i was wondering… does the queen of england have any actual (political) power anymore or just alot of influence. also what did he ansestors do to become monarchs?
eggo
The queen is head of of government for all the countries in the commonwealth. All bills must be signed by her or the Govenor-General who represents her before they become law. She also has the power to fire the government, and is commander in chief of the military. In practice though she never interferes with the elected government and just acts as a figurehead.
Short answer–no political power at all. She is the embodiment of the United Kingdom, but it is basically a figurehead role. Parliament does make some token requests of her, but I really doubt that her disapproval would stop them from doing their job.
As to your second question, that’s too complicated to answer in this forum. You’d be better off getting a book on the Kings and Queens of England and reading that.
Both Vlad and Guy are correct. In theory, and in law, she has power. She holds this power, not by “divine right” but by Acts of Parliament – this is called constitutional monarchy, although there is no written constitution.
In practice, she has not exercised that power. Were she to do so in confrontation with Parliament, there is little doubt that Parliament would change the law and reduce her powers.
One correction. She’s not the ‘head of government’, she’s the head of state. The head of government is the PM.
Bíonn caora dhubh ar an tréad is gile (there is a black sheep even in the whitest flock).
Eggo, as to what her ancestors did, it was pretty much get knocked up before the competing ancestors. I don’t have my history books on-hand, but if I recall, when it got to George IV in the early 1800s, there was no direct descendent left to take over, and all the nieces and nephews began frantically boffing away to produce the first heir. Baby Queen Victoria was the lucky winner, and Elizabeth is her direct descendent (with a little detour for Uncle Edward’s abdication). Before George IV, it was a matter of who got pregnant, who won wars, etc. It hopped from family to family for hundreds of years, so no, Elizabeth is not directly related to the earlier monarchs at all.
Just for the record, I am for the English monarchy–people are basically sheep and need a figurehead to look up to. Thus, religions, monarchies and, to a lesser extent, celebrities, serve a genuine purpose.
Dang, spent too long typing and now everything has been said. I agree she has no official influence, however my experience of the English civil service is still very much an old boys network, especially the Foreign Office, and I’m sure there is a lot of behind-the-scenes time spent on keeping Prince Philip away from any foreign head of state. As for where they got their money, they stole it, the same as almost every other hereditary monarch. Natch.
It only hurts when I laugh.
This is just a personal opinion, but I do live under the British Monarchy and feel we could do a lot better.
It’s true it’s good for a country to have a figurehead. Meeting foreign dignitaries, attracting tourism, representing the country on State occasions - it all makes sense.
But I don’t see why the hereditary principle should come into it.
Some things that irritate me:
- the Royal family are a mixture of European descent (and there was too much inbreeding a few generations back)
- they’ve only just started paying tax (and too many relatives get paid out of my taxes)
- you can’t fire them (The Queen’s husband regularly makes racist remarks; several of the current generation have had messy divorces)
- they can’t marry Catholics (even though our Prime Minister has; it doesn’t affect his work)
- they have a fanatic following who won’t listen to criticism (e.g. it was recently claimed that the Queen’s mother had run up about £4 million of gambling debts. Instead of suggesting a visit to Gamblers Anonymous, several papers claimed that she had an adorable little foible, and this was very popular with the country!)
In case I sound unreasonable, the above is a criticism of a group of people who are funded by the state, cannot be sacked and claim to lead the country by example.
Eggo, as someone else said, the question of how the current Royals came to run England is a complex one. And, as Flora said – it essentially boils down to a mixture of conquest and heredity. However, the current Royals ARE descended from William the Conquerer, who conquered (hence the catchy name) England in 1066. The descent hasn’t always been direct parent to child. The throne has often gone to a cousin or niece or nephew instead of a son or daughter of the monarch. With one exception, however, the monarch has, since William II, always been a blood relative of the Conquerer. The exception was Henry VII, a Welshman who won the throne by conquest. Henry VII married Elizabeth, the niece of Richard III (whom Henry had dethroned), therefore, all of Henry and Elizabeth’s children carried the conquerer’s blood through their mother. Whew – see how it gets complicated? Anyway, here are some ideas for books on the subject, if you’re still interested:
The Idiots Guide to British Royalty – obviously, this is an easy one!
Queens of England by Norah Lofts – I like this one because it focuses on the lives of the consorts – the wives of the kings.
The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England edited by Antonia Frazer – pretty definative.
The Kings and Queens of England and Scotland by Plantagenet Somerset Fry – the author has a cool name and the book has a lot of great pictures.
Have fun – it’s an interesting subject, even if you wouldn’t want to be ruled by them!
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity
Jess writes:
Actually, Henry Tudor was a blood relative of William I; he was the son of Margaret Beaufort, a quasi-legitimate descendant in (I think; I’d have to go a genealogy to be certain) the fourth generation of John of Gaunt, fourth son of Edward III. That was his pretext for seizing the throne (the actual reason, of course, is not necessarily the same as th pretext).
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”
Oops, you see, Jess had his books handy and I didn’t–is my face red!
Glee, I agree (that rhymes!), there ARE problems with royalty, but I’ll match you problem for problem with our own system of gov’t. I wish Russia had kept the Czar in place and given the Duma governmental poweras–as they nearly did, before the gosh-darned Bolshies took over and screwed everything up! The French, too, could have avoided a lot of the problems they’ve had, if they’de kept their royalty in place (don’t even get me STARTED on the French Revolution!).
But no, I am still a loyal USA’r, in case you’re wondering, vote in all elections and all that . . .
Flora,
My main resentment of Royalty is personified by your closing sentence…you get to VOTE for a President!
Royalty just carry on, whether they’re useless or not.
But you still do get to vote for the people who have the real political power, don’t you? We have no “figureheads” in the U.S., and I think we lack for that. That’s why we have our mini-celebs, and why we invest way too much emotionally in our politicians.
And ya gotta admit, the Queen Mum really IS cute as a bug’s ear . . .
I sometimes wonder whether the lack of figureheads in the U.S. is the reason for the worshipful cults around families like the Kennedys, or the amazing ability of low-brained Hollywood actors to get elected to political office.
There is a great deal to be said for the monarchy. After 25 years, America still hasn’t recovered from Watergate. After 5 years, most people couldn’t have told you who Christine Keeler was.
The monarchy also preserves the UK from the insane, quasi-religious flag cult we have in the USA.
By the way, the Queen actually does have one political power remaining. If Parliament were hopelessly deadlocked on choosing a new PM and a new general election hadn’t helped, the Queen would have the power to pick the new PM on her own (she’d be expected to choose someone from the center or the plurality). And if Parliament and the Cabinet were to be wiped out by, say, a terrorist bomb, she’d be able to take over the government and run things while a new Parliament was being elected.
You might say (in programmer’s jargon) that she’s the exception handler.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
Though it’s true Elizabeth II can trace her roots back to William the Conqueror, its not merely blood that made her queen. Henry VII and George I were not the “rightful” heirs to the throne – Henry won by conquest, and George was named king over others by Parliament. There were also some questions as to whether Henry IV, V, and VI were legitimate (hence, the Wars of the Roses). William and Mary weren’t the “legitimate” heirs, either – again, Parliament made them rulers.
There has been some claim that Victoria wasn’t legitimate, making someone else the current king. However, even if the claim were proven using DNA, it’s highly unlikely that Elizabeth would be replaced.
In effect, each King or Queen claimed the throne upon the death of his/her successor and was able to make the claim stick.
I am the Queen of England,
I love to sing and dance.
And if you don’t believe me,
I’ll punch you in the pants.
Oliver Cromwell did.
In Canada, the Governor-General (and the Lieuftenant-Generals, for each province) are political appointees who are pure figureheads. However, I was told that, were they to disagree with the prime minister (or the premiers in each province), the judiciary was obligated to back them, since their authority derives from the Queen.
Oh, thank you, Nickrz, now I’m going to have THAT running through my head for the rest of the day . . .