This in in GQ since I don’t want to start a GD about what would happen if QE2 or KG7 actually did any of these things*. Let’s say a British monarch wanted to use their theoretical powers. I know they can:
Replace the PM with whomever they want.
Dissolve Parliament at will.
Veto any legislation by withholding royal assent.
Grant peerage to anyone via letters patent.
Overrule the naming of a child born in the UK (I believe this has been used a couple of times. IIRC one time was when a couple wanted to name their daughter “Princess”)
What else can they do (even in theory). If I Heimlich one of Liz’s corgis, could she grant me UK citizenship on the spot?
Can she unilaterally declare war and or peace?
Also, are there certain things she can (or cannot) do in the UK that she cannot (or can) do in any Commonwealth countries? For example I know she could bypass the GG in a Commonwealth country and dismiss a PM and replace them in any country of which she is Queen.
I know many of the Brits on SD feel that in the event of a monarch doing these things that they would abolish the monarchy in a heartbeat. I doubt they would but I also acknowledge that the Brits have a different way of thinking about things than us Colonists. Either way, I don’t want a debate of “She never would because the Windsors would be tossed out of Buckingham Palace if she ever tried.” This is a discussion on theoretical power.
Is the Magna Carta substantive law in the UK today, at least in theory? Is it that way at the grace of the monarch and the document was more a statement of intent or did the monarchy really and truly-o lose actual substantive rights when King John signed it?
Given that the monarch is a part of Parliament, and there are no theoretical limits on the powers of Parliament, I don’t think there are any theoretical limits on the monarch’s powers. Parliament can divide its powers among itself as it wishes, so the only limits on any part of Parliament are determined by what Parliament as a whole allows.
Of course, while there are no theoretical limits on Parliaments powers, there are many traditional limitations. This includes traditional divisions of power within Parliament. It is theoretical possible for Parliament (or a part of it) to ignore tradition, but it is politically difficult.
(I’m an American, so my apologies in advance for any misinterpretations of the British constitution.)
The Crown’s power is in the Royal Prerogative. It is long established law that Parliament can override and displace the prerogative by statute. It is not possible to define the exact limits of the prerogative, and it is all part of the checks and balances between the Crown and the Legislature.
To suggest that the queen could unilaterally declare war is total nonsense. She would do so, if and only if, Parliament asked her to. The same applies to all the prerogatives.
It’s a bit like a family where Dad is in charge, but would never make a decision without being sure that Mum will approve - this usually being obvious because she asks him to.
This is specifically the debate the OP disallows. Apparently the Queen can unilaterally declare war. What would happen after that is more of a GD than a GQ.
These scenarios were specifically excluded by the OP. The OP is really asking about the extent of that theoretical, de jure power, even if actually exercising it would be political suicide.
Bagehot, the great British political thinker, wrote in 1867 that “The Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights - the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, [and] the right to warn.” That still holds true today.
But that is how the British Constitution works. Your question presupposes something like the American Constitution where theoretical powers are laid out in some document somewhere. The very concept of theoretical versus actual, practical powers makes sense only in that sort of context, where theoretical means theoretical according to the specified rules we have agreed to follow, and treat as sacred. Of course, in real reality, some political actor in America may one day be in a position to arrogate the constitution (if they have sufficient support from say, the armed forces and perhaps other powerful institutions), and may actually do so. This is something that can’t be done at all theoretically (i.e., within the framework of the US Constitution) but might be done (one day surely will be done) in practice. The British constitution does not make this sort of sharp distinction between theoretical powers and what you might actually be able to get away with. It works by balancing actual powers, so that, for instance, if the monarch overstepped the bounds of what was acceptable to other powerful institutions (such as parliament - but ultimately, as Chairman Mao said, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun) they would be removed. They can be removed not because in theory, according to some document, parliament can do so, but because, as things (such as who police and soldiers are likely to obey) are set up now, parliament has the practical power to do so.
There’s two sides to the monarch’s powers - those in Parliament, and those outside of it.
There’s a reason why Henry VIII said “We be informed by our judges that we at no time stand so highly in our estate royal as in the time of parliament”. In Parliament, the monarch’s powers are virtually limitless - as long as Parliament endorses their actions, they can do almost anything they wish.
In terms of doing without Parliament, there’s limits on that. Since 2011, they can’t dissolve Parliament at will, but they could (purely for argument’s sake, here) manufacture a confidence crisis and trigger Parliament’s dissolution that way. Normally a new Parliament is announced shortly after, but in fact it’s entirely legal for the country to be without a Parliament for a maximum of three years after the dissolution of the last one.
So a monarch could do without Parliament for three years. In that time they aren’t permitted to create new laws, nor disapply any existing ones, but they could pass secondary legislation through the Privy Council, so they’d have some force there. But the courts have jurisdiction over secondary legislation that they don’t have over regular Acts of Parliament, so even here the monarch would have resistance!
For example, if the Queen goes completely off the rocker and signs a decree declaring war against Uganda, makes a pronouncement that everyone in the world who wore a blue hat yesterday is now a Canadian citizen, writes out an order ceding the Isle of Man to the US, and declares that anyone quoting from more than three Monty Python works within a 24 hour period in any of her realms is guilty of a felony punishable by being thrown off a bus traveling at least 100 kph, would those decrees be legally void, or would they be valid and throw the realms into chaos?
Magna Carta wasn’t so much the securing of new rights by the people, as the assertion of already established rights and responsibilities that it was felt the King had recently violated. It was principally to do with justice and taxation - the king’s right to make law wasn’t addressed as there was no disagreement with the principle at the time.
War is entirely the Queen’s prerogative, although without Parliament or without its approval of that war, the Army would cease to exist after a few months as Parliament controls its money and annually renews the legislation that permits a standing army. The Queen would have to return to the medieval system of having the army paid for by revenue from the Queen’s private estate, and that would barely manage a division nowadays, probably!
These require the approval of Parliament for the courts to enforce them.
Could the monarch dissolve the courts, or set themselves up as judge? I thought that UK judges were nominally representatives of the monarch who was the real, ultimate judge. E.g. “Queen’s Bench”.
Judges can only be removed by the Queen upon application of both Houses of Parliament against that judge, but appointments are entirely a royal prerogative.
Courts are created through Act of Parliament, although the Privy Council has certain judicial powers, although of a very limited kind. It would, in theory, expand its jurisdiction but it would be playing the long game.
As for playing judge themselves. In theory the monarch, as fount of justice, is the ultimate judge, but in reality this would be fiercely resisted. James I (VI of Scotland) tried to preside over a court in place of the normal judge, and was soundly rebuffed.
There’s the old Looney Tunes cartoon where Daffy Duck swallows a couple of sticks of dynamite, a gallon of gasoline, and a lit match.
“It’s a great trick, but I can only do it once…”
The point is the Queen would be much like Richard Nixon in the night of the long knives - one can order something, and the person can either refuse to carry it out and be fired, or resign, or ignore the order and see who everyone else obeys…
So the Queen may declare war, but if the General staff refuses to obey their order, nothing will happen. Ditto if she orders the home office to give someone a passport, but the full weight of the cabinet refuses to budge on the issue.
the issue is not whether the parliment would turf the monarch afterwards, it’s whether the order would be obeyed in the first place. That I think would be the constitutional crisis. I think it was Andrew Jackson who said of the Supreme Court Chief Justice, “he has his decision, now let him try to enforce it.”
Of course, she would never interfere unless she thought there was substantial support on her side; this isn’t the “what powers?” debate, it’s more the same sort of thing any leader does. Margaret Thatcher got turfed IIRC when she took her party further than it really wanted to go. Maybe when QEII declares war, the general staff on each side would haul out pistols and settle the issue around the conference table the way the South Korean junta did once.
So let’s take one of the less controversial powers. Suppose she decides to issue a passport to Julian Assange so that he leaves the country and Sweden can deal with Ecuador and the UK is no longer in the middle of the mess. This issuance of the passport goes against the advice of her advisors and the PM.
Is it a valid passport?
Would it cause a constitutional crisis?
What would Parliament have to do to void that passport?
Wouldn’t that be a case of the Head of Government intruding on the perogatives of the Head of State if Parliament tried to overrule or take away her right to issue passports?
Ultimately, would Assange get his passport or no even if QE2 has to sign it and deliver it herself?
Technically yes, although the particular nature of the passport - such as the duration of his stay, his rights in the country and so on - are dependent on statute and the courts.
If Parliament objected, it wouldn’t (as it’s normally used by the Home Secretary), but if the courts found grounds to object, that would be interesting!
If it’s something entirely done by the monarch, there’s nothing they can do beyond express their displeasure.
If Parliament legislated to abolish the royal prerogative as it pertained to passports, that’s entirely lawful. There’s no such as as ‘unconstitutional’ in Britain as long as Parliament accepts it.
Well, as I said, it would depend on the specifics, but on the face of it, she’d be entirely within her rights to issue it. It would piss off Parliament and the cabinet in a political sense, but as you said, you want to pretend that’s not a factor.