What does Queen Elizabeth II do?

Factual Questions
1

She doesn’t run the governement of the UK, which is what I would generally think of a king or queen as doing, and I never hear mention of her in any type of news that has anything to do with being a ruler of any kind. I was just looking at a list of world leaders, and aside from Saudi Arabia, I didn’t see any people with royalty titles that actually run the government. I’ve heard it said that kings and queens are basically just figureheads these days and that’s fine I guess, if you’re into tradition or whatever (I’m obviously not). However, I would like to know if the queen has anything to do with the real goings on of the nation or if she’s just a lady from a family that has a title because she’s from that family.

Another thing about her… she’s listed as head of state in many large nations like Canada and Australia as well as New Zealand and a whole bunch of island nations. Does she have anything whatsoever to do with what goes on in these places anymore? If they are independent nations, why does her name have anything to do with them in any kind of governemnt role?

2

She reigns. Which includes stressful duties such as tea with dignitaries, State dinners at the White House, waving ceremoniously, attending parades, and receiving welcomes from visitors to the Palace. She’s 86 so, c’mon, lighten up on the heavy lifting and such.

3

Here’s what CNN has to say:

4

She doesn’t have an executive role, if that’s what you’re asking. She has the same job as the presidents of Germany, Italy and the like. This primarily involves acting as a national symbol. But she also has governmental and diplomatic duties of the broadest possible sense:

  • Appointing the PM/calling and dissolving Parliament
    ----in reality, she always chooses the party leader able to lead a majority in the House of Commons. But there might come times when this isn’t immediately apparent, and she’ll need to make a choice. There’s a very, very strong expectation of the monarch to appoint the least controversial choice - the most pleasing to Parliament, not to herself. In addition she can dissolve Parliament, which she does normally on governmental advice, but she could decline if the government intended to abuse the power.

  • Royal Assent to laws
    —in theory this can be declined and essentially the Queen can veto any law passed by Parliament, but it’s not been used in three hundred years. It’s evolved more into a signature to announce a) that Parliament’s seen the law and passed it and b) that the law take immediate effect. The Queen receives the daily record of Parliament’s dealings and keeps regularly up to date with public affairs.

  • the right to be consulted, encourage and to warn
    — the Queen meets weekly with the PM (and also weekly with the Scottish First Minister) and at other times with other members of the Cabinet to discuss public affairs. She has the right to give her opinion, but the ministers have absolutely no obligation to follow what she says. Likewise, the Queen is strictly forbidden to make her views public and must always be outwardly accepting of the government of the day. It’s less a ‘can we do this?’ meeting and more a ‘we are doing this, what do you think?’. The Queen’s 60 years on the throne means she can tell if they’re in danger of heading up a blind alley or are attempting something that really backfired once before.

  • War and Peace
    — the Queen is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and also signs treaties, declares war and declares peace. All of these acts are only carried out on the advice of her government, however, ensuring all decisions are democratically accountable. But the monarchy has also historically been strongly associated with the armed forces and the Queen routinely meets and partakes in public events with military units.

  • legislation by Letters Patent
    — the Privy Council makes Orders-in-Council, which have legislative force unless Parliament annuls them (says ‘No!’). Again, the Queen does what she’s told but has the right to make her opinions heard in private.

  • other executive duties
    — the Queen also issues passports, creates royal charters, mints coinage, authorises the mining of precious metals, is the State guardian of orphans, awards the allocation of treasure, bestows copyrights and franchises, and other similar functions. The monarch also has the power of Mercy, can requisition ships for State use, can prohibit aliens from leaving UK territory, and can permit hearings before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, appoints ministers, judges, peers, bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England.

All these duties are now actually carried out on the Queen’s behalf by a responsible minister, but as she has to give permission, she’s kept informed of what’s going on and can offer advice.

They’re independent nations - but they all recognize the same person as their monarch. Queen Elizabeth is Queen is 16 sovereign nations, each a separate monarchy. However she ‘delegates’ all her sovereign powers on a day-to-day basis to a Governor-General, who is appointed by the resident government in consultation with the Queen. They are the resident Viceroy.

5

From what I’ve read, the Royal Family takes its public service role seriously and each involves him/herself in something benefiting humanity. Princess Diana, for instance supported the effort to remove landmines from war zones.

This may not be the answer the OP wanted, but it’s one the public sometimes forgets about.

Thanks

Q

6

She’s the Head of State, although “She reigns” gets the point across.

She also has (I think the phrase is) “the right to advise, the right to be informed, and the right to warn.” (Up until the early 18th century, IIRC, the monarch also had the right to veto.)

Technically, she also appoints the Governors-General of the Commonwealth countries, although that is “on the advice of the Prime Minister” (not sure if this means the UK’s PM or the PM of the country in question). You may see a Governor-General “in action” in two or three years, if Australia’s “carbon tax” ends up leading to the GG being asked to dissolve Parliament (assuming the opposition takes power in the House of Commons and two attempts to repeal it are rejected in the Senate).

7

In this respect, she can be an amazing resource for ministers to draw upon. Who else has her decades of experience and is essentially non-partisan with regard to party politics?

8

Thanks all for the replies so far. The one thing I’m really curious about is her being the head of state for all those non-UK countries. I’m assuming they were once part of the British Empire or something of that sort, but I would be shocked to learn that she actually has something to do with current government matters of Canada.

9

She has a whole lot of power. But only in theory. If she tried to use her power in practice, she’d almost certainly lose it.

10

They are former imperial possessions, yes, but she is still their Queen in exactly the same way that she is Queen of the UK. But the difference with them is that she appoints a Governor-General to exercise her sovereign power.

Interestingly, After WW2 it was proposed by someone (forget who) that the monarchy should become a travelling monarchy - that it would spend, say, a year in Canada reigning directly with a GG in Britain, then move on to India, then back to Britain, then to Jamaica, and so on. Needless to say, it didn’t catch on.

In 1982 I believe the Queen signed the Australia Act personally when she was present in that country, as she had no need to delegate the powers to the GG at that time. (I might be thinking of Canada though!)

Saying that, she does have regular conversations with all of her Governors-General, Prime Ministers and High Commissioners (Commonwealth equivalent of ambassador). She’s very well informed on all Commonwealth matters.

11

It’s the PM of the country in question, but bear in mind that this only applies to the Realms, not the entire Commonwealth. Most Commonwealth countries are republics.

12

Malden Capell, you are indeed talking about Canada. In 1982, the Queen went to Ottawa to sign the Act that enabled the repatriation of the Constitution.

In Canada, it’s been said time and again that the country should get rid of British monarchy and the Governor-General and all that stuff. But that would require an amendment to the Constitution, and trying to open the Constitution (to abolish the Senate, for example) is sure to be a recipe for trouble, so federal governments are always very reluctant to do so.

13

Yes, IIRC the queen personally signed the new constitutional act in Canada in 1982.

Just a few years ago, the Canadian GG had to make an interesting constitutional decision. The prime minister had decided that because the opposition was in disarray, he could figuratively take a shit in their hat and there was nothing they could do about it even though he had a minority. He proposed a bill to remove the per-vote subsidies to political parties (since the Conservatives were in the black and all the other parties were hurting for money…); to add insult to injury, he added the clause to remove the right for the civil service unions to sue over wage discrepancies by sexual discrimination, probably because he thought it would be hilarious if the liberal party had no choice but to vote for it.

Instead, the other 3 parties decided to get together, and ask the Governor General to dismiss the government and appoint them the government as a coalition. The PM in return demanded the GG prorogue parliament for 3 months instead of proceeding to a confidence vote. So the GG as representative of the queen had to decide how badly to stick her nose into politics.

She took the safest, least disruptive course, suspended parliament for 3 months, since the parliament had not yet voted no confidence. By then the coalition fell apart and there was no need to make any more decision about it.

But that is the role of the monarch in modern government. She has a tremendous amount of power, but it is basically the “nuclear option”. If she throws her weight around unwisely, the government of the day, likely with the support of much of the people, will remove that option. However, she can block whatever she thinks is unwise. Usually the advice that she would consider doing so, or even that she would announce that she was unhappy, is enough to make the government pay attention.

The queen does not tell prime ministers what to do, but it is an unwise prime minister that ignores what she has to say.

In Canada (and I imagine the ANZ and elsewhere) the governor general has even less moral authority, and the queen herself has less contact with the government. But - actions of a government are technically done in her name, so she would from time to time pass on her thoughts. It’s free advice, prime ministers are probably smart to listen and consider it.

Technically, if something is totally abhorrent, a queen or GG can refuse to sign the bill or even call an election - the nuclear option that must be used very very wisely.

14

In Canada she’s just a symbol. She still signs the laws (I think) but has no say on anything.

Many people in English Canada consider her to be an important figure. You’ll see a large portrait of the queen in an ice hockey arena in Saskatchewan, etc. She gets lots of attention when she visits; same with the rest of the family.

These past few years, the (conservative) government of Canada has been trying to drum up Canadianness in various ways, and Liz II has been getting special attention, especially with the 60-year anniversary of her coronation. The net effect has been that she appears on even more postage stamps, the navy and air force have reverted to using the word “Royal” in their names, etc. Some works of art have been replaced by portraits of the queen, the government has mandated that all Canadian embassies display a portrait of the queen, etc.

15

How so? Let’s say she refused assent to some pitiful little bill that nobody really cared about. Say Parliament named February “National Yorkshire Pudding Month” and she refused assent. Time for a beheading, revolution, and a change to a republican form of government?

16

Forgot to add that the last two attempts to change the Constitution in Canada — Meech Lake Accord (1987-1990) and Charlottetown Accord (1992) — were failures and almost led to the independence of Quebec, with 49.4% of electors voting “Yes” in the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty.

17

Like in 1968 when she experimented with LSD and declared England to be “henceforth and forever known as Bu-Bu-Fink-a-Ree-Ree-Land… of Love”. Two nights in a farmhouse basement and she was a national figurehead a former empire could be proud of again.

18

Pretty nice She is!

Quasi:)

19

She doesn’t even physically sign acts of Parliament; the Lords Commisioner sign in her name and each House is notified by it’s presiding officer. At least in the UK; on the rare occasions when she’s present in her other realms to assent to legislation she does sign said acts in person. Orders-in-Council are approved by a Privy Counsellor reading off a batch of orders, pausing every so often for the Queen to say “Agreed”.

And making even the slightest change to the Monarcy or viceregal offices would require unanimous off all provinces as well as the federal government. Nobodys going to make a serious attempt to open that can of worms any time soon.

20

She might not even need to sign. In Canada, in-person assent is just a nod of the head. (When it’s done. AFAIK most or all provinces and the federal parliament now allow royal assent to be done in writing to the presiding officer(s), although it’s supposed to be done in person twice a year federally.)