This is my LAG (lazy-ass question) for the day, since I suppose I could easily look it up in a (gasp!) book if I wanted to. But I’m here at work wondering: how exactly was the British monarch’s powers whittled down to the near nothing they are today? I guess it has something to do with Runnymeade, the Lord Protector, and mad King George, but can someone give me a coherent capsule view?
Thanks,
DHR
As long as the monarch needs money to keep him/herself in the manner which he likes to be accustomed to, the monarch has to ask Parliament to pony up the pounds. Usually Parliament asks for something back in return. That used to be political power. Now Parliament (in particular the House of Commons) runs almost the whole show.
I would think that the ultimate loss of power was when the King/Queen’s speech to open Parliament was written by the PM. Does anyone know when that practice started?
Money was the root of power transfer, but usually not because the king was a spendthrift. Mostly, the need for money came from the prosecution of wars, usually wars in Europe to try and keep or recover the possessions in what is now France owned by the crown as a result of various marriages.
It really is too long a process to encapsulate it here. I recommend reading a decent English history for a good understanding of just what went out the window when.
The first event in the multi-century whittling process was the Magna Carta, which codified a lot of things the king could and couldn’t do. It codified the balance of power between the king and the barons, something the barons forced upon the king, and which has never been repealed (only superceded).
An earlier event which has definite bearing was the Battle of Hastings, in which William became The Conqueror. Having transplanted himself and only a relatively few Norman allies with him, he became king of country underpinned by tons of Anglo-Saxon jarls, or earls. Though he decapitated the Anglo-Saxon power structure by deposing the previous king, the earls retained lots of power. This set up an ongoing struggle between noble and royal forces, which passed through an informal stage, into the Magna Carta’s stage of coded separation of power.
Then those dastardly commoners started taking power both from Lords and Crown, which led to stuff like free elections and public education.
Here’s a (regretably incomplete) list of statutes and other stuff which makes up the written portion of the British Constitution:
Magna Carta
Petition of Right
Bill of Right
Representation of the People Act
Parliament Act (a useless cite without the year, sorry)
Lots of important stuff, like the fact that the crown never vetoes laws any more (not since Queen Anne), is not written anywhere.
The British monarchy has largely been a figurehead since the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 when Parliment drove off James II, who was just a little too independent and too tolerant of Catholics for their taste. Parliment then installed a puppet government under James’ sister Mary II and her husband William III. They, and their succesor Anne, still had fresh memories of one king beheaded and another exiled, so they made sure they towed the Palimentary line. The Georgian monarchs knew a good thing when they saw it (unbelievable wealth and prestige without any real responsibility) and rarely tried to exercize their royal perogogatives over the objections of Parliment. By the time Victoria came along, not-so-sovereign sovereigns (constitutional monarchy) were tradition, and tradition in Britain trumps everything, even kings and queens.
I understand there has been more and more talk lately in UK (there’s always been some-- remember Cromwell?) of abolishing the monarchy altogether. Even though there is no written constitution to prevent them, by what right could Parliament actually pass such a law, especially since the Queen can still technically veto it. (Can’t she?) What would happen if she tried this, or to veto any other law? The queen also, IIRC, theoretically appoints the PM, as well as aproving elections and god knows what else. These are all just theoretical functions, true, and if the monarch ever really tried to exercise any of them, she’d eventually find herself thrown out on her no longer royal butt, but…without law technically still giving her those powers, it seems like she could cause a major constitutional crisis with some real consequinces if she ever wanted to. Couldn’t she?
Oops, some bad syntax in that post. I think you know what I meant. …**as long as the ** law technically still gives her those powers…
I don’t believe the queen would have any recourse. Although she, in theory, appoints prime ministers, she has no power to block the appointment made by Parliament. If Parliament were to vote to abolish the monarchy (probably a mistake), she couldn’t stop them any more than any other Briton could stop the enforcement of any act of Parliament.
The Glorious Revolution established Parliament as paramount (after centuries of wrangling). Indeed, since they deposed James II, they would claim precedent to depose any other king (if Edward VIII hadn’t abdicated, they might have decided to depose him – it’s hard to fight a war against Germany when your king admires Hitler).
“East is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.” – Marx
Read “Sundials” in the new issue of Aboriginal Science Fiction. www.sff.net/people/rothman
IIRC, Queen Elizabeth has stated that she would abdicate if Parliament passed a law abolishing the monarchy. But even assuming she refused, you have to wonder what other recourse she would have. Parliament wouldn’t abolish the monarchy without popular support and the Queen, or any other ruler, ultimately has no power beyond what the people give her.
No appointment is made by Parliament. The Queen appoints the Prime Minister and, by convention, she appoints the leader of the party which holds the majority of seats in the House of Commons. The party leader is, in turn, chosen by his or her party in a manner determined by that party’s internal rules, but neither House of Parliament appoints or nominates anybody to that office.
IIRC, Mary was James’ daughter, not his sister.
\\| |/
=== '>
Your right, FP, as was Anne. I often find it confusing the way members of British royalty could often be so politically and religiously opposed to their own parents.
So what would happen if the Queen didn’t appoint the head of the leading party as PM? What about if she tried to veto a law passed by Parliament? Or refused a request for an election?
If the Queen didn’t appoint the leader of the winning party PM, I suspect that the PM-elect (who takes over the day after the election) would ask the Queen to familiarize herself with the life of James II. She would find herself unemployed.
Better yet, have her familiarize herself with the life (and death) of Charles I! I’m sure those Beefeaters at the Tower could spare a couple hours for tour guide duty to dust off the old cutting block.
That is a very good question, which addresses the nature of the British Constitution. The Constitution is uncodified, which is to say that answers to constitutional questions must be drawn from a number of disparate sources. These include, principally, statute laws (such as the Bill of Rights, the Parliament Acts and, more recently, the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act), common law and case law (such as the House of Lords’ desision in Pepper v. Hart) and “custom and practice” or “precedent” (i.e. things which are done in a particular way because they have always been done this way). An example of the latter: the House of Lords will not block a Bill which enacts a manifesto committment of the governing party. (I think this is called the Ponsonby Rule). When, during debates in the House of Lords, peers have suggested blocking such bills (notwithstanding the recent debacle over the House of Lords Act), other peers have argued that they should not: an unelected Chamber should not block a proposal which the people had explicitly voted for. There is no legal rule to stop them from doing so, but the convention is fairly scrupulously observed and only in extreme or borderline cases would it be breached. It is a mistake to think of convention and precedent as somehow not really being an effective part of the British Constitution.
Appointment of PM
There are a number of situations in which the choice of Prime Minister is, to some extent at least, in the hands of the Monarch. The formation of the National Government after the collapse of the second Labour Government in 1931 is a good example. Likewise, the present Queen’s decision to accept Macmillan’s advice to appoint Home as his successor. Home was, at the time, not even a member of the House of Commons.
In practice, any Government needs the support of the House of Commons in order to govern. If the Queen were to appoint a PM who did not have that support, the Government would collapse within days.
Royal Assent
It is much more difficult to imagine the Queen refusing Royal Assent to a Act of Parliament passed in the proper manner by both Houses. Proponents of the Monarchy (I am not one of them) like to argue that the British Government could not do any real monstrosity–of the kind, for example, committed in Nazi Germany–because the Monarch, as guardian of the Constitution, would refuse Royal Assent to the necessary legislation. They may or may not be right (it is quite easy to imagine Edward VIII cozying up to the Nazis).
The point is that the Queen still retains the right to give or withold Royal Assent and, although it has not been exercised for a long time, that does not mean that there are no circumstances under which it might legitimately be exercised.
Dissolution of Parliament
I am paraphrasing here, because I do not have the book in front of me, but Peter Hennesy in his book, The Hidden Wiring, offers the following argument:
Imagine that a “lame duck” Tory Prime Minister has lost the confidence of her (or his) Party. A deeply disaffected senior backbencher and former Cabinet minister is threatening to run against her (or him) in a leadership contest. Her friends tell her that she cannot win and should either resign gracefully or “go down with all guns blazing” (© Alan Clark 1990). She has one last hope: that while she may have lost the confidence of her Party, she retains the confidence of the electorate. She goes to the Palace and asks for a dissolution.
Does the Queen grant a dissolution? No. It is only 2 or 3 years since the last general election, the Conservative party has a big enough majority for the present PM’s successor to continue to govern effectively and it would be wrong to put the interests of one politician ahead of those of the nation.
A far-fetched scenario, I know, but you could imagine it happening.
Conclusion
The short answer is: The Queen could legitimately exercise those powers under certain cirumstances and there are examples of the present Queen having done so. There are also, incidentally, examples of her Governors-General having done so in other countries (e.g. Gough Whitlam’s dismissal in Australia). It is a mistake to think of her powers as purely ceremonial (or “dignified”, to use Bagehot’s term) although it is fair to say that, in most cases, her decisions will be simply to approve whatever is put before her by the Cabinet and/or Parliament.