That’s a dense page of words there… I’m going to have to read it a few times.
Seems like The Royal Prerogative is whatever the Queen says it is, to some extent.
But overall, my ignorance has been fought- I had understood your monarch to be about as powerful as our Vice President.
Thanks all!
It’s weekly if they are both in the country - it’s a kind of “Remember, you are mortal too” thing, I think.
No, not for a long time. Royal prerogative is the use of power by the state - Prime Minister, Cabinet, Parliament. They wield the power of a Monarch, but the Monarch does not. It’s really a terminology thing. QEII does retain powers as head of state but she hasn’t used them very often - a messy election in the UK, and one in Australia. What her personal input was in the latter I’ve no idea, but in the former there was probably some.
They would do the only humane thing: Stick him in the attic and serve him a bucket of fish heads once a week.
No, the scope of the royal prerogative is a question of law, to be determined by the courts.
With all due respect to our English friends, I can’t see the Queen inventing the internet.
George V considered withholding Royal Assent to the Government of Ireland Act of 1914, but concluded that he should not do so without “convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillizing effect on the distracting conditions of the time.”
How do the courts have any say? Can’t she fire all the judges and appoint her own?
(Truly fascinating stuff here!)
… no.
There’s a couple of precedents. Attorney General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd was a 1920 court case where the House of Lords (until 2009 our Supreme Court) ruled that new Prerogatives cannot be created.
In a 1915 court case the House of Lords ruled that the government cannot use a prerogative power to do something not permitted in statute unless they can demonstrate a very good reason for it (such as imminent invasion - in the 1915 case, the House was not persuaded an invasion was imminent).
And while the Queen can appoint judges, the Bill of Rights 1689 makes judges only removable by petition from both Houses of Parliament. It follows from attempts by Charles II and James II/VII to scare judges into giving favourable rulings 
The Royals never have to justify anything and get to keep their status. They don’t seem to don much of the thinking of government - but then again much of the thinking of a household is always done by the servants.
The Queen dealing with party politics is like listening to the butler argue with the cook about which wine to serve for dinner - let them deal with it, and nod your approval as long as it doesn’t spoil the dinner or threaten your good life.
Power that isn’t obvious is the best power of all.
Once upon a time the royals had to fight, strategise wars, run the risk of a head chopping or invasion. in order to keep the title. They’ve transcended that and delegated the process so that the underlings now get the blame for screw ups. I’d say that was a rather smart way to keep power rather than a relegation to mere ceremonial status.
The late king of the Belgians Baudouin “abdicated for a day” in order not to sign an abortion related bill in 1990. Since his brother Albert abdicated this week-end and was replaced by his son Philippe, a commentator mentioned that he couldn’t pull nowadays the same trick as his popular uncle without losing the throne (despite the king of the Belgians having more “freedom of speech” than the Queen of the UK).
Trivia I also learned this week end : the king of the Belgians doesn’t have any actual crown (the thing those guys usually put on their head, I mean), so there’s no coronation ceremony, either.
Interesting. The US President has the option to let a bill pass into law without signing it. Do monarchs not have that power?
It’s different here. In the US the general practice is that the president has to actively veto a bill to stop it. In the UK, the Queen must give her Assent for it to pass. It won’t go anywhere unless she does something.
In practice though, that power, while still intact, hasn’t been used in three centuries.
I think the only countries left that still use crowns as actual headgear are the UK and Tonga (although the current king of Tonga is 16 months into his reign and I can’t find that he’s even scheduled a coronation).
She could, and Parliament could immediately dismiss them. Much the same if she appointed a Prime Minister not to Parliament’s liking.
If this was tried by a Monarch here, the best result would be a stalemate and a new general election, so the Monarch would only do something like that if extremely sure that the public was on their side.
Wow, so that sort of means that our crown jewels of Scotland are, in a way, more historically unusual that I had realised. I knew they are the oldest in Europe, but I didn’t realise no-one else used them any more. Actually, I think queen Liz didn’t wear the crown, but was just sort of introduced to it to have a look, or say “hello” to it or something. Fair enough, I wouldn’t want to put anything weighing over 3½ pounds on my head. :eek:
Actually, I’m disappointed that the Netherlands, for instance, doesn’t use a crown in the shape of a funky cycle helmet. No disrespect intended - I just think it would be fun.
I like that! Very laid back!
Oh yes. The Imperial State Crown, which the Queen wears for the State Opening of Parliament, is something like 8lbs in weight I think! I’ve been told she spends a week before the ceremony each year wearing it to get used to the weight again. Must be a weird sight for the footmen…
I think the Netherlands have the crown in the room when the King is inaugurated (no more coronations, LAME), but it’s not worn.
The Crown of Scotland is present at the Opening of the Scottish Parliament, IIRC…
And she wore a day dress and had a purse slung over her arm when it was presented to her, which was seen by some as disrespectful to Scotland. (The purse wasn’t included in the official painting, IIRC.)
I asked this same question last year:
Some good answers, particularly from Northern Piper.
