And AP History students of future generations will have to write essays about the long-term causes and impacts of the Boring Revolution.
Which they will refer to as “the only accurately named thing in the history book”.
Presumably any time a monarch declined to assent, the issue would likely be highly divisive and contentious enough that it would be an interesting vote to try to re-pass the bill or pass something punishing the monarch for the action, or bypassing their authority.
It’s just not a power he can exercise. He only has it nominally.
Probably, if the reason for doing so was that the monarch was attempting to withhold assent from a Bill that Parliament had enacted and ministers were advising him to assent to.
It would be a revolutionary act, of course. But revolutions can happen without civil wars. There would only be a civil war if there were a sufficient number of people willing, organised and equipped to take up arms to support the monarch in overthrowing democracy in the UK. It’s by no means a given that there would be.
No he absolutely can exercise that power. It’s a power it would go against convention to exercise. It would be extremely controversial and provoke a huge backlash (a backlash that may more than counteract whatever he’s trying to achieve by exercising the power)
The recent history of US politics (and to a much lesser degree, Britain) is graphic demonstration of how those things are not the same. In fact it being against convention and potentially provoking huge controversy is not the slightest hindrance to someone who doesn’t care about any of those things, and has the political backing to craven or cowardly to do anything about it.
Not that this particular thing is too high up on my list of conventions that an autocrat is going to take advantage of some time soon, either in the UK or US. But still the fact remains “it would be very controversial if he did that” is not remotely the same as “he can’t do that”.
No, he can’t, not effectively. If he tries to, that sets off a chain of events, the outcome of which is that the Bill gets enacted anyway, and either (a) as king, his assent to Bills is no longer required, or (b) he isn’t king any more, or (c) there isn’t a king any more. There is no forseeable outcome in which he is still king, he still has the prerogative of assent, and the Bill never gets enacted.
As I say, the steps by which we would get to the final outcome might involve a (legally).revolutionary act, but so what? That has happened before in Westminster democracies, and there is no fundamental reason why it couldn’t happen in the UK if the king tries to behave unconstitutionally.
I think it would be a mistake to see UK constitutional conventions and US political conventions as similar creatures with a similar degree of binding force. They are not.
No that’s what people think will probably happen, if a sufficient number of the people involved respect the system, and the conventions that hold it together (even if those things diverge from their own short term political aims and ambitions).
Again it’s pretty academic in this case, I don’t think Charles III is about to conspire with Farage to subvert democracy in the UK. Of all the quirks of the UK political and legal system a Trump-style autocrat could take advantage of, it’s way down there
But still the monarch could absolutely withhold assent and the only thing that would ensure he saw any repercussions at all, are a collection of unwritten assumptions about how politicians will behave when conventions are broken. And you know what they say about what happens when you assume
It’s not so much an assumption as just thinking through the likely consequences of a hypothetical action. Or, if you want to frame it as an assumption, we have to make some assumption. To assert that the king could effectively veto a Bill against the advice of ministers would be to assume that that the attempt would be accepted by government and parliament. (And nothing in the last 300 years of British constitutional practice makes that look like a remotely plausible assumption.)
Well, this discussion is about a hypothetical. The scenario that the King withholds royal assent is at least as unlikely as the scenario that, given the assumption that the King has withheld royal assent, the (probably non-violent) revolution described will play out.
There’s the old Daffy Duck cartoon where he’s a stage magician - he swallows several sticks of dynamite, chugs a gallon of gasoline, then swallows a lit match. “It’s a great trick, but I can only do it once!”
The same applies to the monarch (or any head of state) violating the accepted norms. Roosevelt and the 22nd amendment is a classic example. Eventually the problem will be fixed.
However the innumerable counter examples that show this to be an utter false assumption are almost every single thing Donald J Trump has done in office. Every one of which is a violation of the accepted norms and a convention that it was always assumed no one would break because the outrage it would cause was bound to have repercussions. When in fact the outrage caused exactly zero repercussions.
That’s the point I’m making saying “this head of state can’t do that” when you mean “this head of state would face serious (but ultimately ill defined) repercussions for doing that” is fundamentally an incorrect statement. Those statements do not mean the same thing.
Like this literally appeared on my feed as I was writing my reply:
Is there a written law saying the president can’t steal the resolute desk? No, but it was absolutely an accepted norm. It was assumed that no POTUS would do so as the repercussions doing so would far outweigh the advantage. Even if it is just a replica that’s still a pretty significant violation of the norms of Presidential behavior.
And either way the chances of the Trump facing any repercussions at all are basically nil
(This is a sidetrack to the OP. But feel free to start a thread on this of you want to reply)
Yes, I suppose if the King was a highly charismatic populist, he could potentially use his position to rally the rabble around him, dissolve Parliament and become a dictator.
Looking at the current royal family, I doubt this will happen in the near future.
He could, but it would have to be a very unusual circumstance where Parliament acts against the interest & desires of the people. Let’s take a crazy example: Parliament passes a bill declaring that it is the official view of the UK that the Holocaust never occurred. If the monarch refused Royal Assent then I doubt that the people would rise in revolt. Maybe a more reasonable example would be if it came out that a controversial bill were passed through bribery then refusal of Royal Assent would be in order.
This being the key point. This saying the head of state doing a thing would break an unwritten norm that nobody has broken in 300 years is absolutely not the same thing as saying the head of state can’t do that thing.
Trump breaks unwritten norms that have not been broken in 250 years of American constitutional practice most days.
Americans seem to be fascinated by these theoretical what-ifs about the British Crown, it’s always them who start these discussions round here. Those of us who actually live here, don’t spend much effort on such stuff.
Quite. In essence, however stuffy and encrusted in mediaeval protocol the institution appears, the expectation can be summed up as simply as the proverbial advice on acting - “know your lines and don’t bump into the furniture”. A few fanatics (pro and anti) apart, most of us don’t think that much about it unless and until the furniture’s bumped into (or, to borrow another theatrical metaphor, the weasel under the cocktail cabinet becomes too big or noisy to ignore).
It is a treason felony
If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels,
Maybe I am misreading that, but it seems to me that that would include threatening the monarch with loss of their prerogative if they refused Royal Assent.
The Treason Act 1351, one of the oldest statutes still in force. In a situation where a monarch refuses to grant royal assent against all constitutional conventions, I’m sure the courts would find a way to argue that a minister who tried to advise the King against that would not have committed treason.
But what if the PM tells the monarch to either give Royal Assent or Parliament will depose him/take his prerogative away/&c.?