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

If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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.
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).
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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. :cool: 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"!
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
HM's Personal Private Secretary, Christopher Geidt

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.
Last edited:
£ 146,000 isn't good enough for the job.....
Last edited:
The Monarch Remaining Non Political

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?
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.
Couldn't the monarch just refuse to give Royal Assent to legislation? That'd be like vetoing a bill in the US. That probably hasn't been done in a long time but it is an option.

In Australia, the Governor General sacked the government in the 1970s. He was Queen Elizabeth II's representative. She refused to get involved. A monarch technically could fire the government, I think, along the same lines.
The last monarch to refuse the Royal Assent was Queen Anne. Since then it has been accepted that the monarch can't refuse to do so.
The Australian constitution actually gives more powers to the GG than the monarch has in Britain so the British monarch can't dismiss the PM or government.
The British monarch has no political power beyond appointing the PM and even that is decided by the public and the political parties.
Last edited by a moderator:
...they could influence the House of Lords...
The House of Lords can only block legislation for a limited period of time and then it automatically goes through anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
...Let's say that the reigning Monarch of the day vehemently disagrees with some policy / position of the then British government.... What could the Monarch actually and in a practical sense do?
The best example for this would be the Belgian King who found himself in this exact situation - solution - he abdicated.
Last edited by a moderator:
The best example for this would be the Belgian King who found himself in this exact situation - solution - he abdicated.

He had himself declared non-ruling for a day so that he wouldn't have to sign some abortion legislation. King Baudoin.
In my view the monarch could do nothing more than counsel against such action.

The British form of government is a democracy, and therefore the British people elect the majority of their legislature. If their elected representatives propose any policy or position which would not be in the interests of the people, it would be up to the people to call for or demand the removal of such representatives.. or to make their voice heard during an election.
Last edited by a moderator:
I want to THANK everyone that has replied thus far for taking their time to share their insights, I am very appreciative.

HM Queen Catherine, your reply leads me to another question please, since the British Monarch has no real political power, unlike say the British Prime Minister, but is the Head of State, is the British Monarch held accountable in anyway for political decisions made in their name, by the British people, directly or indirectly?

Thank you again, everyone! You are very kind to share your knowledge.
Directly no - but some people do question her decisions indirectly e.g. some accuse her of selling out Britain by signing the Lisbon treaty (or signing the British legislation that allowed Britain to agree to the Lisbon treaty - I am not sure if the Head of States had to actually sign the treaty in person but it did involve some legislation).

She can't be held accountable when she has no choice but to abdicate or agree to the government of the day's decisions, publicly.
Last edited by a moderator:
I totally agree with what Iluvbertie says.

The British are well aware that the Queen is a figurehead of government, and has no political power even though Parliament acts "in her name". For the people to hold her accountable for what their elected officials do would be rather unfair.. as Iluvbertie says, she has no choice in matters of state.
Last edited by a moderator:
I remember when a group of people tried to attack Prince Charles and Camilla in their vehicle. Footage of the attack was shown on tv. I heard a couple of people yelling at them and blaming them for some legislation that had been passed. Whomever was yelling at them said they were the government as they were throwing things at the fleeing vehicle.

I agree with Iluvbertie said. Prince Charles had no say in the legislation and wouldn't have if he were King. To personally blame him and Camilla is very unfair.
Absolute Monarchy + Constitutional Monarchy

Could an Absolute Monarchy work in today's modern age in Britain.
Could an Absolute Monarchy work in today's modern age in Britain.
No - the people fought too many wars to establish the system they have today to go back to the system pre 1215 when the first checks were put on the powers of the monarch.

100000s of Englishmen and women gave their lives over many centuries to bring about a say for the people in the government, of England, Britain, and countries like Australia which have virtually the same system.

Would an abolute monarchy work in Australia - no - yet we have the same basic system so why would you think that the British people would be anymore accepting of an autocrat than we would?

They didn't want one in 1215 and fought for a parliament from 1399 and even killed a king to get a parliamentary system of government.
Who in their right mind would suggest dictatorship (which is what absolute monarchy is) as a favourable option for government? Did you not see the Arab Spring? People revolt against dictators no matter if they are called Presidents or Kings, and those that will survive in the long run will have to adapt to their peoples demands.
The only absolute monarchs we have in Britain are people like Rupert Murdoch.
People revolt against a lot of things - but today's paper's list far more Brits than just Murdoch as being way too wealthy (according to other Brits who are commenting).
I think the Commons' reaction to the revelations said it all, for me.
It's less about physical wealth rather than a spectacular lack of basic integrity.
Is the Queen the most controlled person in Britain?

On various boards I have seen criticism of the Queen for not making some comment about the riots and then elsewhere there was a comment about British monarchs in Europe and it got me thinking.

The Queen can't say what she thinks, publicly on any issue.
The Queen can't leave the country without the consent of the government.
The Queen has to go to work every day of the year - except for a couple of religious holidays.
The Queen has to visit people and countries she may not want to do.
The Queen has to have stay in her home people that she may not like, or respect.

When you look at a list like this - and I am sure it isn't complete - it seems that the Queen has the most restrictions on her basic freedoms than any other person in Britain - except those incarcerated of course - but they don't qualify for my comparison as that is a result of their own actions while the restrictions on her are because of her job and she had no choice about that job either.
The only "perk" of the job is having Philip as a husband.

He would probably show her the funny or quirky side of things.
Wow,reading that list showed me it's not easy being Queen!
The only "perk" of the job is having Philip as a husband.

He would probably show her the funny or quirky side of things.

I do agree Renata. I think the Prince has quite a humorous side to him. I think this has certainly helped "lighten the load" and assisted HM to carry out her duties in a most gracious manner. After all being a King or a Queen is a job with a a huge amount of responsibility attached. One is definitely tied down and controlled with regard to everything that you can and cannot do. Definitely takes a person with patience, understanding and high tolerance levels.
Last edited:
Top Bottom