What Powers & Prerogatives does the Monarch still have, and when are they exercised?

[Avalon]

This thread is to discuss the Royal Powers & Prerogatives, and when are they used. It will be interesting to know what powers the Monarch has now, when and in what situations are they exercised, how those powers evolved or were restricted, are any under threat and other questions.

[wbenson]

There are many powers and prerogatives that are exercised by the Queen, but on the sole advice of her government. (Or by constitutional convention that details how a government should be appointed, etc.)

The Queen appoints and dismisses ministers, dissolves Parliament and calls elections, grants clemency and pardons, awards honours*, declares wars and states of emergencies, grants charters to incorporate corporations and cities, authorises the minting of coins, issues and revokes passports, deports foreign citizens, creates common law courts, creates universities, appoints Bishops and Archbishops, accredits diplomats, approves treaties, prohibits subjects from leaving the realm, and authorises the printing of the authorised version of the bible, all on the advice of her government.

*With the exception of the Order of the Garter, Order of the Thistle, Order of Merit, and the Royal Victorian Order, all of which are awarded at her discretion.

The royal prerogative also includes the duties of keeping peace and defending the realm, which are also exercised by her government.

The monarch (and thus the government) cannot deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without an Act of Parliament, so therefore cannot imprison or tax at will.

The monarch also grants Royal Assent to bills. In theory, the government could advise the Queen to withhold her assent to a bill, but as the government is held responsible for its actions in the Commons, and is thus backed by a majority of the house (and typically controls the agenda), it is improbable that a government would ever be faced with a situation of a bill contrary to its wishes being put through.

[Elspeth]

I wonder if this talk of a new constitution by Gordon Brown will have any effect on the royal prerogatives. It always seemed as though Tony Blair was doing his best to minimise the role of the Queen in the government and turn her into a figurehead monarch, but it seems as though Gordon Brown is less of a control freak.

[Avalon]

Upon becoming the Party Leader, Brown did announce that he would limit the Royal Powers, in paricular he mentioned removing the Power to declare war.
However in the changes to constitution he proposed, there was no word of it, if anything, he was limiting the PM's role (as explained by Beatrixfan).

I'm not sure about the future changes though, if Brown is elected in the next elections, he might go ahead with some power-limiting stuff, even though he is alleged to be on good terms with Prince Charles.

[BeatrixFan]

Indeed, the new constitution will change who the monarch's powers are devolved to but they'll still be the monarch's to excercise. As to the Honours System, depending on the report and investigation into the Cash for Honours scandal I think we'll see big changes there under Mr Brown.

[HRH Kimetha]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Indeed, the new constitution will change who the monarch's powers are devolved to but they'll still be the monarch's to excercise. As to the Honours System, depending on the report and investigation into the Cash for Honours scandal I think we'll see big changes there under Mr Brown.

As I am not a British citizen and upon reading someone's post indicating the closeness between Brown & PC, how does the present PM see the monarchy. Has Brown indicated any motion of granting at least "personal opinions" of say, Prince Charles regarding conservation, environmental policy to name a few. What exactly is his relationship to the BF besides the ruling party PM? (not meaning blood relationships).

[BeatrixFan]

Well, Gordon Brown has never spoken out against the Queen but as a socialist one would assume he was anti-monarchy. That hasn't come across but he does seem to be keen on reforming the monarchy. On the other hand, he did date Princess Margarita of Romania which would suggest that it isn't something he minds. He's got a good relationship with Prince Charles working wise and I believe he was one of the ministers who said he was pleased to recieve notes from Prince Charles but generally, this is a typical GB issue - we don't really know what he thinks. We just have to make educated guesses.

[BillW65]

This is a very interesting topic. I don't have much to add except a few questions. I was always fearful that Blair would work at limiting the monarchy even further. Can anyone assess how Blair's term as PM affected the role of the monarchy if at all? As far as Brown goes. His call for Constitutional reform might not necessarily be a bad thing. A written constitution where the powers of Parliament (Commons and Lords) and the monarchy are defined could be beneficial as long as the monarchy retains it's current role.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Procedures and powers regarding the disolving of Parliament and dismissing/appointing of ministers should be meticulously put down, with no possible loophole for anyone wanting to repeat the Sir John Kerr episode in Australia. That was just nutters! This kind of "I'll sack you before you sack me!" business, is crazy!

[wbenson]

Is there actually going to be a codified constitution? The only plans I've seen are for several more acts to be added to the disparate collection that make up the constitution.

[Royal Fan]

Ive Heard Codified if he looses his next election what Party is most Monarchist Also Royally What Did Tony Blair do good and bad for the Monarchy also What about Gordon Brown after almost a month in office Also I Was away On the 27th and really didnt find to much when I Got home about the Handover any articles you can direct me to

[CasiraghiTrio]

Well, written constitution implies (as I can see it) something more than just a succession of Acts. I hope it is a formal constitution because, even though Britain is fine after all this time without it, it's always a positive thing to have a written formal constitution. The only problem with the present system of a sucession of acts is that acts can be overturned. You can amend a written constitution, but only after a pain-in-the-you-know-where process through the courts; it's good because it keeps the politicians from getting too trigger happy on things and they have to think twice (very hard for some of them) before acting. Politicians and legislators come and go; constitutions (real ones, or good ones) stay.

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

with no possible loophole for anyone wanting to repeat the Sir John Kerr episode in Australia. That was just nutters! This kind of "I'll sack you before you sack me!" business, is crazy!

That is a very loose interpretation of the events. It should be made expressly clear that the Governor-General consulted the senior constitutional interpreter and official constitutional expert (the Chief Justice of the Hight Court of Australia), before acting. Constitutionally, Sir John Kerr was obliged to act as he did.

I apologise for digressing, however Kerr-bashing, thirty-two years after the event, when we have been able to assemble and analyse the facts, is less-than-complimentary of the accuser.

[Russophile]

Hoo-boy. I already thought that the monarchs powers were limited. Now they want to limit them even more??

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Hoo-boy. I already thought that the monarchs powers were limited. Now they want to limit them even more??

In this day, they're really just trying to limit the powers of the Government more than anything. Far more people worry about some ministers going crazy than the Queen.

[moravia]

Hi folks, my first post.

With regard to the Royal Prerogative, I'm of the opinion that, as no British monarch has rocked the boat during the past 300 years, whatever pressure is put on them to conform to a government's wishes, nullifies any of the powers that they apparently have.

I would say that, over this "quiet" period of three centuries, the various Royal Families have been conditioned not to go against the grain, and therefore would never excercise their rights.

Does anyone agree with this?

[KingCharles]

I don't see how the powers of a monarch can be 'limited' as all power is vested in the monarch themselves. I think the legal jargon is contradictory as the Queen is the law. The law is uphelp in her name, the Queen cannot be tried or sent to jail for any crime because she is above the law, so how can her powers be revoked or restricted if in fact she is the be-and-end-all in this country?
I think if you were to think about it yourselves you could understand my point of view.

[wbenson]

An Act of Parliament can restrict or even remove any of the powers.

[PrinceOfCanada]

In theory, yes. But the fun thing is that HM must signify assent for parliament to even debate a law that will remove or modify her existing powers. She most recently did so when a private members' bill attempted to give Parliament in the UK the ability to declare war on Iraq without her permission. As this would have removed part of her prerogative (the right to declare war), she said "Naff off, you lot" (I may be paraphrasing), and they couldn't even debate the bill.

[wbenson]

That part is done solely on the advice of the government, though. Tony Blair didn't want Parliament getting involved in what he saw as his advice to the monarch, so he told them to naff off through the Queen. That's actually quite common. Private members introduce bills like that (and other bills that require the royal consent before debate, like money bills) all the time, and one of the reasons they never go forward is because the government doesn't like them, so they don't get the Queen to give her sayso.