With the recent wedding of Charles and Camilla, the TV has been blaring another round of commentary about the future of the British monarchy. This includes the standard stuff about how the Queen wields little actual power and that the position is mostly ceremonial.
I’m tired of the weasel words. What kind of real power does the British monarch actually have? If I became King and switched into full on despot mode, how much havoc could I wreak?
very little, and it hasn’t been exercised in so long that it’s doubtful if the courts would uphold such an action anyway.
The King can, in theory, refuse to sign Bills passed by both Houses. It hasn’t happened since Queen Anne (1702-14). He can dissolve Parliament, but only ever does so at the Prime Minister’s ‘request’. He can appoint and dismiss Ministers, but only ever does so on the Prime Minister’s ‘advice’.
In the years of Personal Government (1629-40), Charles I dismissed his Parliament and tried to govern without supply, but his need for money eventually forced him to summon a Parliament anyway.
The sovereign does have the power to appoint the Prime Minister and by convention will ask the leader of the party that is likely to be able to command a majority in the House of Commons. This is usually a fairly clear-cut decision, but could involve use of the sovereign’s discretion in the event of an unclear election result e.g. facing a choice between a minority government and a coalition of smaller parties.
A wag once said that Queen Elizabeth can do anything she chooses to – once!! While smart-alecky, there’s a point to it. The Queen has a wide range of prerogative powers, which she customarily only uses on the “advice” (instructions/orders) of her Government. There is nothing at all stopping her from using them at her own volition – except the idea that if she did something not popular among a consensus of the citizenry and among the majority of leaders, it would be the only time she was ever able to do it; a bill stripping her of that prerogative power would quickly become law. But holding that reserve of powers in her, to be exercised on “advice,” makes the British government extremely flexible.
Suppose GWB wanted a formal declaration of war against someone. He can’t do it; he has to convene Congress, which will consider a motion to do so, debate it, and pass it – maybe. Meanwhile whatever military advantage might have been gained by a quick and explicit declaration of war and acting rapidly in accordance with it, is lost. But it is the Queen who declares war, on the advice of the Cabinet; Parliament is merely apprised of the fact. After Pearl Harbor, the U.K. beat us to the draw in declaring war on Japan. To be sure, Queen and P.M. had better have the Commons in hand in doing so – but the fact remains that constitutionally it is her prerogative to declare war. Other, less bellicose examples might easily be found; that one came to mind owing to Churchill’s explanation of it in connection with describing the events leading up to Pearl Harbor.
So nearly always the Queen will act on the advice of the Government, not because she is merely a figurehead, but because that is how their system is structured – she becomes the actor of record for something decided by collaboration and compromise beforehand. And she may well have had a significant voice in resolving the issue in the way she formally announces; she takes seriously her job to be informed and counsel and warn her ministers, and she has 50 years of experience in Government, something no politician worth his salt quickly discards.
There are two things that she may do without formal “advice,” though always with informal advice and with a definite feel for what the Commons wants: appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister. Although ordinarily she will appoint as Prime Minister the man who heads the party with a majority in the Commons, or the chosen leader of a coalition that can put together a majority, and hence her “choice” is limited to one person, she does have the discretion of calling anyone she believes can form a Government and requesting him to attempt to do so. She would do this if an effective three-way tie among Tories, Labour, and LibDems happened after next month’s election, identifying who might possibly be able to structure a coalition and calling on him to do so. Twice, in 1957 and 1963, she chose the new P.M. when the Conservative Party leader had to resign and there was no consensus replacement waiting in the wings. And while the P.M. ordinarily resigns when defeated on a vote of confidence or having lost an election, if he decided to play stubborn, she retains the right to fire him. And by precedent set by William IV and George V, the monarch is the one who makes the final decision whether to “pack the Lords” in order to get controversial legislation acted on. Under the Lords reform, this may fall into desuetude, but it’s worth noting as a case where the Queen acts at discretion rather than in strict accord with “advice.”
In short, the modern British system is founded on the idea of placing ultimate and emergency power in the hands of someone who may not ordinarily exercise it herself, but may choose whether to enable others to exercise it. A hypothetical P.M. struck by megalomania would be unable to cause a constitutional crisis, because the Queen would calmly refuse his advice and dismiss him.
The U.K. operates by cooperation and compromise among people who bring their differing views rather than by Hegelian conflict resolution, as the U.S. does. What the Queen does is not generally to be seen as “can she do it by herself?” in the same sense as what the President can and cannot do without Congressional authorization, but rather her role as spokesman for a behind-the-scenes consultation aimed at arriving at compromise and consensus, in which negotiations she may play a larger or smaller part.
On a similar note, does the House of Lords have any power these days? Or do they merely rubberstamp the House of Commons? Is it possible they could conspire with the monarchy to return power to a sovereign?
According to the House of Lords site, the vast majority of the current peers (578 out of 693) are government-appointed life peers, rather than hereditary peers from the aristocracy. So I can’t see them trying to return power to the sovereign.
As to the powers of the House of Lords - see here for some information on its role, powers and functions.
Where does there money come from? Do they get a cut of the taxes?
The Queen and the Royal Family get money from the U.K. budget, in what is called the Civil List. There is a regular episode of bitching about how much she gets from the taxpayers. What most people don’t realize is that the Crown Estate more than balances that out. These are lands that are owned by the Queen in her capacity as monarch (as opposed to the two properties that are hers as Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor, daughter of Albert George Windsor, in her private capacity), the income from which was signed over to the government on her accession in 1953. When she dies, Charles will have to decide whether to continue precedent, sign over the income to the Crown Estate, and continue drawing a government-appropriated salary and benefits, or try to live on the income from the Crown Estate (which may financially be his wiser choice).
I think, though, that the Civil List no longer exists. The Queen exchanged it for the Consolidated Fund some years ago. The difference between them is that the Civil List was an entitlement whereas the Consolidated Fund is an allowance.
Parliament votes every few years on how much to give the Queen. This is the Consolidated Fund Act from 2000:
I seem to recall that this change was enacted in about 1993 and the queen put up quite a lot of resistance to it at first (but had no choice other than to accept it since parliament was behind the change). A lot of people still use the term “Civil List” (and a lot of websites) since the change seems fairly minor - just a change of name to most people - but it’s actually quite a big change. Parliament can vote on whether to increase (or reduce) the amount of money the Queen gets. So they could theoretically vote to give her no money. They couldn’t do this with the Civil List.
Ask Gough Whitlam. 
Does this mean that the British royal family are, essentially, the richest and most famous welfare recipients in the world?
I suspect you might have a different opinion if you actually tried doing the rather gruelling job that the Queen has done for over 50 years.
No. The Consolidated Fund is simply the account from which the Treasury pays out money for government expenditure. The Civil List has long been paid from it.
Consolidated Funds Acts are just routine measures by which Parliament authorises the Government to spend money from the Fund. When it speaks of ‘supply granted to Her Majesty’, it means that this is money granted to Her Majesty’s Government, because the legal fiction is still that all money granted to the Government is money granted to the Queen.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the president does not have the power to convene Congress. He can only request that Congress agree to call itself into session.
Art. II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution gives the President the power to call either or both houses of Congress into “extraordinary” session. Presidents have in fact done so when Congress had adjourned and an issue requiring legislative action came up.
There’s also the question of her powers of persuasion.
Don’t forget that that little old lady in the odd hats has been doing the job since 1952, and was being prepared for it since before the war. As such she has been there, seen it and done it all. She has met everyone, been everywhere and had close relationships with people as diverse as Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev.
As such it is a foolish politician who doesn’t listen when she speaks. Margaret Thatcher is very good on her influence in the “Downing Street Years”.
Perhaps unexpectedly she seems to have had her most productive relationships with Labour leaders (although by all acounts she can’t abide Blair).
Forgive the digression, but can somebody explain those hats to me, those hideous, ludicrous, comical hats? Is HM playing a joke with them or what?
She likes them. She has literally thousands of them. They are appropriate semi formal wear for a lady of her age. She can’t wear a crown all the time!
2010 - 2020AD
Britain’s three main parties become less and less popular and a small Racist, Authoritarian, Populist Party Extreme Right Wing Little England Party (No, not Howard’s Conservatives) starts to do well in the polls. Britain’s system of first past the post allows any non-two-party election to deliver a majority government on a small minority of the popular vote. Supposing this party gains some 32% of the vote, but because its supporters are regionally based, (say in South east England), it gains a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. (Think Hitler’s rise to power in the thirties). The manifesto proposes compulsory repatriation for any immigrants (legal or illegal) who still have other nationalities and restricted citizenship for their offspring. It proposes withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on Refugees, the European Community and any other organization that binds it to the mores of the rest of the democratic world. It proposes forcible separation of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland regions as separate nation states, denying such resident’s citizenship in the new ‘Little England’. It proposes limiting suffrage to people who can prove their ‘English’ ancestry for at least five generations.
They have three hundred and fifty MPs and so would have the right to do all of the above. The Royal Prerogative would give them considerable power to make any change at all (we don’t have an effective constitution with permanent clauses which limit the power of governments; parliament is sovereign.)
Would Liz or George VIII (Charlie Boy) or William IV ask them to form a government, or might they use their unfettered prerogative powers to require the people to think again by dissolving the new parliament before a prime minister has gained assent.
What would the Courts do? (their allegiance is to the Sovereign)
What would the Armed Forces do? (their allegiance is to the Sovereign)
What would the people do? (their allegiance is to the Sovereign)
George VII and William V