# Why can't the queen vote? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 8, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741 "2010-05-08T13:13:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/21 "2010-05-12T04:39:57Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > it is considered unconstitutional for the Sovereign and his or her heir to do so. So Prince Charles shouldn’t vote, either. But Prince Andrew could? And the Princes William & Harry could, too? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/22 "2010-05-12T05:28:51Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > So why is she Duchess of Edinburgh, but Duke of Lancaster? Does her gender change just by going south a ways? > > And if Lancaster is there, why isn’t she Duke or Duchess or something of York? Seems like I remember some significant dispute about those titles in England? She’s deemed Duke of Normandy (which encompasses just the Channel Islands for these purposes) because the duchy cannot pass to a Duchess (Salic Law) – so when the monarch of the U.K., who holds the Duchy, is a woman, she is notionally the Duke. Lancaster is similar – it passed in the male line until Henry IV, who was Duke of Lancaster, took the throne, then it passed with the throne, including when a woman inherited the throne. But she’s notionally the Duke to comply with the writ. (Most titles go into abeyance when they pass back to the throne, but Lancaster is special – a lot of the Queen’s personal income comes, not from being Queen, but from being Duke of Lancaster, the Duchy holding a lot of high value land rented or leased out for high income return. Likewise, most of Prince Charles’s income comes not from being Prince of Wales and heir to the throne, but from being Duke of Cornwall – that being the other surviving duchy with large land holdings in the royal family, and it always aand automatically inheres with the heir to the throne, apparent or presumptive. And the Queen is Duchess of Edinburgh separately from everything else, as the Duke’s wife. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/23 "2010-05-12T05:33:24Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > So Prince Charles shouldn’t vote, either. But Prince Andrew could? And the Princes William & Harry could, too? It’s those in line for the throne up to a certain point – nobody’s ever specified exactly what the cutoff is, in anything I’ve read – who are barred from voting by custom. There are a couple of Royals that would be well up in the line of succession – 20th or so – who were dropped from the succession under the Settlement Act because they converted to Catholicism or married a Catholic – and presumably they can vote. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/24 "2010-05-12T07:36:23Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Likewise, most of Prince Charles’s income comes not from being Prince of Wales and heir to the throne, but from being Duke of Cornwall – that being the other surviving duchy with large land holdings in the royal family, and it always and automatically inheres with the heir to the throne, apparent or presumptive. Not quite. The Dukedom of Cornwall can be held only by an heir apparent who is also the oldest surviving son of the sovereign. If the heir apparent is the sovereign’s grandson, he won’t be Duke of Cornwall (e.g. George III when he was Prince of Wales). Nor could the Dukedom of Cornwall be held by an heir presumptive who was, say, the next younger brother of a childless sovereign (e.g. William IV when he was the Duke of Clarence). ---
**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:** [May 12, 2010, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/25 "2010-05-12T07:40:39Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > So why is she Duchess of Edinburgh, but Duke of Lancaster? Does her gender change just by going south a ways? > > And if Lancaster is there, why isn’t she Duke or Duchess or something of York? Seems like I remember some significant dispute about those titles in England? Because of the estates connected to the Duchy of Lancaster, it has remained as a separate title, but always held by the monarch. However, the title of Duke of York doesn’t carry that same separate status, and is traditionally given to the monarch’s second son, if the title is available - i.e. there is no current Duke of York. For instance, Her Majesty’s second son, Prince Andrew, was created Duke of York in 1986. Historically, the title has gone extinct on several occasions, making it available for re-granting. For instance, Edward IV’s second son, Richard, who likely died in the Tower, was Duke of York, as was George III’s second son, Frederick (who incidentally was “the Grand Old Duke of York who had 10,000 men” 🙂 ). Since both died without issue, the title reverted to the Crown. Alternatively, on several occasions the second son has succeeded to the throne, and the title is again free for re-granting (e.g. Henry VIII, Charles I, James II, George V and George VI were all Dukes of York prior to succeeding). ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/26 "2010-05-12T08:13:01Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > There was a rather tongue-in-cheek way of saying this when I was young: > > “The Queen can do anything she wants to. Once.” > > Meaning, of course, that she has essentially no legal (as opposed to conventional) limits on her powers – but if she uses them actively in a way the public takes sufficient umbrage to, she may find herself possessed of the franchise – in time to vote for the first President of the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as Mrs. Philip Mountbatten, pretender to the throne. So the monarchy is always one royal action away from being demolished? No wonder there are so few left. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/27 "2010-05-12T10:34:17Z")
This is the plot premise of Bernard Shaw’s play, _The Apple Cart_ ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/28 "2010-05-13T01:51:56Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > ## Maybe her friends call her that, but wouldn’t it be more polite to use her full title? —Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem. (Removed spoiler tag) Google was not cooperative, but - yes - that was exactly what I was looking for, and it would have been in the OP had I found it. As it is by far too late to edit, please substitute. 🙂 ---
**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:** [May 13, 2010, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/29 "2010-05-13T04:43:15Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > …FWIW, IIRC the Governor General of Canada has the right to vote, but chooses not to. In Australia, were voting is compulsory, does the Governor-General (or a state governor) get an exemption because s/he’s the Queen’s representative? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/30 "2010-05-13T05:51:04Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The first time a British Monarch visited the Commons was when Charles I visited, to great surprise, on 4 January 1642. He sought reconcialiation, as Commons had already ordered the King’s trusted advisor Strafford beheaded and rumors were it was turning its attention to the Queen Herself. > > The visit ended badly for His Majesty. He fled London immediately thereafter and did not return until he was brought six years later under arrest to be tried and beheaded. (Has any subsequent Monarch intruded into Commons? :rolleyes: ) > > The thread suggests some Dopers are unfamiliar with the concept, however obsolescent, of _Sovereign_. Note that Elizabeth does not even have a passport. The next time, King-in-all-but-name Oliver Cromwell came in and kicked everyone out. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/31 "2010-05-13T07:07:55Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > In Australia, where voting is compulsory, does the Governor-General (or a state governor) get an exemption because s/he’s the Queen’s representative? I don’t think so. If you’re eligible for enrolment, it’s compulsory to enrol. And if you’re enrolled it’s compulsory to vote. In practice, of course, this amounts only to a requirement to attend a polling place, have your name marked off the roll, receive a ballot paper, take it to a voting booth, and place it in the ballot box. I don’t think any exemptions are given to the various vice-regal representatives. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/32 "2010-05-13T13:37:28Z")
**septimus** , your lengthy list of Her Majesty’s titles erroneously refers to Ireland and not Northern Ireland. It also omits the 15 other nations which are no longer British dominions but of which she remains queen, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. See: [Dominion - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_dominion#From_Dominions_to_Commonwealth_realms). ---
**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:** [May 14, 2010, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/33 "2010-05-14T05:37:22Z")
The omission of the other realms isn’t inaccurate, because by agreement amongst the members of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty has different styles for each Commonwealth realm, as summarised by the preamble to the [Royal Style and Titles Act of Canada](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/R-12/20100514/page-0.html?rp2=HOME&rp3=SI&rp4=all&rp5=royal%20style&rp9=cs&rp10=L&rp13=50#idhit1): > [@](#): > > WHEREAS the Prime Ministers and other representatives of Commonwealth countries assembled in London in the month of December, in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, considered the form of the Royal Style and Titles, and recognizing that the present form is not in accordance with present constitutional relations within the Commonwealth, concluded that, in the present stage of development of the Commonwealth relationship, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position that each member country should use for its own purposes a form suitable to its own particular circumstances but retaining a substantial element common to all; Thus, Her Majesty’s Royal Style and Title as Queen of Canada is: > [@](#): > > Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Since **Septimus’s** list refers to “the British Dominions beyond the Seas”, it is inclusive and consistent with the understanding of the Commonwealth heads of government (except for that Ireland thing, of course). ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/34 "2010-05-14T13:01:21Z")
But they’re not “dominions” any more. That term is now out of use. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/35 "2010-05-14T13:18:40Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > But they’re not “dominions” any more. That term is now out of use. It remains legally valid but symbolizes an outmoded state of affairs in the minds of most Commonwealth members. This [Wikipedia section](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Dominions#From_Dominions_to_Commonwealth_realms) summarizes the change in attitudes quite well, IMO. ---
**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:** [May 14, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/36 "2010-05-14T14:45:41Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > But they’re not “dominions” any more. That term is now out of use. Well, for Canada, until there’s a constitutional amendment to the [Constitution Act, 1867](http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1867.html#pre) the term “Dominion” is still valid: [QUOTE=Constitution Act, 1867] . Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom: … \*\*Declaration of Union 3.\*\*It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly. [/QUOTE] It is also the term used in the [Statute of Westminster, 1931](http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1081723), which is a key part of the constitutional structures of Canada, Australia and New Zealand: [QUOTE=Statute of Westminster, 1931] . **Meaning of “Dominion” in this Act. 1.** In this Act the expression “Dominion” means any of the following Dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, . . . , the Irish Free State and Newfoundland. [/QUOTE] Again, constitutional amendments in Canada, Australia and New Zealand would be needed to replace the term “Dominion” in this Statute. So, the term “Dominion” may not be used as much as formerly, but it is still a legally valid term, as **Polycarp** notes. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/37 "2010-05-14T15:00:51Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > It is also the term used in the [Statute of Westminster, 1931](http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1081723), which is a key part of the constitutional structures of Canada, Australia and New Zealand: > > Again, constitutional amendments in Canada, Australia and New Zealand would be needed to replace the term “Dominion” in this Statute. I don’t think a constitutional amendment would be needed to amend the Statute of Westminster as far as it affects Australia: an ordinary act of the Australian Parliament would do it. However, I doubt if they’d want to change the definition of “Dominion” there, unless an additional territory was being added – for example, in the extremely unlikely event of Western Australia becoming a separate country, you might want to add it to the definition of “Dominion” there. If you used the word “Dominion” in a current legal document in Australia, you’d need to define it, though that might just be by reference to the Statute of Westminster. ---
**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:** [May 14, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/38 "2010-05-14T19:14:40Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > I don’t think a constitutional amendment would be needed to amend the Statute of Westminster as far as it affects Australia: an ordinary act of the Australian Parliament would do it. Does the Australian Parliament have the authority to amend the Statute of Westminster unilaterally? what about ss. 8 & 9, which continue the restrictions on the Commonwealth Parliament vis-à-vis the Constitution and the powers of the states - could the Australian Parliament unilaterally eliminate those provisions? The reason I ask is that I would doubt that the Canadian Parliament could unilaterally amend the Statute of Westminster, which is a recognized part of our Constitution - would just be surprised if that weren’t the case with the Australian Parliament. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/39 "2010-05-14T19:52:29Z")
What _do_ Canada and New Zealand style themselves as when speaking of themselves as independent nations distinct from their Commonwealth membership or shared monarch? (As in “Republic of the Congo” or “Kingdom of the Netherlands”) Kingdoms? (I know the formal style of Australia is “Commonwealth,” predating the inernational use of the term to represent the nations united in allegiance to the British Crown.) ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/40 "2010-05-14T20:03:42Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Does the Australian Parliament have the authority to amend the Statute of Westminster unilaterally? what about ss. 8 & 9, which continue the restrictions on the Commonwealth Parliament vis-à-vis the Constitution and the powers of the states - could the Australian Parliament unilaterally eliminate those provisions? > > The reason I ask is that I would doubt that the Canadian Parliament could unilaterally amend the Statute of Westminster, which is a recognized part of our Constitution - would just be surprised if that weren’t the case with the Australian Parliament. Well, I’m really not sure. One possible path would be to request that the United Kingdom Parliament amend the Statute. However, I’m not sure that’s necessary. The Statute of Westminster was incorporated into Australian law by the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, which was an ordinary act of the Australian Parliament, and so presumably can be amended like any other act. According to Wikipedia, the [Australia Act 1986](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986) made some amendments to it, which made the Australian States independent of the Imperial Parliament. Even though it’s an act of the Imperial Parliament, the Australian Constitution cannot be amended by either Parliament: it can only be amended by the process prescribed in s. 128 of the Constitution, which requires a referendum being passed by a majority of voters in a majority of the States. I suspect that any attempt to get around s. 128 would be truly revolutionary: ss. 8 & 9 of the Statute of Westminster would have just been dotting the i’s. If the Australian Parliament tried to repeal those sections, I don’t think it would be interpreted as having the effect of repealing s. 128 of the Constitution, because the Australian Parliament simply does not have the power to repeal or amend it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741.md?page=3)