Didn’t he “lose his head” over that?
Power is something you take, not something a political process delivers to you. George IV was an interesting example: I believe he was actually more powerful as Regent during his father’s illness than he was as a king in his own right. If a politically savvy man were to once again inherit the crown, I think we’d see a politically powerful monarch again; I just don’t see that happening in my lifetime.
The Queen’s soft power not to be taken lightly. Some years ago the Labour government of the day was proposing some particularly bone-headed policy, decried by everyone who wasn’t in the government. So she invited the Governor of the Bank of England to lunch to explain it to her. Almost immediately the government backtracked and the proposed policy was cancelled. And all she did was invite someone to lunch.
Note: since we are in GQ and this is the Dope, technically, the Queen does not invite her subjects but commands their presence, but we can decline the invitation / command.
My point exactly!
And it makes me laugh how the Guardian and its readers seem to get so shocked and upset when they learn about the Queen having this kind of influence, as if it’s undemocratic and unconstitutional. It’s one of the most important powers of the monarchy, and one of the most useful, too. If the Government abandons a policy because it fears an amused smirk by a well-briefed Sovereign, then that Government is probably doing the right thing.
A bit of understatement maybe? I assume decapitation normally ends a king’s reign?
Yeah, but a king’s reign typically ends without a decapitation.
Just to make it clear, the Prime Minister meets and briefs the Queen on a weekly basis. As her web page puts it “she has a right and a duty to express her views on Government matters.” Since these meetings are confidential its impossible to say how much influence she has had over the last 60 years.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx
I’m sure her amused smirk has probably quashed quite a few ideas over the years.
I have 3 answers
George V who used the threat of his Royal Prerogative to ensure the Parliament Act of 1911 passed.
My second answer is Elizabeth II who by virtue of being the monarch since 1952 has a lot of power behind the scenes.
My third answer is any British monarch. I know I’m just a colonist but I’ve always seen the following three points incongruous
- The monarch is required to follow the advice of their advisors.
- But the constitution is unwritten so there is really no law per se that requires the monarch to follow the advice.
- There is an assumption that the House of Commons would get rid of the monarchy if they were to ever to use their rights (such as refusing assent) no matter what the circumstances.
I think if a monarch wanted to use their powers (IIRC one fear that led to his forced abdication was that Edward VIII was thinking of using his powers) it may be possible despite what Parliament seems to believe.
I remember 20 years ago one Prime Minister said those meetings are not idle chit chat. The Queen is knowledgeable and interested in what goes on…she’s been having these meetings since Churchill was Prime Minister.
I highly recommend this book for a detailed, well-written, behind-the-scenes look at the contemporary British Monarchy, including its political dimension: Amazon.com. Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are quoted in it as saying that their weekly audiences with the Queen are substantive and helpful. One of their predecessors (Callaghan, maybe?) once said that the audiences give the PM a chance for candid, friendly advice from the only experienced public official in the realm who doesn’t want his job.
Exactly. If I was a freshly elected UK Prime Minister and the Queen told me something was a very bad idea I’d at the very least tread very cautiously. Not only because she’s the Queen but simply because she’s been having these personal chats with every Prime Minister since 1953!
Well, no, as precisely in the example you quote. Monarchs can have influence, e.g., George V because of his family connections tried to use personal influence on the Kaiser and the Tsar to get them to think again in 1914, but not independently of his government (indeed he was embarrassed when there was a last-minute misunderstanding which meant he had inadvertently given the wrong impression, and his ministers had to ask him personally to explain the actual situation to the Kaiser). But as for power, that’s completely different. The example you quote, of agreeing if necessary to create peers to get a government bill through the House of Lords, was doing his government’s bidding, according to the precedent set in 1832 by William IV to get the Reform Act through. George V’s attempt to set up a grand peace conference in 1914 between the parties over the Home Rule debate in Ireland foundered - he had not enough influence, and no power, to get them to compromise.
What you’re calling Influence most people would simply call power. Anyone that had a right to a weekly personal briefing from the Primer Minister and a chance to state their views would be regarded by most people as a powerful person. Soft power is still power.
Here’s the example I’ve used before. Parliament apportions 100 billion pounds to set up a home for wayward cats. Lilibet thinking it is a huge waste of money refuses Royal Assent.
Does the monarchy get abolished?
Point out the law (pointing out implying that it is actually written down) that requires QE2 to give Royal Assent? That’s the advantage of an unwritten Constitution - it says whatever you want it to say.
No but it would cause a constitutional crisis and the end result might be that that particular monarch is forced to abdicate and then the next monarch would sign the bill. Every time the monarch has opposed Parliament in the last 300 years it hasn’t ended well for the monarch.
There was a comparable situation in Belgium, where Baudoin (a devout Catholic) formally abdicated for a day or two to allow his brother to take over and sign the law permitting abortion. But I think in Britain it would probably have to be final for the monarch who set aside custom and practice to that degree.
As for influence vs. power, the dividing line is, what is decisive? A monarch can seek to influence all they like, they can’t enforce their will just because it’s their will - unless and until all other parts of the system had failed or disappeared and no other replacement is available. Looking again at the “fire extinguisher” comparator, you could also look on it as something like the nuclear deterrent - always there, but its normal function depends on it not actually being used. If it does have to be used something catastrophic has already occurred and someone has to make it up as they go along.
The ouster of Australia’s Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam by Governor General Malcolm Kerr on November 10, 1975 ended without damage to the monarchy. What happened there was that the lower house passed supply, or money legislation. In theory the passage of supply indicates confidence in the Prime Minister. The Senate (equivalent of the House of Lords but elected in Australia) refused to pass supply. By a quirk, on of Queensland’s elected senators had died and was temporarily replaced, pending elections, by a senator hostile to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s position was that he had the confidence of Parliament he needed and asked the Governor General to dissolve just the Senate and order Senate elections.
Instead the Governor General invited Whitlam in, cashiered him on the spot and then invited Malcolm Frasier, the opposition leader in to serve as Prime Minister pending elections. At that point it was obvious that the opposition was going to win the elections. In, I believe, 1999 there was a referendum on conversion to a republic. The proposed change lost since there wasa lack of clarity on what the role of the proposed president would be.
My view is that if you’re going to maintain a division between a prime minister and a holder of the “reserve powers,” i.e. a president or monarch, why undergo the trauma to make the change?
I knew someone would mention this. I should have said “every confrontation with the UK Parliament within the last 300 years didn’t end well for the monarch”. Her role of Queen of the Commonwealth countries is different and the worse case scenario in 1975 was that the Governor General would be forced to quit instead of the monarch herself. That almost happened as it was basically a race to see who could dismiss the other first, the GG or the PM.
The Australian incident is complicated, and not directly analogous with most Commonwealth states because, unlike, say, the UK, the Australian upper house is a powerful institution and arguably equal to the House - akin to the US Senate than the British House of Lords.
The UK had a clash akin to the Australian 1975 one in 1910, and the king sided with the Government and the Commons. The Governor-General of Australia in 1975 did not have such a clear choice, as arguably the Senate had (and has) as much a right to speak for the people as the House does.
In 1911, the House of Lords lost; in 1975, the Australian Senate won.