Let’s say that King Charles III (or whatever name he takes) decides that being a figurehead isn’t for him, and he actually wants to do some real kinging, like his predecessors did centuries ago.
He starts small: there shall now be a 5 percent tax on beer purchases at football games, in order to curtail alcohol-fueled violence at football games*.
Would Parliament have to enact his edict into law? Would someone in the government simply say, “Good idea, my Lord,” and then instruct Parliament to ignore him? Would he get a stern talking-to by his handlers?
*Yes, I know that alcohol-fueled violence at English football games isn’t the problem it was in, say, the 80s, but Sunday Morning Brain can only come up with so much.
No, Parliament would not have to enact his edict into law. Yes, he would receive a stern talking to by his handlers along with a stern slap across his constitutional jaw by Parliament. I have less than limited knowledge of the constitutional niceties in your scenario but I know with all my being that Parliament would vehemently object to any significant power grab by the Monarch. I think a more likely scenario is one where the outspoken Prince Charles becomes an outspoken King Charles.
The Crown doesn’t have the authority to impose taxes unilaterally under the Royal Prerogative, so your example is right out from the start. Only Parliament can impose taxes. The courts would declare the decree null and void, if Parliament didn’t act first.
This issue of taxation was one of the points in dispute between Parliament and the first King Charles. It didn’t end well for that Charles, you may recall… He had a shortened reign.
So is The Crown’s hands-off approach to actual governance codified into law, or is it the result of a centuries-old gentlemen’s agreement (for lack of a better choice of words)?
Well, depends. It’s maybe more likely Chuck would be forced to abdicate in favour of Will, provided that Will promises to behave himself. Easier to find a new, more amenable king than to get everyone to agree on one of the myriad of ways to turn the kingdom into a republic.
A more interesting and potentially plausible scenario would be if the monarch tries to at least have more influence slowly. As I understand it, the Prime Minister still advises the Queen weekly or something like that, and gets advice from her, but if the monarch started slowly and carefully influencing more of parliament, simply giving advice, using personal charisma and such, and also being more outspoken to the public on issues that the monarch currently avoids by tradition, it would probably ruffle a few feathers but not enough to have anything done about it.
For this to ever translate into actually having power again would take decades at least, and it would require the person to be charismatic, well-regarded by practically everyone, as well as smart and lucky in that exactly ZERO of their suggestions/influences turn out to be horrible ideas if they’re actually ever implemented. In a situation where a very charismatic monarch has been making very good suggestions to parliament and speaking out to the population for decades and has managed to never be significantly wrong about anything, there might be a chance, though still a slim one, of eventually managing to get Parliament to pass some things giving them some actual powers back that they can actually exercise.
I suspect that taxing beer at football games would not be the kind of thing that would see universal approbation (which would be the main reason to try to do it by edict rather than democratically).
He would need to enact a law giving him the power to make laws. Getting that through Parliament would be extremely difficult at best. Even if Charles III would be the greatest monarch ever, there is no guarantee that William the Nth would be, or George the Nth, or Sarah the Nth, and so forth. Furthermore the king would not have control over the military, police, etc unless more laws were changed to give him that… and again, trying to make those laws hereditary would be a disaster.
I don’t know if the king could become an MP (and then prime minister) independently. The closest example, from CNN:
I vaguely recall reading that this was actually illegal under Thai law and she was simply ignoring the law, hoping they’d make an exception for her.
It didn’t go so well for James II or Edward VIII either. The precedents seem pretty clear; if a British monarch gets uppity, he will be replaced with a new monarch who knows his place.
There are scenarios where it’s conceivable that the monarch could assert power and not be smacked down. But these are usually the sort of scenarios where global nuclear war is the least implausible component of the scenario. And they generally end with the monarch giving back most of that power, anyway.
The other option, of course, is to abolish the monarchy and set up a constitutional republic.
BTW, a recent film (based on a play) called King Charles III is about what happens when the future king refuses to sign off on a bill about press freedom, and the resulting crisis.
With respect to the specific example of the Crown trying to enact a tax, the English Civil Wars and the Glorious Revolution settled it politically, and the Bill of Rights put it into law: the Crown has no taxing power and cannot pass laws by himself, nor waive or amend the laws. Only Parliament can do so. The Crown can be given delegated legislative powers by Parliament.
As a result, there has been a steady decline in the Crown’s political power, because the centre of legislative power is Parliament, and throughout the 20th century, the House of Commons.
dissolution of Parliament: perhaps not unilaterally, but there are circumstances where even that is a maybe.
“The appointment of the prime minister is also, theoretically, governed by the royal prerogative”. Charles would be on thin ground should he do so, unless perhaps if there’s a hung parliament. I guess that if the majority party proposed someone that Charles simply could not work with, Charles could exert influence to get another person.
**granting of pardons and the granting of nolle prosequi. ** Charles pretty much would be free to do so.
**granting or withdrawing British passports ** If this got out of hand, Parliament would step in.
**the granting of honours,
the regulation of the armed forces
ecclesiastical appointments.**
So yes the Queen has powers but chooses to mostly exert those under advice. No doubt that if Elizabeth really wanted to pardon someone she could just do it.
I’d guess that attempting to become a republic would be so difficult that they’d look back in nostagia at the peaceful and tranquil days of trying to leave the EU.
Yes, this is my main argument why Canada should stay a monarchy. The showy soap opera in London is far preferable to recycling used politicians as the presidents that have been charged in Italy and Israel the last while demonstrates. Even here we’ve had an uppity Governor General who seemed to think the public purse existed for her convenience. Imagine if we had a head of state with a modicum of power?
Plus, the royal assent is never withheld from anything passed by parliament, here or there; nor is the natural result of elections interfered with. The risk of an elected Lords/Senate or head of state is that they may think they have some real mandate to throw their weight around, thus precipitating a constitutional crisis.
Not that difficult, technically speaking. Lots of countries which inherited a Westminister monarchical model have transitioned to a republican form of government, starting with the 13 colonies that rebelled to establish the United States. Or, for a more recent instance, Ireland.
There may obviously be political difficulties associated with or arising out of the decision to make the transition from monarchy to republic. But actually making the transition can be fairly straightforward. The Westminster model of constituional parliamentary monarchy already incorporates much of what you would regard as foundational to a constitutional democratic republic.
