I went on a tour of New Zealand’s parliament today and learned that the Prime Minister appoints the Governor General. The Governor General in turn is the individual who provides “royal” assent to passing legislation. I assume it works more or less the same way in all the other former colonies that still keep the monarch as head of state.
That got me wondering: what, if anything, would be on a list of “actual concrete things that the queen does for the non-UK Commonwealth nations”? For example, does she have the legal authority to actually withhold (or provide, for that matter) assent to a bill in Canada? Could she veto the Australian prime minister’s pick of governor general? Directly exercise any other powers?
The British Queen does not have any powers with respect to Canada.
Elizabeth II, as Queen of Canada does have certain powers. Her Majesty only acts on the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada.
She appoints the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister. That’s pretty much all she does on a routine basis, every five years.
She can also give instructions to the Governor General on how to exercise the royal powers on her behalf. However, she has not needed to do so for her entire reign, as her father King George VI gave a comprehensive set of instructions to the Governor General back in the forties, on the advice of the Prime Minister of the day. There has been no need to revise them.
She also has the power to appoint extra Senators, on the advice of the Prime Minister. That power has only been exercised once in Canada’s history, by Her Majesty in 1990.
She can be asked to give royal assent to a federal bill reserved on her behalf by the Governor General. The last time that power was used was by her father George VI. The bill was reserved simply for the purpose of having King George give royal assent when he was on a royal tour of Canada.
She also has some prerogative powers, which she exercises on the advice of the Prime Minister. For instance, 50 years ago, she issued a resolution adopting the maple leaf flag as Canada’s national flag, using her prerogative power over honours and emblems.
The Commonwealth isn’t the same as the individual realms that retain the Queen as head of state.
For the Commonwealth as an organisation, the Queen is there as ceremonial head for big occasions, to mingle at the receptions and parties and to be available to help smooth over diplomatic difficulties between governments.
Where she’s actually head of state she’s there to do what she does in the UK - as above, but only acting on advice from the elected government. The circumstances in which she could or would pro-actively do anything political or governmental on her own initiative are vanishingly improbable. The nearest anyone’s come to it was back in 1975, when the Governor-General of Australia, on his own initiative, chose to resolve an impasse between the government, that had a majority in the lower house of parliament, and the upper house, by calling for new elections for both houses, where the Prime Minister wanted only an election for the upper house - and the GG dismissed the PM and appointed the opposition leader to ensure that his plan was put into effect. I don’t know whether the GG consulted the Queen, or whether she had a personal view on what he should or shouldn’t do, but she wouldn’t have liked the risk of controversy. I suspect the line would have been “Do as you see fit, but keep me out of it!”
The other thing the monarch does is simply exist. That is, despite its passive role critical. Somewhere, in every nation, you need a root of power. Some means by which the particular set of bozos that run the country claim that they are the right set of bozos, and not some other group. Astonishingly, despite a lot of hand waving about republics and stuff, a huge number of nations resolve the root of power in what amounts to little more than the divine right of monarchs - that they are a God anointed head of state, and it is from this that power devolves. Without a root of power, the question of how you do indeed tie down ultimate authority can turn into turtles all the way down. Sticking to divine right make things much simpler to claim dominion over a slab of land. Those Commonwealth countries, that have Queen Elizabeth as their queen, have the power of their elected governments devolved from her divine right as monarch of the country. The USA government claims its dominion over the country as that right that was vested in King George, and rightfully won from him in war.
The last English monarch who claimed to rule by divine right was James II/VII. It didn’t work out so well for him, as he ended up fleeing the country and being deemed to have abdicated the throne.
All English and British monarchs since James II have ruled by virtue of statutory recognition by Parliament: William III/Mary II under the Bill of Rights, and all subsequent monarchs under the Act of Settlement of 1701. The current Queen holds her position by virtue of that Act, not by any reference to divine right.
In Commonwealth realms such as Canada, the Queen holds her position as head of state by virtue of the Constitution of each country. For example, in Canada, she holds her position by s. of the Constitution Act, 1867:
Indeed, however this becomes turtles all the way down. Whilst no monarch claims divine right, the question still remains - if the parliament is appointed by the monarch, and the monarch rules by statutory recognition, where lies the root? This remains a tiny detail that is often glossed over - but it doesn’t go away.
I’d say the bottom-most turtle in American constitutional theory is “the people”, as in “We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”; and before that “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [any Form of Government], and to institute new Government…as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Really nothing in there about George III (except for him being a big meanie and a poopy-head and us not liking him any more).
Nitpick: at least 3 of those Commonwealth nations where HM is not the monarch are monarchies, i.e., Brunei, Malaysia and Tonga. Two are hereditary monarchies, and Malaysia is an elective monarchy.
I’ll take “Things I really should have known and have probably been told before, but I have a mind like a steel sieve” for $200, thanks.
[TL;DR: Some countries decided to keep the monarch as their monarch, and in those countries the monarch has certain de jure powers, but in reality it’s a symbolic, rubber-stamping type of relationship.]
Have I got this right? Once upon a time there was the British Empire. Then that went away. Now there are three main sets of remnants:
*Countries like the US and Ireland which said good riddance to all that and no longer have any formal ties to the UK.
*The Commonwealth of Nations, which as it turns out is comprised of almost (but not entirely) former bits of the empire. Nations in the Commonwealth may acknowledge the monarch as the head of state or they may not. Membership hinges on having some sort of historical tie to the UK (so the USA could theoretically ask to join) and wanting to join (so the USA probably will not join). Within the Commonwealth there are…
*The Commonwealth realms, which are the nations of the Commonwealth which acknowledge the monarch as head of state. In these nations the monarch is monarch of that country (e.g., the Queen of New Zealand).
Then there are some other oddballs such as Dependencies and Overseas Territories, which are self-governing to one degree or another, all do have the monarch as head of state, and may or may not be members of the Commonwealth of Nations but if so it’s in the same way that Puerto Rico and Guam could be considered members of NATO (because they’re American territories).
Okay. Assuming I’ve got that right, in the realms, the monarch has certain constitutional powers within that country, as monarch of that country, that are pretty much the same as her powers within the UK. So as the Queen of New Zealand, she could give royal assent (but leaves that to the governor general), appoint the governor general (but she’s probably not going to go against the PM’s selection), or other such things. So she could do certain things, she just doesn’t because that would almost certainly cause nothing but trouble for everyone.
However, for the countries which are not realms, she has as much authority as she does over, say, the US, and it would most definitely cause nothing but trouble for everyone if she tried to get involved in politics.
It’s a historical tie to any member nation. So if the US joined, then the Philippines could join afterwards. And then that can be waived if there are “exceptional circumstances”, so Mozambique and Rwanda are members just because.
It is the last paragraph of the declaration of independence. It doesn’t just assert sovereignty over the territory, it asserts the revocation of Britain’s, then asserts the sovereignty of the people. In effect it asserts the transfer of sovereignty. Britain no longer has it, we do. I have read commentary that this point was carefully argued at the time, something I do wish I could find again. (So [sup][citation needed][/sup])
Using the same logic, the USA won dominion over the 90% of the continent that wasn’t an original British colony by engaging in war with Indian Nations. Why not claim that the dominion comes from the Indian Nations? In fact, were not the original colonies taken by force from the Indian Nations?
So, if some historian discovered a document that showed that King George had not had actual sovereignty over the colonies (perhaps he neglected to initial some codicil to some treaty with France or something), everybody in Washington DC would collectively sigh “aw shit,” turn off the lights, and go back to their home state? The US government would lose its collective legitimacy and no longer exist?
For one thing, “the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled” do in fact cite the “Authority of the good People of these Colonies” first, and then–specifically in the name of “the good People of these Colonies”–declare that the colonies are “Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved” and so on and so forth.
It is true that the revolutionaries never claimed that the British Crown had never had authority and sovereignty over the American colonies; nonetheless, according to the political theory laid out in the Declaration, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Thus (at least according to American constitutional theory) “the People” are the Great Turtle which swims eternally through the Cosmic Sea of Political Theory, and upon Whose back all constitutions and forms of government are built.
The significance of the distinction is that Her Majesty, as Queen of the United Kingdom, exercises her British powers solely on the advice of the British government. If the British Queen had any powers with respect to Canada, she would be exercising them on the advice if the British, not the Canadian government, which would be contrary to Canada’s status as a sovereign nation.
The Queen of Canada only exercises her powers under the Canadian Constitution on the advice of the Canadian government.
Parliament is not appointed by the monarch, and does not derive its authority from Her Majesty. Rather, Her Majesty is a part of the Parliament.
The British Parliament exists by the laws and customs of the realm, as amended by statutes it has passed. Its existence and powers are independent of Her Majesty.
Other Parliaments in the Commonwealth owe their existence to laws passed by the British Parliament, such as the Constitution Act, 1867 for Canada, which the British Parliament enacted at the request of the Canadian colonies, and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which the British Parliament enacted at the request of the Australian colonies.
