Actual Political Powers of Queen of England.

Factual Questions
21

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

22

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.

23

[QUOTE=RickJay]
That must be the least funny magazine ever.
[/QUOTE]
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.

24

[QUOTE=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…
[/QUOTE]

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.

25

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

26

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

Maggie Thatcher?

27

[QUOTE=chowder]

Maggie Thatcher?
[/quote]

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.

28

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.

29

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

30

As Charles I found out to his cost

31

[QUOTE=PaulParkhead]
TSo no matter how much Brenda despises any law
[/quote]

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.

32

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

33

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
On the contrary, the head of state is clearly the President.
[/quote]

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.

34

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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

35

[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.

36

[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

37

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

38

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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

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.

39

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

40

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
Russia and Chinas H.ofSs,huge and powerful though their countries are,are not even in the same league.
[/QUOTE]

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.” :wink: