Prime Ministers, Political Advisers and the Powers & Prerogatives of the Monarch

[Royal Fan]

I Agree, but doesent seem right somehow,Wonder how long the current Government last...also wonder if she speaks to her husband about her meetings I understand shes not suppose to but rekon she does??

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Sam20045

I wish the Queen's Majesty was given more power and authority. I wish she had to rely less on the Cabinet and the Prime Minister of the day...and that she could make decisions of her own...for she is the Queen...the Monarch...the Sovereign...the sole of the Nation and of the Commonwealth...

Why should she have more power?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Sam20045

I wish the Queen's Majesty was given more power and authority. I wish she had to rely less on the Cabinet and the Prime Minister of the day...and that she could make decisions of her own...for she is the Queen...the Monarch...the Sovereign...the sole of the Nation and of the Commonwealth...

We live in democracies where the monarch is monarch by the will of the people.

The British monarchy survived by learning that lesson in 1649 and have accepted that fact. Since 1660 the monarch has had a pact with the people - you rule and we will live in the grand homes and sign the legislation. Although the first monarchs after this time had more power gradually the British monarchy has given the power to the parliament in order to survive.

In the modern world an unelected person should have no power other than symbolic and that is what the power of the monarch is - to look good.

[KittyAtlanta]

Originally Posted by Royal Fan

I Agree, but doesent seem right somehow,Wonder how long the current Government last...also wonder if she speaks to her husband about her meetings I understand shes not suppose to but rekon she does??

I rekon she doesn't discuss matters of State with dear Prince Philip. Just a hunch.

[NGalitzine]

Well Philip is a Privy Councillor, as well as being her husband, so I suspect he has heard more than a few secrets over the years, and no doubt offered his opinion on more than a few occassions even if not asked for it.

[Iluvbertie]

As Philip is a Privy Councillor and is eligible to serve as a Counsellor of State I reckon very stongly that she does discuss things with him at times (as I reckon she does with Charles as well - so that he is informed of what is going on - in case).

[Royal Fan]

Could the Queen ever abolish the 1999 Peerage act would she should she....id like her too

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by AnnEliza

What is the difference between his being Prince Consort and the title he has now? Was it Prince Albert who was Prince Consort -- how did that make a difference? (Not arguing, I'm asking for information.)

Prince Albert had the title formally given to him by LPs like Anne was created The Princess Royal Albert was created The Prince Consort.

Philip is the Prince Consort - little T. It is not a formal title. You won't see that title anywhere officially when reference in made to Philip.

Effectively if would make absolutely no difference at all - it would simply be a cosmetic change to his title - official and informal to a formal, official title.


The Court Circular would change to refer to Philip as HRH The Prince Consort instead of HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.

[Roslyn]

I have a feeling that having his own separate title might appeal to Philip more than being formally his wife's consort. He already is HM's consort, but making him The Prince Consort would make him sound more of a secondary character than he already is, and I think Philip's pride would reject that.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Royal Fan

Could the Queen ever abolish the 1999 Peerage act would she should she....id like her too

No - it was an Act of Parliament. She had to sign it into law.

She has no powers to repeal an Act of Parliament of her own volition. Not does she have the power to enact legislation that hasn't passed through both Houses of Parliament. The British monarch's lost that power in 1660.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

I have a feeling that having his own separate title might appeal to Philip more than being formally his wife's consort. He already is HM's consort, but making him The Prince Consort would make him sound more of a secondary character than he already is, and I think Philip's pride would reject that.

Exactly and Albert had no British title in his own right. Anne's husband was created The Duke of Cumberland, Earl of Kendal in his own right, like Philip is The Duke of Edinburgh etc.

[nascarlucy]

I know that the monarchs in many countries sign the legislation that is presented to them, but over the centuries legislation has probably been presented to them,that the monarch doesn't like, has strong moral reservations or moral objections to, or thinks that the legislation is bad, vague or thinks the language in the legislation needs to be changed or tweeted. What would happen if the monarch refused to sign the legislation citing one of these objections? If they just sign legislation then they are merely rubber stamping it (more of a formality than anything else then).

[Benedikte]

Well the whole french revolution in 1789 and the peacefull revolution in 1848 in Denmark - was about the monarchs being merely rubber stamping the legislation.

Under this model, the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that no one branch has more power than the other branches. The normal division of branches is into an executive, a legislature and a judiciary.

[Iluvbertie]

The King of Belgium abdicated rather than sign. That is their only option - to give up the position.
They are a rubber stamp and nothing more and they know it.

[PrincessKaimi]

I see that the Act mentioned above exempts the Monarch from lawsuits - but I don't see how it exempts them from non-civil legal matters.

Surely it can't be the case that the Queen can kill whomever she pleases without consequence. It's just civil matters from which she is protected?

Am I completely off?

BTW, in American Federal and State Supreme Courts, laws that have not been enforced for many years are regarded as unenforceable (nor are States allowed to selectively enforce laws against their constituents).

As an American, of course, I can speak about the women of England in any manner I choose. So, it's not "all of us" who must refrain, just some of us.

QEII does indeed have the power of a major lobbying organization (through her own person and her family). We all know that Prince Charles has his causes, does QEII have special causes (aside from those royal duties she carries out as a matter of course)? She certainly could espouse the cause of "her dolphins"!

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen can't be charged with a crime but Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor can - so as The Queen she can't be charged as the courts operate in her name but she can be charged as a normal person.

We don't know of any 'causes' that the Queen espouses, partly because she was so young when she became Queen that she hadn't had a chance to get involved in anything.

Charles has had years of waiting and so has had two alternatives - do nothing much at all or get involved and hence we know things that are of interest to him.

[Warren]

Wonder why the Royal Family are suddenly getting everything right? Meet the VERY discreet new power behind the throne | Mail Online

For the past three years the Queen has been steered by a steady hand; someone who has done more than anyone to ensure the family firm finally understands the necessity of discreet but professional image-building. He is the Rt Hon Christopher Geidt, her personal private secretary, arguably one of the most influential men in the land and certainly a key power behind the throne. With the exception of her husband, Geidt is the man whose advice and judgment the Queen trusts above all others.

The 50-year-old former Army sergeant (who underwent officer training at Sandhurst), diplomat and Foreign Office mandarin, has been a huge success since joining the Royal household as an assistant private secretary to the Queen in 2002. Geidt got the top job in 2007 after the retirement of Lord Janvrin.

Often described as the Queen’s ‘eyes and ears’, Geidt is the channel of communication between her and the Government, both here and in the 15 other nations of which she is sovereign. His official role is to inform and advise the Queen on constitutional, governmental and political matters. But unofficially, he has brought a modernity to the Monarchy and a greater air of professionalism to Buckingham Palace and Clarence House.

Royal commentator Brian Hoey says: ‘Her Majesty trusts his counsel completely and they have a remarkably good relationship. She likes that he’s not a yes man, not afraid to speak his mind. He has no problem telling the Queen if he believes she’s wrong or, indeed, anything that he thinks she should hear. He’s the first non-commissioned officer to hold this position and is a brilliant strategist. He sees a problem before it’s even happened and pays remarkable attention to detail. He plans ahead and sees potential pitfalls way before they happen. He was in Army intelligence and then the diplomatic corps so he knows how to win an argument. Aside from Royal favourite Angela Kelly, the Queen’s former dresser and now personal assistant, he is the only member of the household who has unfettered access to the Monarch. He is relatively new, but the Queen is very fond of him.’

Geidt always travels with the Queen overseas to ensure it all runs smoothly. But there was added pressure with Ireland because of the political and historic significance. A member of the Royal household said: ‘Christopher not only helped to write her speech [along with David Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague], but apparently it was his idea for her to open in Gaelic, to the obvious delight and audible gasp of the VIP guests.’ He would also have known the impact of the Queen wearing green. But while some might have gone for emerald, Geidt is believed to have suggested the less obvious choice.

After last year's election Geidt was briefed to observe proceedings and keep the Queen informed. His role was to protect the Monarchy and advise the Queen to appoint a Prime Minister only when a decision was ‘clear and uncontroversial’.

Geidt’s job also includes liaising with the rest of the Royal Family, the Armed Forces, the Church and the bodies of which the Queen is patron. It’s a big job and is reflected in his £146,000 salary, a shade more than the Prime Minister’s £142,500. His wife Emma is the daughter of Baron Neill of Bladen, former chairman of both the Press Council and the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

[Renata4711]

£ 146,000 isn't good enough for the job.....

[Bundtrock]

I have a question regarding the neutrality as regards British politics and the reigning Monarch of the day.

I understand that the British Monarch must remain neutral and above the political fray, per established tradition and precedent.

In order not to step on any toes, let's hypothetically discuss the Monarch and the British government of 2020, since that is an unknown and variable at this point.

Let's say that the reigning Monarch of the day vehemently disagrees with some policy / position of the then British government. Believes that such is not only contrary to the best interests of the British people, but dangerous to their well being. What could the Monarch actually and in a practical sense do that might possibly result in a adjustment of the situation, if anything?

[nascarlucy]

Even though the monarch is supposed to be non-political, in a case where national security is threatened or where the threat is so great that it could cause the country to collapse economically or socially, I would think that they could influence the House of Lords many of who are their peers to see their point of view or heed their warnings. At the very least these people would listen to them. People that they know or associated with to some degree. I'm sure they have influence even though they don't have or don't appear to have much political power. If they did so quietly behind the scenes.

In a extreme situation where lives are at stake or the very foundations of Great Britain are in peril, the monarch is taking a chance becoming political. If they became political and it saves the nation, then they probably would be criticized for doing so but at the same time would be praised for taking a stand. If they said nothing and the country fell apart financially or socially, people might blame them for saying nothing. I would hope God forbid that if Britian found itself in such a terrible situation that the Monarch on the throne first would pray to God for guidence and then act accordingly.

This is just my guess as I'm hardly an expert on the Monarchy or the workings of the British government.