Re the Dalton issue. Attlee had selected him as Foreign Secretary, that was blocked by GVIR. He became Chancellor but was dismissed later.
On the selection of PMs at the time the Tories did not have a formal mechanism to spect a party leader in that situation. The party elder statesman recommended a name to the Queen and she selected that. The problem was that the Tories had factions sporting different names and no matter how detached EIIR remained, whatever she did she was choosing one faction over the other, an internal party faction was being chosen by the monarch, no matter how much of a majority faction it was. As it is, large parts of the Tory establishment wanted to keep Sir Rab Butler out,but many of the backbench MPs supported him. She choose to follow the establishment.
As an aside, what’s with “GVIR” and “EIIR”? I know that it’s taken from the monarch’s monograms (monarchgrams?) but did you just make up this in-text usage?
It’s the Royal cipher used on post boxes, primarily, but also in some other situations, like on the uniforms of the Beefeaters.
GVIR is the cipher for “George VI” and EIIR is the cipher for Elizabeth II. (The “R” stands for “Rex” in the case of a king, and “Regina” in the case of a queen.)
ETA: here’s a Google Image search for some examples.
It is nevertheless unusual to use that format in general discourse, isn’t it? It’s decipherable in context, but out of context I don’t think I would recognise “EIIR”.
Prince William should so name his second child “Brenda”, especially if it’s a girl. It would be a lovely nod to his less loyal future subjects. Not that we’re actually “subjects” any more, if I remember rightly.
I’ve learned an amazing amount from the responses, thanks everyone! I’m a voracious reader of biographies (authorized and otherwise) and their wealth and history make them intriguing to me, for now, especially through my very American lens.
The Queen’s representative in Canada was asked by the prime minister to adjourn (the odd word they use is “prorogue”) parliament on the eve of what would probably have been a lost vote of non-confidence (it was a minority government). Many pols and political commentators thought that he could have refused, which would have been a real exercise of power. But he didn’t. (At one time I knew him moderately well and he is a class 1 a-hole.) Apparently some time in the 1920s, the Governor General did veto an act of parliament (by refusing to proclaim it) and there was rioting in the streets.
Perhaps the Queen could still refuse to adjourn parliament.
My understanding is that George was forced by the Commons to issue the threat to pack the House of Lords, and that he was against the Parliament Act. So I don’t think that was a good example of a Monarch wielding power, rather the opposite.
Just as William IV was forced by the loathsome Earl Grey to threaten to pack the House of Lords with new peers — he didn’t want to, not because he opposed the Reform bill, but as he didn’t want to have lots more peers hanging about — so the Grey Administration dropped, the Wellingtonian party couldn’t form a government; William recalled Grey and obeyed his instruction to threaten to make more liberal peers, after which the 2nd House folded without the necessity to actually follow through.
The People’s Budget not the Parliament Act 1911 (which was subsequent and consequent to it). Basically when the budget was rejected, GVR ( I like it, I will bloody well use it :D) had two choices. Either accept dissolution and threaten to flood the Lords with peers or accept the governments resignation. His own staff was divided on this issue. He eventually chose the former, although he later felt that he had been ill advised as to the supposed lack of ability of the opposition to form a government and he might have chosen differently.
Moreover, in the 1920’s during the General strike, he quite openly opposed many of his own governments positions and was a moderating influence.
I guess, but he still got forced by the Commons into following their “advice”, so I don’t think it counts as an exercise of royal power. That he really wanted to go the other way and wished he had accentuates the point.
Did he use any royal powers to do it?
Does anyone have a post 1900 example of the use of royal power by a British Monarch?
that’s because prorogation is different from adjourn. Only the Crown can call Parliament into session, and only the Crown can end a session of Parliament. The term for the Crown’s power to end a session is “prorogation.” When Parliament is in session, each House can adjourn its sittings from day to day or for a longer time, such as for summer holidays, but that is done by majority vote of each House. It doesn’t end the session.
. She, not he. It was the previous GovGen, Micheale Jean, who had to make the decision, not the current GovGen.
No. I think you’re thinking of the King-Byng Fling. In 1925-26, PM King had a minority government. He was facing a vote of censure in the Commons over a sweatshop scandal and asked the GovGen, Lord Byng, to dissolve Parliament and call an election. Byng refused, because the political situation wax very fluid with several parties in the Commons. He thought the second largest party should be given an opportunity to form a government, and called on the Leader of the Opposition, Arthur Meighen. He formed a government, but it quickly fell. Meighen them asked for a dissolution, which the GovGen granted. King ran on a platform that the GovGen improperly exercised his powers. King was returned to office. Feelings certainly ran high, but I don’t recall any rioting.