In a recent thread discussing the royal family I got the distinct impression that the royalty in the UK doesn’t have any real power anymore, outside of pomp and circumstance. My question is what powers could they exert if they** REALLY ** wanted to? If the Queen decided tomorrow morning that she wanted to show the people of the world how much power she truly has what are some of the things she could do?
Thank you all for your replies
I am not sure what powers the constitution allows in theory, but in practice she would have to convince a sufficient number of sufficiently influential people to go along with her ideas, otherwise she would effectively be ignored.
The Wiki article on Royal Prerogative gives a decent overview of the power that the Queen holds, but rarely if ever exercises.
Well, let’s see . . . she could veto every bill passed by Parliament, make every Briton a peer and a knight, forbid Britons from leaving the realm, clean out the British jails with pardons, declare war on every other country in the world, fire the Bishops of the Church of England, and of course dissolve Parliament and get rid of all those annoying ministers. There’s no doubt, Queenie could have a grand old time if she put her mind to it–for about ten minutes before the country became the United Republic.
I think she has some special power to hunt swans, too.
A few years ago a friend, who’s British, had his parents visit. This subject came up and the father’s answer, while no doubt glossing over a butt-load of fine points, sounded good to me.
He said QEII welded a lot of power through social manipulations. Basically, if you totally thumbed your nose at her input, she’d quit inviting you to the royal bashes. This also meant that others who invited the Queen to a do at thier place then couldn’t invite the offender, spouses, and such.
Perhaps not as effective as a, “Off with thier heads,” order, but still, he assured me, it was not without it’s power to influence.
They can’t do anything. The Queen has alot[ of power in theory, but not in practice, the other royals have no more power than the average Briton. I’m not sure but doesn’t the Prince of Wales have some priveleges in Cornwall?
Isn’t there something about curing scrofula with a touch? They may have allowed that to lapse, but I’m sure it hasn’t been formally rescinded.
Well, I hear she’s a champion. And she’ll keep on fighting until the end.
That is a lot of bilge, quite frankly, at least in the context of wielding actual power. Perhaps that sort of thing goes on in the upper reaches of Court social life, but that is not the same thing as having any influence over the governance of the Kingdom.
Mind you, that’s the sort of thing a Prime Minister might well do, but hey, that’s politics!
I guess QEII does not have any real power per-se.
Her inclusion into political events is simply head nods and briefings.
However, she is Head of State of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
That is a lot of kudos to throw around.
What that means in practice to those who do not recognise royalty and consider it an anacronism is immaterial.
To the outer world QEII is a symbol of prestige and an ambassador that money nor politics can buy.
It is a shame this simple fact is lost on the raging politicos who will rage against their elected representatives as corrupt sleaze merchants yet demand a a-political system be politicized and then made worthless with a european style Presidential system.
You can have a view either way, but I feel Queeny does more for me and my country then any “democratically elected” Joe Schlubb with just the same zero power.
Having a democratically elected Joe Schrubb with “just the same zero power” is looking awfully good to lots of us Americans these days…
At least in the U.S., the President is far from having zero power; the Executive is an effective check-and-balance against the legislative branch, although one may or may be happy with this depending on point-of-view.
On the other hand I agree with you with regard to countries like Germany. Everybody knows about Merkel and she’s considered the real leader of the government, but they also have a President who is basically a figurehead, and functions somewhat like the Queen does in the UK. If you’re not going to have the pomp and tradition that should go with it, then why bother having a ceremonial head of state? tschild or kellner please correct me if I"m wrong, but the above description of how the President functions in Germany is as I remember it.
Our understanding is that head of state and head of government are two separate roles and merging the two would create a questionable concentration of power. That the head of state is restricted to the bare minimum is largely a reaction to the disastrous failure of the presidency in the Weimar republic. Even such a limited office has its advantages. The President has various ceremonial duties. He signs all federal laws, appoints and dimisses the Chancellor, the cabinet, federal judges and officials and military officers. He doesn’t have any actual discretion in these cases but it’s still nice to have a well-defined procedure separate from the partisan decision making. The President is sometimes jokingly called the “Federal Notary” and actually that describes this part of his duties very well.
A non-partisan head of state also comes in very handy for representative duties. Someone who isn’t tainted by everyday politics makes a good unifying figurehead. The Chancellor on the other hand is allowed to be openly partisan. Another thing that I like about this arrangement is that the most honored office is different from the most powerful one. It emphasizes that the head of the executive is not a personification of our nation but a glorified civil servant.
In addition to that the President has a few traditional “head of state” competences. He exercised the right to pardon under federal jurisdiction (which is far more restrictive than in the US) and handles issues related to national symbols and honors. He also has certain duties in cases when a Chancellor loses the confidence of Parliament and/or Parliament fails to elect a Chancellor.
It’s also important to keep in mind that because of the limited role of the President there is little potential for conflict and the Presidential bureaucracy is negligible. Basically, even if one might doubt the necessity, there are no significant downsides in practice.
Wilford Brimley taught Queen Elizabeth II how to shatter a brick wall with a single fart. Mercifully, neither Wil nor Liz uses this terrifying power. They keep it in reserve.
Doesn’t she have a lot of money? She could start spending it like a mad bastard, and wield power that way. Threaten to sell off the Crown Jewels on e-bay, or something, unless Parliament recognizes her right to wear white shoes after Labor Day, or somesuch.
Regards,
Shodan