Okay. What if she really gets power hungry and refuses assent to an appropriation bill, or some other major bill? Beheadings and revolution?
Oh and the hat thing? I have heard (FWIW) that her hats represent her crown.
Money Bill you colonial upstart and as if a money bill fails the government is a goner, I doubt she would do it.
No. The current Governor General (an absolute asshole who used to be Principal of McGill–think college president–and whom I met many times) was appointed by the current PM (not an asshole, although I totally opposed to many things he has done). I’m not even sure the British government had to give even formal consent. The GG carries out all the acts that the queen formally does in England.
Probably not a beheading. It would be more 1688 than 1649. If Elizabeth actually tried to run things against the wishes of Parliament, she’d be told that she was no longer Queen and she should go live quietly in some place like France or the United States.
It’s another example of the Queen’s theoretical yet insignificant power. Neither the Canadian nor the British Parliament appoints the Governor General. The Governor General is appointed by the Queen and serves at her pleasure. But the reality is that the Canadian Prime Minister “suggests” somebody and she always appoints that person.
That’s right - the British government has no say on the appointment of the GovGen of Canada. Her Majesty makes the appointment as Queen of Canada, on the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada.
How would that work in practice, though? Wouldn’t the first person who suggested that be guilty of high treason? Haven’t they all sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen?
To me, that would be akin to saying that, sure Obama can veto a bill, but if he does, we will ship his ass to Devil’s Island. By what mechanism would we do that? I’m sure the Secret Service would stop Boehner and Harry Reid at the gates of the White House.
What right would we have to do that? Why pretend a power is there if it really isn’t?
There’s a procedure for establishing a regency. Any three of the monarch’s spouse, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Master of the Rolls can declare her to be incapacitated.
The main step would be Parliament declaring that Elizabeth was no longer the monarch. There’s precedents: Charles I in 1649, James II in 1688, George III in 1811 (he kept the throne but his son was appointed regent and assumed the powers), Edward VIII in 1936.
So Parliament basically says “this person is no longer the monarch” and therefore it’s not treason to remove them from power. Obviously, the monarch could try to deny Parliament’s actions and say “I am so the rightful monarch and Parliament is committing treason by illegally trying to overthrow me.” At this point, if nobody backed down, it would come down to whose orders got obeyed.
What would the reasoning be? Because she refused assent? Make up something else?
Well, two of the three parts of Parliament.
Maybe only one. You never know what the Lords will do.
I’m just guessing but perhaps they’d go back to her coronation. She took an oath to uphold the “laws and customs” of the United Kingdom. If she started overruling Parliament, they could make an argument that she was defying British law and custom and therefore she was in violation of her oath and that invalidated her coronation.
Why would you say that? The whole action that brought about the coalition-prorogue crisis was because Harper decided to stick his thumb in the eyes or stuff some orfice of the opposition, especially the Liberals, for no better reason than “Because I can screw you and you can do nothing about it.” He was hoping to also force them to vote against womens’ pay equity just to drive home the lesson. If that does not display his rectitude (so to speak) what does? Unfortunately, he forgot they still had one option so he had to go begging and threatening the governor general.
The Queen appoints the GG of Canada. Just as she signs what’s put in front of her, she appoints whomever the government of the (lost) colonies tell her to. But, just like signing bills, she does not have to… she could theoretically appoint the winos off the steet of London as a slum clearance project instead. Again, the nuclear option - the moment she made life difficult, the task would one way or another be taken away from her. The only time the monarch might exercise such power and get away with it, is if the move would be far more popular than carrying out the will of the government. If she were for example to act in concert with a Canadian version of the Arab Spring, it would probably hasten the downfall of the government rather than her; however, such obvious winning situations are few and far between. An elected government rarely display such stupidity that a vast majority of the populace would prefer a monarch.
Australia has already suggested they should elect a president to act like a governmr general, IIRC; that movement has substatial backing. Britain might try a more pliable next generation monrach, but if it turns out none are agreeable, then I’m sure parliament would update the non-constitution to replace the head of state with an elected one; maybe keeping Monarch as a showpiece, maybe not and confiscating all her properties, depending on how reformist, vindictive or socialist the parliamentarians are inclined to be.
You know all that stuff like cutting ribbons, and other “useless” ceremonial stuff? Actually, our Prez wastes a huge hunk of his work-week doing that crap ceremonial stuff. So, in reality, the Queen serves a very useful purpose- she can do all that ceremonial crap (and she does it very well, too) leaving the PM to actually run the government.
If the Queen ever violated her constitutional duties and did something ‘political’ (such as choosing a PM she likes rather than one Parliament wants, or withholding Assent to a Bill), Parliament would not need any constitutional procedure to remove her from power.
Parliament is the representative of the people, and if the Queen ceased to serve and obey Parliament there would be little the Queen could do to stop the reaction, which would almost certainly be her removal, and possibly the end of the monarchy itself.
During the Civil War, Parliament worked around the absence of a monarch to assent to its laws by creating ‘Ordinances’ which had essentially the same legal force and which Parliamentarian forces still adhered to as law. I’d imagine something akin to this would be revived until the crisis was resolved.
As the Constitution is uncodified, the British have a remarkable ability for figuring out ways of resolving constitutional crises promptly and relatively smoothly.
King George VI: David? I’ve been trying to see you.
King Edward VIII: I’ve been terribly busy.
King George VI: Doing what?
King Edward VIII: Kinging.
She grants knighthoods in the sense of the sword tapping, getting knighted at the palace, arise Sir SpaceDog, etc.
However the palace and the queen no longer choose who will receive knighthoods and other honours. People are nominated and then vetted by committee, there’s lots more detail at this link.
This has led to a some scandal, in particular ‘cash for honours’. And I seem to recall some moaning about the last set of honours but I can’t remember what.
As with other things the Queen still approves this, she could theoretically disapprove and could probably informally advise or influence the process if she wanted to.
SD
Don’t you mean ‘Duke of York?’ 