a big supporter of Edward VIII's in the Mrs. Simpson controversy. Essentially, the King wanted to marry an American divorcee of dubious reputation, which was absolutely crazy, given the mores of the time. The PM said you can have the crown or the dame, but not both. Edward made his decision. There was tremendous pressure on him, I'll concede, but it wasn't over the likely foe in a second world war that most Britons feared and hoped would never come.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Regardless of whether the Constitution appoints one, you kind of have to have one, as a state, unless you're an anarchy, in which case the question of your statehood is moot.

Oh ... reaaaallly? You have to have one or else you're an anarchy? Can you support that hypothesis?

The Wikipedia definition is nonsense. There are plenty of nation-states which don't have a constitution, so using the concept to define an essential feature of a state is silly.

So what is the essential definition of a head of state? I'm willing to accept this portion of the Wikipedia article.

His role generally includes personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state

My position is that the U.S. Constitution neither explicitly nor implicitly provides for any individual to "personify" the state or the continuity of the state or the legitimacy of the state. The president is granted certain powers, some of which are in some governmental systems are granted to a head of state, but none of these powers on their own make a single person the personification of any of those things.

[jtgain]

So the last UK monarch to refuse assent reigned around 1702?

Then was was Jefferson talking about in the Declaration of Independence when he said of King George III "...he has refused assent to laws..."????

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by jtgain

So the last UK monarch to refuse assent reigned around 1702?

Then was was Jefferson talking about in the Declaration of Independence when he said of King George III "...he has refused assent to laws..."????

Anne was the last British monarch to refuse assent to an act of parliament in 1708. Colonial governors however could and did refuse assent to acts of the local legislature. Since they act in His Majesty's name it was as if the King was refusing assent to local laws. This happened in Canada as recently as the 1930s.

[Saint Cad]

So let's say a charismatic monarch wanted to flex their political muscle. Nothing dictatorial, just refusing to give Royal Assent on a couple of bills or reading their own speech at the opening of Parliament - what would be the result? Would Parliament really abolish the monarchy? If they did, how popular would they be?

Considering that the House of Commons has stripped most of the power from the House of Lords over the last 100 years, if they got rid of the monarchy, would THEY be viewed as the despots?

I guess what I'm asking in short is:
Why hasn't the Commons gotten rid of the monarchy if it is just a figurehead?
What could a monarch do to get the Commons to abolish the institution?
If the Commons were to abolish the monarchy, would it be accepted by the people?

[Muffin]

Don't underestimate the Crown's power to disolve Parliament. That is one very strong power that could be exercised should Parliament go so far off the rails as to impinge heavily against democracy.

As far a taking advice from a leader of a party who for one reason or another may not actually hold a seat in Partliament at the time, the Queen takes advice from her Privy Council, to which anyone can be appointed by her. She appoints the unelected party leader to her Privy Council, and then at the earliest opportunity he runs for election in a riding and hopefully gets elected to Parliament where he then sits in the Privy Council wearing the hat of Prime Minister. I expect that if after a couple of attempts he fails to get elected, the Queen would turf him from her Privy Council, but that is just conjecture on my part.