I don’t think we were taught this in school.
I think that in general people’s understanding of how Monarchies work comes more from fiction like Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones than it does from history class.
Ahem ;). Granted we’re talking Saturday morning, not school. But it probably had more impact on the children of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s than any classroom. I’m pretty sure I could have sung those lyrics word for word even into my twenties.
As one of those American I must admit that your comment is completely wrong insofar as my views are concerned. I am quite aware that HM has no legal standing to reverse a decision of Parliament, however stupid that decision might be.
My position is predicated on the assumption that a large majority of MPs, as well as a large majority of the brightest Britons, regard Brexit as a big mistake, but are paralyzed politically. If there were some way to cut through the political impasse and reverse that decision, there would be much gratitude. *** If a single person had the prestige to attempt what Parliament secretly wants to do, that person would be a godsend to the British nation.*** If no Prime Minister will fill that role, then who?
Now who’s being silly?
I’ll split this in two, first what powers the Norwegian king has, and then the historical reason why we kept the monarchy so far.
The Norwegian king’s responsibilities are entirely ceremonial, with the exception of the power to postpone legislation through veto. No king after the separation of the union with Sweden has used this power, and as it would be quicker to change the constitution to take that power away it’s not something the king will use lightly. Of course he could also veto the constitutional change, but even if he’s sure that this is a very bad idea from a party that will not be able to remain in power for long, this would still only be a temporary solution.
Norway kept the monarchy after the dissolution of the union with Sweden for pragmatic, realpolitik reasons. The government at the time was very much for a republic in principle, but recruiting a Danish prince and British princess to be King and Queen ensured we’d maintain important alliances and not be seen as a stable and sensible, rather than as a dangerous/unimportant upstart with revolutionary tendencies.
Much is made of the referendum approving this decision, but fact is it wasn’t a “Monarchy or Republic”-referendum, it was a “Will you accept the decision we already made, because the new king wont accept the offer unless you do!”, with the unstated alternative being, “We’ll resign if you don’t, and you can figure this shit out on your own. But good luck maintaining an alliance with England if you go republic.”
Another fine point - look at two democracies where the head of state is an elected president - Italy and Israel have both had criminal investigations into the past activities of their presidents. (to be fair, the queen of the Netherlands also had to endure an investigation into hubby’s role wrt fighter jet purchases). The advantage I see for Canada keeping the queen and a purely ceremonial role, plus a governor general with basically no power either, is that instead of recycling used politicians and all the notoriety they bring (and divisiveness) we have someone who has a pleasantly interesting ceremonial role, no power beyond the “nuclear option” (discussed ad nauseum here in other threads), and a familial incentive not to destroy the reputation of the office simply to make a personal statement without regard to what happens 10 or 20 years down the road.
Beth and Chuck are well aware that they meddle in politics at their peril and the peril of offspring now and future, heir and spare.
I have the impression that a strong clue might be the definition of your President in the constitution designed to replace George III and the UK parliament in the governance of America.
Hence the old saying that you have an elected monarchy, while we have a crowned republic.
Being an old geezer notwithstanding, I’ve can’t recall hearing that one.
It’s very apt.
Heh, “The Madness of King Donald”
There’s the story that King George’s urine turned blue when he had his episodes of madness, which contrasts with the modern day suggestion of “golden showers”.
Since this is GQ, I’ll simply say two things:
-
The polls do not support your assumptions. The polls indicate that the British are badly divided on this issue. See the recent discussion in the GD thread about hypothetical votes in a second referendum based on polling results.
-
Personally, I cannot envisage a situation where the British people and politicians would give up on four centuries of constitutional developments and democratic principles to allow a self-coup by the monarch.
The British constitutional system relies heavily on precedents. 
The Canadian governor (governess?) general recently came in for considerable criticism for making a scientific statement (she is a scientist) that rubbed some people the wrong way by saying that evolution is real. The criticism is that she was taking sides and ridiculing doubters and the GG should stay of controversies. If the Queen or her representative the GG (who is chosen by the Canadian government) were to mix in politics, Canada would soon become a republic.
Somehow, growing up in the US, I never believed that the British monarch had any power at all, even (or especially) whom he could marry. AFIK, Charles will not even be able to insist that Camilla be Queen, although parliament could Maybe I had better teachers.
Camilla will become Queen. It’s her legal right. However, to respect the memory of Saint Diana, she apparently won’t use the title “Queen” but rather “Duchess of Cornwall”.
[Moderating]
I already said to keep discussions of heads of state in the abstract, and that this thread is not about Trump. This is an official Warning for politicking in GQ and failure to follow moderator instructions.
I believe there is also the power to chose who to ask first to form a government in the event of a hung parliament. There is also the power to pardon criminals. Although that is normally used by the King and government together, I expect if there was some non-political guy the King really thought was hard done by, its not an issue the government would want to generate friction on.
King Haakon VII were also reported to have reminded the government forcefully that his democratic majority was considerably larger than theirs when they tried to pass laws that would have changed the agreement under which he took the throne.
The King also has some power of influence. Meeting with the government of the day weekly for decades means that the King has a very considerable body of experience, much larger than any prime minister. He can advice on matters of protocol and occasionally politics.
The strongest example of the latter is probably King Haakons words to the government at the start of WW2, when the invading Germans called on Norway to surrender. He said he would abide by the governments decision, but was strongly in favor of refusing the German demands. He could not abide those demands.
My understanding of the Dutch monarchy is that it’s much the same. Government formation, though, is delegated to a “rapporteur”, who conducts inter-party talks and presents an agreement for formal approval. However, I have the impression that the monarch has de facto greater room for visible influence over some aspects of diplomatic relations with other countries than would be considered proper in the UK.
In the exceptional circumstances of WW2, Queen Wilhelmina was visibly more involved in the government in exile, to the point that Churchill called her “the only man” in her government. AIUI, much the same could be said of the then Grand Duchess of Luxembourg. But they were exceptional circumstances, where the fundamental independence and integrity of the state was at stake.
I’ve posted this recently so I won’t repeat the long version, but the surrender of Japan took the Emperor acting outside of constitutional norms, and he acted to save the nation from complete destruction.
In the brick-sized biography of Victoria I’ve been reading (AN Wilson’s Victoria: A Life, if you’re interested), I came across a quote from another historian (RCK Ensor) that seems pertinent to the transition between George III’s constitutional monarchy and the modern one:
The tipping point would be the Reform Act of 1867, which expanded voting rights in Britain and enabled hundreds of thousands of men in rapidly growing industrial towns such as Manchester and Birmingham to finally have a say in the administration of their government. It was no longer exclusively the privilege of a relatively small group of gentlemen. The voting pool continued to increase after that. (Women didn’t get the vote until 1919.)
And even then, wasn’t he only able to act because the Cabinet was divided? If they had been united in recommending the war go on, he likely couldn’t have swung it.