Is the British constitutional Monarchy stripped of real power ?

Jun 2015
255
London UK
Is the present day concept Of ‘constitutional Monarchy’ where the Queen is independent and does what she is told and simply signs bills passed by Parliamentand the Prime Minister an illusion? The weekly discussion with the PM is permanently classified and details are never released.

It has been argued how the monarch and team of advisers have used their position and influence to quietly act in their own self interest and matters they have strong views about? Couldn’t a government ‘nationalise’ the assets and income and pay an allowance for official duties? Or was a deal done that the ‘constitutional powers’ of monarch such as ‘rule by decree’?? (Or whatever the corr term is for the Queen’s powers) was kept so The PM can by pass parliament
present arrangements is them being influential despite being officially neutral?

Did this stem from the controversy surrounding the Monarch alleged involvement with the General Strike in the before WW2?
 

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
5,478
Wirral
Is the present day concept Of ‘constitutional Monarchy’ where the Queen is independent and does what she is told and simply signs bills passed by Parliamentand the Prime Minister an illusion? The weekly discussion with the PM is permanently classified and details are never released.

It has been argued how the monarch and team of advisers have used their position and influence to quietly act in their own self interest and matters they have strong views about? Couldn’t a government ‘nationalise’ the assets and income and pay an allowance for official duties? Or was a deal done that the ‘constitutional powers’ of monarch such as ‘rule by decree’?? (Or whatever the corr term is for the Queen’s powers) was kept so The PM can by pass parliament
present arrangements is them being influential despite being officially neutral?

Did this stem from the controversy surrounding the Monarch alleged involvement with the General Strike in the before WW2?
What alleged involvement?
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,574
Las Vegas, NV USA
Parliament is supreme. It has sole authority to levy taxes and barrow money to run the state. Given that, the monarch has as much or as little power that Parliament deems fit. Since most of the constitution is unwritten, Parliament decides just what de facto limitations are placed on the monarch. The last monarch to not give royal assent was Queen Anne. The last monarch to dismiss a Prime Minister without Parliamentary consent was William IV. Today the Queen has substantial reserve powers that are only to be exercised on the advice of her ministers. Since meetings between the Queen and her ministers are secret, it's not publicly known exactly how they interact, but it's clear the monarch will not go against the advice of her ministers.

As far as I know, there have been no statutes passed by Parliament that limit the monarch's power since 1688. The limits are based on tradition and Parliament's willingness to maintain traditions as they develop.

These are some of her reserve powers:

What are The Queen?s powers? ? Royal Central
 
Last edited:

paranoid marvin

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
As we are a monarchy, many things require the consent of the monarch. Of course, such things are always given freely, but consent is required nevertheless
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,574
Las Vegas, NV USA
Can QE sack the PM, in some extraordinary circumstance, let's just say?
She would need the support of her ministers. She could not act on her own as far as I know. Queen Victoria got PM Lord John Russell to sack Foreign Minister Lord Palmerston who failed to get approval for a number of actions. (He soon was back). Since he was subordinate to Russell it was he who had to fire him. In theory the monarch can fire a PM but it would be based on the advice of other ministers. More likely the party would dump the PM and not involve the monarch.
 
Last edited:

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,815
USA
It is basically a Ceremonial Monarchy. They can't talk politics. They can express their opinions confidentially to the PM, and it may or may not have any effect at all. Whatever the monarch does have to have the majority support of the Parliament.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,574
Las Vegas, NV USA
It is basically a Ceremonial Monarchy. They can't talk politics. They can express their opinions confidentially to the PM, and it may or may not have any effect at all. Whatever the monarch does have to have the majority support of the Parliament.
I believe the monarch can act on the advice of her ministers (who form the cabinet). If the leadership wants to take a vote of the House, they can, but the decision to do so is theirs.

Generally the monarch only needs to give royal assent to bills passed by Parliament. This is always done. Failure to do so would bring on a constitutional crisis (see TV drama Charles III). In cases involving royal prerogatives, the monarch may need to issue Letters Patent or carry out some other formal act.
 
Last edited: