Putting this in IMHO b/c ‘power’ means different things to different people.
While I acknowledge that in many circles in the UK and Commonwealth Her Majesty and her heirs still have influence and affect events around them, as I understand it neither they nor she have the power to make decisions about Great Britain’s policies or laws and haven’t for some (post-feudal) time.
But what was the last gasp of power relinquished by the Monarchy and by whom? Could Victoria have told someone to throw a disrespectful subject in jail and have it followed through? Could King George have said, “I decree the Duke of Windsor may not set foot on British soil while he’s alive and married to the twice-divorced Duchess.” and expect that to be enforced by law?
My understanding is that technically they still do have a broad degree of powers - but only in theory. It’s understood if the royals ever tried to exercise their power in practice, the government would refuse to obey them and the power would be explictly taken away from them.
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 established that Parliament held supreme power; from then on kings and queens could only rule with their consent. So any royal decree from that point on had no force.
This page has some details.
Queen Anne was the last Monarch to withhold consent from a bill (in 1708). I think that was the last exercise of meaningful royal legislative power.
William IV was the last monarch to sack a minister (in the 1830’s). I think that was the last exercise of meaningful royal executive power.
Probably with George V, he was a sedulous servant and would only do as his ministers told him, but he could have occasionally put his foot down had he the guts. Edward VIII was not impressive, but as a wild card was anathema to the powers that be.
He sealed his fate not with Mrs. Simpson, but when he had visited the distressed areas of poverty during the great depression and uttered: “Something must be done.”
George V was the first complete nonentity, which is obviously an inheritable trait.
When they lost the original 13.
The day that Brenda was so startled about the Fabs breaking up that she accidentally dropped the One Ring down the loo, and it rolled out the Anduin to the sea.
George VI exercised quite a bit of influence due to the war. Post war he kiboshed Hugh Dalton’s appointment as a cabinet minister. His father more or less forced down the creation of a national government in the depression.
EIIR has twice appointed PMs outside of an election result. First was Harold MacMillan in 1958 and then Alec Douglas Holmes in 1963.
Usually, examples of monarchs influencing policy, the the. George’s example come out long after their deaths. I am sure EIIR has done it several times,new will find out when William is king exactly what. The appointment of PM was an exception and was thrust upon her, much to her chagrin, twice.
Big deal. Dalton was a self-loving ass. And that’s after reading his biography. Most chancellors are interchangable ( and make very poor pms later )
She followed the exact rules as would be expected, it wasn’t as if she imposed an X party gov when the ‘nation’ ( *whatever that is *) had chosen Y. The existing party needed a new leader in mid-government.
When Macmillan resigned in October 1963, accusations were made that the Queen had colluded with his supposed blocking of the Deputy Prime Minister, Rab Butler, as his successor, leading to the controversial appointment of Alec Douglas-Home as the new Prime Minister. In fact, the Queen had distanced herself from the process, both physically – by staying out of London, at Windsor Castle – and personally – ensuring that her Assistant Private Secretary Sir Edward Ford was the conduit between the Palace and the Prime Minister’s Office. The Palace made it clear that the choice of a new leader should be for the Conservative Party alone, a process known as ‘You Choose, We Send For’. Far from colluding, the Queen maintained the monarchy’s political impartiality, waiting for a name to be brought to her.
Subsequent events eroded the Queen’s prerogative. From July 1965 onwards, the Conservative Party elected its leader, as the Labour Party had done since 1922. Today it would be highly unusual if the Queen invited anyone to become Prime Minister who was not the acknowledged leader of the party commanding a majority in the House of Commons. Outgoing Prime Ministers in mid-term have made things easier for the Queen by staying-on until their party has elected a successor, including Harold Wilson in 1976 and Margaret Thatcher in 1990.
Link
Actually I understand she liked Wilson best; but obeys whatever freak and loon the modern party process vomits up.
What about the monarch’s prerogative to be consulted? It seems that the current Queen keeps herself quite up to date on state affairs and has regular meetings with the prime minister. Is that mostly a matter of just humoring the old gal, or does she have the right to make a fuss if the PM hasn’t called in ages?
If for some reason Parliament were destroyed - say by a bomb on the night of a No Confidence vote - then the Monarch is there to hold things together until elections can be held and a new government takes office.
Would she actually fulfil the functions of government in that interim though?
Say a bomb explodes during a vote of no confidence and wipes out the cabinet. The Queen takes power pending elections, but immediately then Eurasia declares war on the UK. Will the Queen sit in 10 Downing street making decisions for a few weeks while a new Prime Minister is elected?
One power the Monarchy retains is to dominate the English Press.
All they need to do is have a birth, marriage or death and there will be massive press coverage.
For example, when William married Catherine, the first 16 pages of the Daily Telegraph were devoted to it
The only escape route is to buy the Independent that day. They cover royal stuff with a small paragraph on page 23 of the “Man and woman get married” variety.
The contingency is a remote one, but if this all came to pass then probably what would happen is the Queen would quickly appoint a National Government, roughly reflecting the balance of political power (which given a no-confidence vote will be fairly even) but hopefully with some eye to putting competent experienced people in place - probably “retired” cabinet members with good track records from the Lords and backbenches on the goverment side, and Shadow Cabinet members from the Opposition. Head of Government would almost certainly be the last (healthy) leader of the governing party, assuming they weren’t completely divisive.
It’s very unlikely that she would act as head of government herself, certainly not for longer than it took to arrange the foregoing.
Given the extreme nature of the crisis, it’s doubtful people would be too worried about the constitutionality at the time.
She would likely summon the surviving members of the Privy Council and Lords and delegate the responsibilities. For instance, she might ask Tony Blair to become temporary Prime Minister and form a government of national unity until elections are held.
As I understand it, it would actually break laws for her (or her heirs) to truly govern (I mean do anything besides maintain the status quo) in the place of Parliament, unless a Parliamentarian authorized her to do so. No?
But Dalton was a cabinet minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, even (for those who do not know, that is the most powerful cabinet position, after Prime Minister). He was forced to resign from that post (over a rather silly issue of protocol), but AKAIK that had nothing to do with the king, and in any case Dalton returned to a (lesser) cabinet post soon after. Even during the war, before he was Minister of Economic Warfare (I don’t know if that was a cabinet post, though). When are you claiming the king “kiboshed” him?
She appointed them in the sense that she formally appoint all PMs, but I do not think she in any way chose them for the job. That was, surely, done by the Conservative Party (who held the majority in Parliament at the time). The Conservative Party was not a very internally democratic or transparent organization at the time, so who it was, precisely, who was involved in the decision making when these men were chosen may not be particularly clear, but I very much doubt whether the queen herself was significantly involved.
Surely the last truly significant exercise of royal power was when George V (at his Prime Minister’s instigation) threatened to pack the House of Lords with Liberal peers if they attempted to overrule Commons by failing to pass Lloyd-Geroge’s budget and the Parliament Act that limited the Lords’ powers.
In this case, of course, the King acted in support of further democratization of the British Constitution, and in support of the democratically elected government of the day.
The OP mentions Queen Victoria, who, so I understand, really did exercise considerable power, and involved herself in at least some of the policies and decisions of her government. I think, however, that she was the was last monarch really to do so. (Perhaps her son Edward VII did to some degree.)