# What, exactly, does the British monarch do for the Commonwealth? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 1, 2015, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707 "2015-08-01T05:37:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/21 "2015-08-01T13:19:22Z")
It’s nice they let that family pretend they are in charge of things. After all they need someone to put on the money. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/22 "2015-08-01T13:38:10Z")
Oh, they’ve known for a couple of centuries that they reign but do not rule. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/23 "2015-08-01T14:08:13Z")
> [@NinjaChick](#): > > I went on a tour of New Zealand’s parliament today and learned that the Prime Minister appoints the Governor General. By the way, this is correct as a matter of political reality, but incorrect as a matter of constitutional law; such is the nature of the Westminster system of responsible government… Her Majesty appoints the Governor General. The Prime Minister does not have that constitutional authority. However, Her Majesty only appoints on the advice of the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The PM thus makes the political decision who should be GovGen of New Zealand, and takes the political responsibility for the appointment made by Her Majesty. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/24 "2015-08-01T15:11:50Z")
Here is an interesting fact. Britain recently changed its law of succession to primogeniture regardless of sex so that had Charles’s eldest been a female, she would be first in line to succeed him even if there were a younger male. This conflicts with the Canadian constitution of 1980 that provides for male primogenture. The Canadian parliament cannot amend the constitution and the procedures for amendment are so difficult that they will likely never be carried out. So Canada could end up with the younger son as its king, while Britain had a queen. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/25 "2015-08-01T15:36:15Z")
It’s not as clear-cut as that. There is a disagreement whether a constitutional amendment is needed, or if it is sufficient for the federal government to give agreement on behalf of Canada. The federal government has passed an Act to implement the change to the succession law: [Succession to the Throne Act, 2013](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Throne_Act,_2013). Some lawyers and academics say that is sufficient; others argue that a constitutional amendment is necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/26 "2015-08-01T16:06:20Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Here is an interesting fact. Britain recently changed its law of succession to primogeniture regardless of sex so that had Charles’s eldest been a female, Nitpick: William, not Charles. ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/27 "2015-08-01T17:15:41Z")
Unless things have changed they only pay taxes on a voluntary basis which seems dumb to me. Somehow they are exempt from the normal tax laws. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/28 "2015-08-01T17:20:37Z")
It changed in the early nineties, as summarised on the [Royal Family website](http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Taxation.aspx): > [@](#): > > The Queen pays tax. > > In 1992, The Queen volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. > > The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/29 "2015-08-01T17:25:21Z")
Sad it took that long for the tax laws to change. Of course in the US super rich people have armies of tax lawyers to help them avoid taxes . ---
**Author:** ![NinjaChick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/30 "2015-08-01T23:04:55Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > By the way, this is correct as a matter of political reality, but incorrect as a matter of constitutional law; such is the nature of the Westminster system of responsible government… > > Her Majesty appoints the Governor General. The Prime Minister does not have that constitutional authority. > > However, Her Majesty only appoints on the advice of the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The PM thus makes the political decision who should be GovGen of New Zealand, and takes the political responsibility for the appointment made by Her Majesty. See, I think that’s what trips me up: technically she does a thing, but in reality, someone else does the heavy lifting. > [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Here is an interesting fact. Britain recently changed its law of succession to primogeniture regardless of sex so that had Charles’s eldest been a female, she would be first in line to succeed him even if there were a younger male. This conflicts with the Canadian constitution of 1980 that provides for male primogenture. The Canadian parliament cannot amend the constitution and the procedures for amendment are so difficult that they will likely never be carried out. So Canada could end up with the younger son as its king, while Britain had a queen. Wasn’t there at some point in history a king who was King Whoever III (or something) in England but King Whoever I in Scotland? ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/31 "2015-08-01T23:19:31Z")
> [@NinjaChick](#): > > Could she veto the Australian prime minister’s pick of governor general? The Windsors don’t interfere in Australian politics. While the Australian Consituttion does prescribe (not describe) the Governor-General’s power, it make no mention of either the Prime Minister or Cabinet. So the Prime Ministers powers are bound by convention. There is no obligation to consult with the Crown. Were the PM to ask something like: “M’am, I am considering appointing XXXX as GG, do you have any objections?” the response would be along the lines “Thank you for the notice but such matters reside with your goodself as the elected representative of the Australian people.” Were the PM to advice the appointment of a particularly odious rodent who’d bring shame & derision to the office, or say one with rabid anti-monarchist views then QEII would make them her representative. > [@](#): > > The Governor-General is appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. After receiving the commission, the Governor-General takes an Oath of Allegiance and an Oath of Office to The Queen and issues a Proclamation assuming office. > > The Governor-General’s appointment is at The Queen’s pleasure, that is, without a term being specified. In practice, however, there is an expectation that appointments will be for around five years, subject on occasion, to some extension. As one of those constitutional couriousities, the Australian Constitution provides that the Command-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Forces be vested in the Governor-General, while the corresponding Canadian provision vests the Command-in-Chief of the Canadian naval and military forces in The Queen. \*\* odious rodent who’d bring shame & derision to the office In 2003 Peter Hollingsworth stood aside and subsequently resigned as governor-general, on losing the confidence of PM Howard after criticisms were aired over his conduct as Archbishop of Brisbane in the 1990s. \*\*\* one with rabid anti-monarchist views Bill Hayden (whilst not rabid) was staunch republican when appointed but became disturbingly enamoured with the trappings of the vice-regal office and “went native”. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/32 "2015-08-01T23:52:32Z")
That’s interesting, **penultima thule** , that the GG and not HM is constitutionally the C-in-C of Australia’s military. Are other royal prerogatives vested legally in the GG himself rather that exercised by the GG on behalf of HM? Is the monarch’s only constitutional role to appoint the GG selected by the PM? What makes it so hard for Australia to become a republic? I understood that most Australians are republicans, but that republican referenda always failed because there wasn’t agreement on what to replace the monarchy with. Why not continue exactly as now, but with the (possibly renamed) GG appointed by the PM instead of by HM on the PM’s advice? That would seem to be the least disruptive option. Who besides hardline monarchists could object? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2015, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/33 "2015-08-01T23:56:55Z")
> [@NinjaChick](#): > > Wasn’t there at some point in history a king who was King Whoever III (or something) in England but King Whoever I in Scotland? King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, so he’s sometimes called James I and VI, then a couple generations later King James II and VII. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2015, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/34 "2015-08-02T00:34:06Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > …Some lawyers and academics say that is sufficient; others argue that a constitutional amendment is necessary. Who would even have standing to sue? Barring some horrible tragedy it’ll be 2-3 generations before this becomes an issue. > [@penultima\_thule](#): > > …There is no obligation to consult with the Crown. Were the PM to ask something like: “M’am, I am considering appointing XXXX as GG, do you have any objections?” the response would be along the lines “Thank you for the notice but such matters reside with your goodself as the elected representative of the Australian people.”… To be fair a private conference with one of her Prime Ministers is the one occasion when the Queen get’s to voice her real opinion, whatever it may by. She still accept whatever the PM’s “advice” is unless it’s egregiously and unconstitutional (ie PM refusing to resign after losing an election). ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2015, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/35 "2015-08-02T01:04:33Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Who would even have standing to sue? Barring some horrible tragedy it’ll be 2-3 generations before this becomes an issue. Canadian public interest standing rules are much more generous than in the US. As well, any provincial government which is not satisfied with the federal bill could refer the matter to the provincial court of appeal, which could eventually end up in the SCC. And, if there are doubts about the constitutional validity of the federal bill, wouldn’t it be better to have those doubts resolved now, when nothing is riding on it, rather than a situation in the future where there is a potential constitutional crisis because there are rival claimants to the throne? ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2015, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/36 "2015-08-02T01:09:14Z")
> [@NinjaChick](#): > > Wasn’t there at some point in history a king who was King Whoever III (or something) in England but King Whoever I in Scotland? That’s why the country is called the United Kingdom. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2015, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/37 "2015-08-02T01:13:58Z")
Yes, but there’s nothing in the Act of Union which addressed this issue, should there be a future king James or Richard or Constantine. There is Churchill’s proposal, of using the higher number, but that was simply his suggestion. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2015, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/38 "2015-08-02T01:26:48Z")
> [@NinjaChick](#): > > 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… 🙂 > [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > 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? I think the nations Mexico, France, and Spain would disagree with that premise in the same logic of politics. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2015, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/39 "2015-08-02T07:00:40Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > 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. Isn’t it also true, as far as Australia is concerned, that she may NOT, personally, exercise any royal powers or prerogatives, and that her powers HAVE to be exercised through a Governor-General? I.E., all “royal powers”, other than appointment of the Governor-General (or his recall), MUST be exercised through the G-G as prescribed by the Constitution. I found this bizarre, but Wikipedia says so, so it must be true, right? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2015, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/40 "2015-08-02T07:29:14Z")
New Zealand went the other way, and has a law saying that any place where a law says “Governor-General” also refers to the monarch. But things like that are easier when you’re a unitary state with a supreme parliament. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707.md?page=3)