How much power does the British monarch really have?

[owlstretchingtime]

@Pjen

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)

The Monarch is forced, by precedent, to pick the person most likely to form a government - if the hypothetical party was the party most likely to - they would have to pick it.

What would the courts do? What they always do - make it up as they go along. Think of the number of laws passed by parliament that the courts ignore as they defer to European Law. If we are still in the EU by then, then we won’t be able to introduce laws like that. For instance we couldn’t bring back the death penalty right now as we have signed up to all sorts of Euro stuff that takes priority

What would the Army do (it doesn’t much matter what the others do)? Good question. if the incoming governement really were that bad they may take matters into their own hands - but they would have to be truly awful

What would the people do - what they always do. Sod all.

[Polycarp]

@owlstretchingtime

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).

Owl – I tried to address that in post #4, along with related elements. It was an effort to strike a practical balance between the Romantic Monarchist perspective that “the Queen” is really the mild-mannered public persona of the woman who is secretly, behind the scenes, Super Stateswoman (but of course can never make any of that public) and the British Republican view that she’s an excrescence who has never done one useful thing in her life. Please review and let me know how close to the truth I actually came.

[owlstretchingtime]

You’re pretty much on the money. What yo have grasped is that their are seperate entities here - The Monarchy and the petrson - ie the current queen.

The Monarch is there for a variety of reasons. Firstly we never want to have another Cromwell figure (or for that matter another Henry VIII), so for that reason we split the powers into a variety of hands so that we are very unlikely to have an absolute ruler (although Blair is very close by our standards - but even i don’t think of him as a Mugabe figure). This job could concievably be done by an elected or appointed official - like the Irish President, but why would we want to do that?

the other role of the Monarch is to symbolise “Britain” rather than the governement of the day - this is why civil servants and the Armed forces work for the Crown - they will serve whatever governement gets in. Perhaps the closest thing to this in America is the flag (you won’t seel many union jacks in britain).

Seperate from this is the person of the Queen herself who is a unique historical figure - she has been in a position of some influence for sixty years - her dad was Emperor of India, she is the head of the Commonwealth! That is a truly fabulous for a politician/statesman to have to hand, and few are arrogant enough to igbore it (although Blair does - but he’s the worst PM since the Marquis of Bute). She is one of the few people in the world that gets their 'phone calls returned by absolutely everyone.

When the Queen dies we will lose this phenomenal woman and Charles will have an impossible act to follow.

[Bytegeist]

@owlstretchingtime

The other role of the Monarch is to symbolise “Britain” rather than the governement of the day - this is why civil servants and the Armed forces work for the Crown - they will serve whatever governement gets in. Perhaps the closest thing to this in America is the flag (you won’t seel many union jacks in britain).

Not the flag so much. A better analogy is the Constitution. It is this that U.S. servicemen take an oath to defend and uphold.

[aldiboronti]

@Polycarp

The Queen and the Royal Family get money from the U.K. budget, in what is called the Civil List.

Not all the Royal Family. The Prince of Wales and his household receive nothing from the Civil List, or Consolidated Fund or whatever they term it now. The heir to the throne lives solely on income derived from the Duchy of Cornwall (one of his titles is Duke of Cornwall). And a very tidy sum it is, I’m sure.

[Pjen]

@owlstretchingtime

The Monarch is forced, by precedent, to pick the person most likely to form a government - if the hypothetical party was the party most likely to - they would have to pick it.

What would the courts do? What they always do - make it up as they go along. Think of the number of laws passed by parliament that the courts ignore as they defer to European Law. If we are still in the EU by then, then we won’t be able to introduce laws like that. For instance we couldn’t bring back the death penalty right now as we have signed up to all sorts of Euro stuff that takes priority

What would the Army do (it doesn’t much matter what the others do)? Good question. if the incoming governement really were that bad they may take matters into their own hands - but they would have to be truly awful

What would the people do - what they always do. Sod all.

But that is exactly what I mean. Supposing the sovereign ignored the precedent and dissolved parliament again. Supposing the Courts supported him/her. Supposing the people supported him/her. What could an incoming leader of the biggest party do (note he/she is not prime minister until declared so by the monarch.) If neither reason (the courts) nor force (the Army) supported the supposed prime minister elect but maintained their allegiance to the Crown and dissolved parliament, what redress would the proto-leader have?

Now, if it were a president with limited powers acting under a clear constitution with the president being immediately commander in chief- no question the courts and army would follow. With a monarch and an unwritten constitution that is not necessarily the case.

Please note that despite the above I remain a Republican. This is a debating point only.