30 ms·

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name new people to the House of Lords, but the Lords is no longer a hereditary body and there is a mechanism for the House of Commons to override the Lords. Parliament does have power over the monarch in some senses, of course, in that there is precedent for Parliament changing the order of succession or introducing a regency. This happened without the monarch's assent, though admittedly over a hundred years ago. But the British constitution is one that replies on precedence, not a formal document. I've characterized the Queen's powers as "reserve powers" inasmuch as, if everything goes wrong and Parliament dies from a meteor strike, the government still legally operate provided there is a monarch (even if you have to reach deep into the line of succession to find that person). By law she has to call elections within a certain amount of time. Obviously there's nothing to force her to follow the laws, but that's true of any country. She (or her heirs) are the leaders of last resort.

retrac 6y ago
Yes, this is very true. The Crown plays a useful and vital role in the Westminster system. (I'm in Canada.) It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. But I'm not sure the monarchy offers anything not provided by a nonpartisan and mostly ceremonial presidency, similar to Ireland or Germany.
- etrevino 6y ago
  You're 100% right. The UK would be served just as well by a nonpartisan president.
  - gruffalowboy 6y ago
    > nonpartisan president Oxymoron. You have to vote for a president right otherwise you end up with ... well Oliver Cromwell. A Dictator by any other name.
    - retrac 6y ago
      Why? The Queen was not elected. She's not a dictator. The de facto head of state in Canada is the Governor General who represents the Queen. The office is, in practice, appointed by the Prime Minister. Also not a tyrannical dictator. (Except with her personal staff, for the last one.) Nonpartisan in the sense that the Queen is nonpartisan. So of course, partisan. Still, nonpartisan like not publicly wading into political debates, and not opening up the office to the vulgarities of electoral politics. For example, Germany elects its president by convening both the Federal and State legislatures together, who then vote. By pulling in all the regional parties and legislators, the President has to have broad support across party lines. It's also convention that the President doesn't wade into daily political issues. The result is a largely ceremonial office, usually held by a broadly respected statesperson with former government experience. Which is what you want for the "emergency button" you hope you don't have to push in the first place.
      - User23 6y ago
        A monarch actually holds a higher office than a dictator in the Western tradition. This is relevant because Western monarchs claim the office of Rex/Regina.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Monarchs are just as bad if not worse than dictators. There are also non-tyrannical dictators. The issue with dictators is an issue of incentives, not an issue of immediate result. Unelected officials should never have significant power. This led to a harmful coup d'etat in Australia. It's not a ceremonial office, and simply the fact that the emergency button exists makes it possible for perversions to continue and cause serious issues (and it has). Partisanship is very far from the only cause of dysfunction in governments. I'd argue it's not even the worst.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    And a republic. That said - what would happen to all the stuff owned by the crown? I'm not sure if the postal service still is, and the prisons could probably be let go - but I think there's a lot of land, especially in the south owned by the crown.
    - retrac 6y ago
      Property owned by the Crown is not the property of Elizabeth, as a person. If QE II were to abdicate, for example, she would not get to keep all of it. It's the property of the Crown, the office of the head of state. It belongs to the state, in practice. If she's advised to abdicate, she would, and she's advised to transfer all Crown property to a republic, she would. The royal family does have many billions in personal holdings as well, of course.
      - mattmanser 6y ago
        Do they actually though? If they do, how come Edward VIII had to go begging after his abdication?
        retrac 6y ago
        AIUI he was effectively disowned by the rest of them, for placing his marriage above the stability of the institution. It could well have led to a British republic. And the next king did pay him an allowance anyway, apparently.
      - skissane 6y ago
        > Property owned by the Crown is not the property of Elizabeth, as a person. The Crown and Queen Elizabeth II are different persons. Queen Elizabeth II is a natural person. The Crown is a legal person, a corporation sole – a corporation with only one member, who right now is Queen Elizabeth II. Actually the Crown is not a single corporation, but a number of legally distinct corporations which all have identical membership. There is "the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom", "the Crown in Right of Canada", "the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia", "the Crown in Right of New Zealand", etc. All up, there are 16 nations with Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, and each of those nations is a distinct corporation "the Crown in Right of X". But, also there exist distinct "the Crown in Right of X" corporations for each Australian state (6) and each Canadian province (10), and also each of the three British crown dependencies (Isle of Mann, Jersey and Guernsey). So there are 35 legal persons (corporations sole) "the Crown in Right of X", and one natural person who is presently the sole common member of all of them. Each of those 35 corporations has distinct assets, which in turn are distinct from the personal assets of the natural person called Elizabeth. If any of those 35 entities became a republic, the assets of the "Crown in Right of X" corporation would pass to its republican successor.
  - hindsightbias 6y ago
    All the evidence is that you'll end up with something more like a Kardashian and I doubt they'll bring in the billions of tourism dollars world royal fans do. Stay Classy, Britain.
- roelschroeven 6y ago
  > It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. Why not? I admit I'm more familiar with the Belgian situation than the British Crown, but to me it always seems not very difficult to replace the monarch with almost nothing. I don't see why we need any kind of president, even though that's what people always talk when there's talk of doing away with the monarchy. The real leader of the country is the prime minister anyway.
  - graeme 6y ago
    The Belgian situation seems fairly dysfunctional. Is the monarch completely absent from politics? This happened in 2007-11: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2011_Belgian_political_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2011_Belgian_political_cr... In Brazil in the 19th century liberal democrats thought a monarch was unnecessary, after 67 years of successful politics under a king. Upon abolition the country devolved into a long succession of military coups and dictatorial governments. There have obviously been successful countries without monarchy, but it is very risky to say that a figurehead does nothing. Reserve powers are a pretty real restraint.
    - roelschroeven 6y ago
      > The Belgian situation seems fairly dysfunctional. Is the monarch completely absent from politics? The monarch appoints "preformateurs" and "formateur" who are elections start talks between people from the different political parties and (try to) form a cabinet, in different stages of the process. That's where he (or possibly she in a few decades, when Filip dies or abdicates and Elisabeth becomes Belgian's first Queen, if that's still a thing then) has by far the most influence in politics. Some people he shouldn't even have that influence, and I'm inclined to agree. In any case, finding another process for that is probably the most difficult issue to deal with in case we would transform to a pure parliamentary democracy. Reserve power ... I don't know. I don't think he has enough power for that. Maybe symbolically, maybe that counts for more than I think. Some say the king and/or the whole royal family is one of the few things that still hold Belgium more or less together. If indeed having a figurehead can protect us from civil war and other kinds of chaos, then by all means, let us have a figurehead.
- Pulcinella 6y ago
  Monarchy is inherently undemocratic and has no place in a modern democracy. I am quite certain Canada would continue to function just fine (or even better) without someone pretending they were divinely appointed at the top.
  - dmatech 6y ago
    You'd have to be prepared to get rid of the entire concept of the "head of state". The USA has proven quite well that having the head of government and head of state combined has substantial problems. A head of government needs to be somewhat competent and deliver results, but a head of state needs to project "gravitas", "dignitas", and other virtues. In the case of the UK, the prime minister has been relieved of the need to project these qualities and be a "mascot", but a US president has not. In theory, the people themselves are the source of legitimacy for modern governments. But the media and some of the population demands a figurehead that provides centralized moral leadership.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "The Crown plays a useful and vital role in the Westminster system." What role does it play that an elected official isn't better suited for?
  - ColFrancis 6y ago
    I'll bite. One way to look at it is that with a portfolio of investments you want to spread your risk amongst different classes. If you are securing an IT system then you have defence in depth. If you produce medical devices you want to have physical and logical locking mechanisms (see Therac-25). The US style is to make everything elected: judges, sheriffs, presidents, governors, DAs and school boards are all elected. Which means that they are all vulnerable to the same class of failure. Note: This particular role mentioned in the article, of providing consent/impact to certain broad classes of legislation, are not included in my argument above. I'm merely replying to your statement that an elected official is always better suited to all roles.
- philistine 6y ago
  Here’s my point of view: it would be extremely simple to change our system to give reduced powers of our Governor General to an unelected president named by our prime minister every five years. But because the Canadian government rammed the constitution down the throat of the Quebec government, any constitutional change is now a political impossibility. And now Indigenous groups are demanding a seat at any constitutional discussion, which is absolutely appropriate but also fraught with uncertainty. So the lack of change to our constitutional monarchy is not because we cannot think of how to replace it: it’s because Pierre Elliot Trudeau done goofed.
  - retrac 6y ago
    You're certainly right. It's generally agreed that Canada could become a republic simply by amending the constitution to outline a new law of succession that established a de facto presidency, that would be "heir" to the monarchy, and then advising the Queen to abdicate as Queen of Canada. Then the new head of state inherits the office of the Crown, and is now the President as outlined in law. Elegant, really. But, politically, the unanimous consent of the provinces to do so is essentially impossible to obtain, due to the history you mention. Canadians also simply don't care much about this. My impression is that most people are basically republicans by sentiment, but their level of actually caring about this is near zero. I'm in that camp myself. I'd like a republic. But the headache of opening up constitutional negotiations? Gah! That has never ended well in our history.
twoslide 6y ago
Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.
- etrevino 6y ago
  In my opinion? She would have consented to the final form of Brexit and the IMB.[1] I can't say about the process of proroguing Parliament, but I don't think she has the power to interfere in the running of Parliament. If she gave consent it was to the bill mandating Parliaments last no more than five years (which was a terrible plan) back when the Lib Dems and Tories allied. Personally, I think that the best way to characterize the Queen is that she was liberal for the 1950s, but as times have changed and as she's changed she's become more conservative. [1] EDIT: Because at the minimum they can be interpreted as affecting her finances.
- closeparen 6y ago
  The Queen’s job is to be above the fray of any particular moment’s politics and politicians. She represents the abstract institution of state, regardless of who is calling the shots today. In the same way that Americans can be loyal to America even if they hate the President... the British people have a specific human being to which they can feel the same loyalty.
  - KineticLensman 6y ago
    > the British people have a specific human being to which they can feel the same loyalty In particular so do the British Armed Forces, who swear allegiance to the Crown [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces#Command_organisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces#Command_o...
    - dtparr 6y ago
      I thought the Navy didn't. I recall something about how they weren't eligible for certain ceremonial roles that the army and RAF were due to never having sworn an oath to the crown.
lacker 6y ago
The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. This isn't really guaranteed to be a "moderating" influence except in the most technical sense. The current queen does not seem very eager to grab more power, but one could easily imagine a more devious and power-hungry monarch parlaying the ability to interfere with some laws into greater political power. Imagine a Trump-type figure in England. Popular on social media, eager to bend the laws, and calling on the support of a loud minority willing to sacrifice the principles of democracy. Now imagine that figure is also the King of England, with the current powers given to the monarch. Why would you want such a hereditary system? Britain should scrap the monarchy entirely while they have the chance.
- HenryKissinger 6y ago
  I view the monarchy as Britain's system32. A backup in case the OS fails, or something like that.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    How? If Parliament fails the queen doesn't start writing laws, we'd have had a revolution.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Parliament has failed many times, including at least once in the last decade. When it does, the Queen appoints whoever can form a credible government to be the prime minister.
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        > When it does, the Queen appoints whoever can form a credible government to be the prime minister. Because if she did anything else someone else would. Constitutions barely mean anything when tested, our unwritten constitution might isn't worth fuck all
  - etrevino 6y ago
csours 6y ago
I just watched Cromwell (1970) the other day and if you know of a decent but approachable popular history of the civil war and protectorate I'd love a recommendation. I don't know much about it, but the anachronisms in terminology were pretty hilarious.
- etrevino 6y ago
  It doesn't go very far into the protectorate-- that's nearly always a separate book-- but I think that Christopher Hibbert's Cavaliers and Roundheads: The English Civil War, 1642-1649 does a really good job. More in depth but I think interesting to a lot of HN readers would be The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution by Christopher Hill. If you have the time, I think that Veronica Wedgwood's (she published as CV Wedgwood) history of the era is pretty great. The writing is fun and engaging. The problem is, it's contained in four books: The King's Peace The King's War The Trial of Charles I Oliver Cromwell I don't think that Dame Wedgwood is really someone that academics read anymore (she's definitely old school history), but her scholarship is good and she wrote wonderfully.
  - csours 6y ago
    While I have your attention: Any books on the church state duality? As an American with modern freedom of religion, the question of belief is very different than it was at that time. For instance, while belief was deeply personal and spiritual it was also extremely political. I'm not necessarily asking for a discourse here on that, but maybe a reference to firm up my thinking about how it was viewed at the time.
    - etrevino 6y ago
      It's another Cromwell bio, but I think I found a book that could answer your questions on church-state relationships: God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution, by Christopher Hill. I can't remember any exact books on this, though it was basically the theme undergirding pretty much all of the politics of the time. Sorry I don't have more. It's been awhile!
ZoomerCretin 6y ago
>The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. Assuming the only negative changes that can occur to a person or group's interests are from the government, this makes sense. In reality, where we have enormous corporations who have the power and ability to negatively affect the lives of citizens in new ways previous legislators could not have envisioned, un-democratic checks against legislative action strongly benefit the powerful.
generalizations 6y ago
> Obviously there's nothing to force her to follow the laws, but that's true of any country. Not quite. The laws that are unenforceable, because they apply to the 'person at the top', act as a bright line; in any country with a sufficiently capable citizenry, this line is the indicator that the 'person at the top' needs to be made to step down. Edit. I'm thinking of the Magna Carta as an example, where the monarch was held accountable by the barons who forced him to sign. Seems like the barons make my point, since they're not planning on enforcing their agreement within the legal framework. One of the provisions in that document was: > Under what historians later labelled "clause 61", or the "security clause", a council of 25 barons would be created to monitor and ensure John's future adherence to the charter.[44] If John did not conform to the charter within 40 days of being notified of a transgression by the council, the 25 barons were empowered by clause 61 to seize John's castles and lands until, in their judgement, amends had been made.
crumbshot 6y ago
> I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. She used her powers to get an exemption from transparency laws with regards to her personal wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que..., and Charles did the same to ban his tenants from purchasing freeholds: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charl.... This constitutional corruption of our laws by the most privileged family in Britain is indeed a bad thing, and one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished. Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  > one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished. Doesn't that just shift corruption to the next party? I don't see why logically switching the ruling party would abolish corruption. It might even increase it.
  - deepsun 6y ago
    Speaking from a very corrupt eastern european country -- practice shows that each change of power lessens corruption somewhat -- who knows what next leaders will dig out, better stay safe. The longer same functioneers stay in power, the deeper is corruption.
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      Hey neighbour! Our lot aren't deterred, each government is about as corrupt as the last...
    - type0 6y ago
      That's no good, in the Soviet Union corruption only lasted for 5 years until it was replaced by the new one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_national_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_nation...
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> but the Lords is no longer a hereditary body Wait, what? What's the alternative? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords says this: > Membership is granted by appointment or by heredity or official function. > Membership was once an entitlement of all hereditary peers, other than those in the peerage of Ireland, but under the House of Lords Act 1999, the right to membership was restricted to 92 hereditary peers.
- handelaar 6y ago
  Before the changes resulting in 92 remaining in the House of Lords, hereditary members numbered over 1200. Once in a blue moon the Conservatives would mobilise basically all of them and destroy any opposition to a bill in progress
- etrevino 6y ago
  So, 90 of those hereditary peers are elected, just, they're elected by other hereditary peers. So, just because you're a peer does not mean you have the right to sit in the House of Lords, whereas before you could. If I recall, you didn't have to ever sit, but if you wanted to show up, you basically could come in to vote. The other two hereditary peers are not elected. They have some ceremonial role (though they can vote) that was thought prudent to retain. I don't remember (if I ever know) what it was.
Apofis 6y ago
Except she has not exercised her right to stop the Brexit which is entirely damaging to the United Kingdom and which the population was lied into by their current prime minister Boris Johnson. She also will not abdicate to allow someone younger and with more sense to actually make the decision.
- akmarinov 6y ago
  If that happened, the monarchy would’ve been abolished within an year. Overriding a democratic referendum by someone who wasn’t even elected to rule...
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    That's what I used to think, but with the increasing tensions and polarization I'm not entirely sure anymore. Well, my perception is that the UK is not as divided as the US is, but if it were, then a Queen picking a side and wielding her powers might see the side she picked cheer her on.
- detaro 6y ago
  Even if it were feasible, the solution to the Brexit mess certainly wasn't "have the Queen override it". (It's an interesting theoretical question though: at what point and how could the Queen have stopped it? I guess she could have rejected the Act authorizing the Article 50 invocation - at that point it would have been even harder to argue a good case for doing so. After that, the process was running.)
- benlumen 6y ago
  Utter nonsense for too many reasons to go into. You could just as easily say that the Queen needed to make sure it happened while parliament was trying to stop it.
philistine 6y ago
While what you are presenting is all factual and true, it completely ignores the new discovery that the Guardian has made: that the monarch has used Queen’s Consent, which was thought to be a mere legislative formality, to steer the government in a self-serving direction. We were not publicly aware of such a deep involvement.
mhh__ 6y ago
> I've characterized the Queen's powers as "reserve powers" inasmuch as, if everything goes wrong and Parliament dies from a meteor strike, the government still legally operate provided there is a monarch (even if you have to reach deep into the line of succession to find that person). Ignoring that the Queen and much of her staff would likely be dead, where exactly do you think Governments come from? Parliament would just reform and be recognized de facto until the laws were either reconstructed or replaced. Sometimes words have no meaning, and the queen has no practical power to do any of this, so it's basically irrelevant in my view.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Historically there are a lot more spontaneously formed kingdoms than parliaments.
jjtheblunt 6y ago
this is a fantastically explained comment...thank you for it
throwaway_kufu 6y ago
There is a common phrase bandied about: “Democracy is the worst form of government, besides all the others.” It’s oddly used as a pro-Merica. To which I normally say the US isn’t a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. I don’t know why I do that, it only causes people to dig in deeper to their position. Their argument generally boils down to the US has elections and elections = democracy. I can even see hints of that in this thread applied to the UK, but I’m assuming those are Americans. It makes me curious as a British Scholar would you call the government a Constitutional Monarch? Do you find it commonly referred to as a democratic monarchy or just a democracy consistent with what I tend to see in the US?
- skissane 6y ago
  > To which I normally say the US isn’t a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic It is a silly semantic debate. If you define "democracy" narrowly to mean only direct democracy, then no the US isn't a democracy. If you define "democracy" broadly, to include representative democracies with constitutionally entrenched protection of minority rights, then yes the US is a democracy, as are quite a few others. Whether a country is a republic or a constitutional monarchy is rather orthogonal. You can have a representative democracy with constitutionally entrenched protections of minority rights, and with that you can either have a mostly ceremonial constitutional monarch, or a President. The later is a republic, the former is not. I think the UK does fall short somewhat, in lacking a codified constitution, there is really no such thing as entrenched rights – other countries without an entrenched constitution include Israel and New Zealand. Then you also have countries like Australia, which does have an entrenched written constitution, but the rights protected by the Australian constitution are rather limited – protection against religious discrimination and the implied right of political free speech. But "democracy" vs "constitutional republic" isn't a good way of capturing those deficiencies.
  - throwaway_kufu 6y ago
    > If you define "democracy" broadly, to include representative democracies I don’t think this is a matter of being overly pedantic. What you have done is redefined “democracy” to “republic”. To use a real world example you don’t find many historians that call the ancient republic of Rome a democracy, or a representative democracy. A republic is just that, a form of government where the people are represented by elected officials/representatives. Does the US have any characteristic besides elections that results in you calling it a democracy? Do you call China a representative democracy? They do elect representatives after all. Yes, clearly I give democracy the narrow definition where the people directly manage the affairs of the State, not elected representatives. It’s not just out of tradition though it’s because other forms of government have other names and democracies from the beginning have nothing to do with elections or electing officials. For example in Ancient Greece, the original “democracy”, they had officials for certain purposes that were not elected, they were selected from the populace through a lottery.
sytelus 6y ago
I view British monarchy as tyranny prevention mechanism. Democracies are notoriously weak and can collapse at any momemnt by a charasmatic leader. Any long lasting democracies need some serious mechanisms to squash the tyranny. In American version this is achieved by having 3 almost equally powerful branches of governments. In British version, this is achieved by subdued monarchie. It's much like injecting a dead virus in the body. As monarchie already exist in the British system, there cannot be a separate tyrant rising up. At the same time, monarchs themselves cannot become tyrant as they have been heavily subdued to essentially act as dead-man walking. In many ways, this is more ingenious than American system, although more expensive and less intutive. In American system, there is still a good chance that a single party can dominate all 3 branches and tyranny might still emerge. In Briish system, this is near impossible.
- vasco 6y ago
  Why would you want a solution that makes one family be treated as if they're above everyone else by birth? Is that the signal that as a country you want to give your citizens? I cannot understand how people consent to monarchies in so called developed countries while at the same time making huge fusses about everything else related to equality.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- janeroe 6y ago
  >> In many ways, this is more ingenious than American system, although more expensive Is it though (more expensive)? I've heard they spend 1.5 billion dollars per year for the president (flights, security, meetings, etc). And that's the explicit part; the implicit one is the election spendings which last year constituted 6.5 billion dollars; if they come from special interest groups, I suspect, they should be somehow payed back in the form of legislation, tariffs, taxes, and projects appeasing those special interest groups (so taxpayers will probably pay way more than what was donated).
- benhurmarcel 6y ago
fit2rule 6y ago
The Queen of Australia is all that stands in the way of a real investigation by a democratic sovereign into Australia's heinous, evil war crimes and crimes against humanity. "Reserve Powers" is weasel-word for "she shall not be questioned by her subjects".
benlumen 6y ago
What did you make of the debacle of the Fixed Term Parliament Act and the government being left unable to call a General Election in 2019 because of it? Supposedly it removed the power of the Queen to dissolve parliament. Lots of British people, me included, were deeply alarmed by it. Parliament was essentially rogue.
- etrevino 6y ago
  I agree with you that it was a debacle. It was meant to hold together the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition and once that went to pot it should have been scrapped. I don't think that it removed the Queen's (technical) ability to dissolve Parliament, instead it removed the government's ability to ask her to dissolve Parliament. It locked Parliament into a situation where no one had the power to do anything more than keep the lights on. It was gross. * Had the Queen tried to dissolve Parliament I think they would have ignored her.

retrac 6y ago

Yes, this is very true. The Crown plays a useful and vital role in the Westminster system. (I'm in Canada.) It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. But I'm not sure the monarchy offers anything not provided by a nonpartisan and mostly ceremonial presidency, similar to Ireland or Germany.

etrevino 6y ago
You're 100% right. The UK would be served just as well by a nonpartisan president.
- gruffalowboy 6y ago
  > nonpartisan president Oxymoron. You have to vote for a president right otherwise you end up with ... well Oliver Cromwell. A Dictator by any other name.
  - retrac 6y ago
    Why? The Queen was not elected. She's not a dictator. The de facto head of state in Canada is the Governor General who represents the Queen. The office is, in practice, appointed by the Prime Minister. Also not a tyrannical dictator. (Except with her personal staff, for the last one.) Nonpartisan in the sense that the Queen is nonpartisan. So of course, partisan. Still, nonpartisan like not publicly wading into political debates, and not opening up the office to the vulgarities of electoral politics. For example, Germany elects its president by convening both the Federal and State legislatures together, who then vote. By pulling in all the regional parties and legislators, the President has to have broad support across party lines. It's also convention that the President doesn't wade into daily political issues. The result is a largely ceremonial office, usually held by a broadly respected statesperson with former government experience. Which is what you want for the "emergency button" you hope you don't have to push in the first place.
    - User23 6y ago
      A monarch actually holds a higher office than a dictator in the Western tradition. This is relevant because Western monarchs claim the office of Rex/Regina.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Monarchs are just as bad if not worse than dictators. There are also non-tyrannical dictators. The issue with dictators is an issue of incentives, not an issue of immediate result. Unelected officials should never have significant power. This led to a harmful coup d'etat in Australia. It's not a ceremonial office, and simply the fact that the emergency button exists makes it possible for perversions to continue and cause serious issues (and it has). Partisanship is very far from the only cause of dysfunction in governments. I'd argue it's not even the worst.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  And a republic. That said - what would happen to all the stuff owned by the crown? I'm not sure if the postal service still is, and the prisons could probably be let go - but I think there's a lot of land, especially in the south owned by the crown.
  - retrac 6y ago
    Property owned by the Crown is not the property of Elizabeth, as a person. If QE II were to abdicate, for example, she would not get to keep all of it. It's the property of the Crown, the office of the head of state. It belongs to the state, in practice. If she's advised to abdicate, she would, and she's advised to transfer all Crown property to a republic, she would. The royal family does have many billions in personal holdings as well, of course.
    - mattmanser 6y ago
      Do they actually though? If they do, how come Edward VIII had to go begging after his abdication?
      - retrac 6y ago
        AIUI he was effectively disowned by the rest of them, for placing his marriage above the stability of the institution. It could well have led to a British republic. And the next king did pay him an allowance anyway, apparently.
    - skissane 6y ago
      > Property owned by the Crown is not the property of Elizabeth, as a person. The Crown and Queen Elizabeth II are different persons. Queen Elizabeth II is a natural person. The Crown is a legal person, a corporation sole – a corporation with only one member, who right now is Queen Elizabeth II. Actually the Crown is not a single corporation, but a number of legally distinct corporations which all have identical membership. There is "the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom", "the Crown in Right of Canada", "the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia", "the Crown in Right of New Zealand", etc. All up, there are 16 nations with Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, and each of those nations is a distinct corporation "the Crown in Right of X". But, also there exist distinct "the Crown in Right of X" corporations for each Australian state (6) and each Canadian province (10), and also each of the three British crown dependencies (Isle of Mann, Jersey and Guernsey). So there are 35 legal persons (corporations sole) "the Crown in Right of X", and one natural person who is presently the sole common member of all of them. Each of those 35 corporations has distinct assets, which in turn are distinct from the personal assets of the natural person called Elizabeth. If any of those 35 entities became a republic, the assets of the "Crown in Right of X" corporation would pass to its republican successor.
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  All the evidence is that you'll end up with something more like a Kardashian and I doubt they'll bring in the billions of tourism dollars world royal fans do. Stay Classy, Britain.
roelschroeven 6y ago
> It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. Why not? I admit I'm more familiar with the Belgian situation than the British Crown, but to me it always seems not very difficult to replace the monarch with almost nothing. I don't see why we need any kind of president, even though that's what people always talk when there's talk of doing away with the monarchy. The real leader of the country is the prime minister anyway.
- graeme 6y ago
  The Belgian situation seems fairly dysfunctional. Is the monarch completely absent from politics? This happened in 2007-11: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2011_Belgian_political_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2011_Belgian_political_cr... In Brazil in the 19th century liberal democrats thought a monarch was unnecessary, after 67 years of successful politics under a king. Upon abolition the country devolved into a long succession of military coups and dictatorial governments. There have obviously been successful countries without monarchy, but it is very risky to say that a figurehead does nothing. Reserve powers are a pretty real restraint.
  - roelschroeven 6y ago
    > The Belgian situation seems fairly dysfunctional. Is the monarch completely absent from politics? The monarch appoints "preformateurs" and "formateur" who are elections start talks between people from the different political parties and (try to) form a cabinet, in different stages of the process. That's where he (or possibly she in a few decades, when Filip dies or abdicates and Elisabeth becomes Belgian's first Queen, if that's still a thing then) has by far the most influence in politics. Some people he shouldn't even have that influence, and I'm inclined to agree. In any case, finding another process for that is probably the most difficult issue to deal with in case we would transform to a pure parliamentary democracy. Reserve power ... I don't know. I don't think he has enough power for that. Maybe symbolically, maybe that counts for more than I think. Some say the king and/or the whole royal family is one of the few things that still hold Belgium more or less together. If indeed having a figurehead can protect us from civil war and other kinds of chaos, then by all means, let us have a figurehead.
Pulcinella 6y ago
Monarchy is inherently undemocratic and has no place in a modern democracy. I am quite certain Canada would continue to function just fine (or even better) without someone pretending they were divinely appointed at the top.
- dmatech 6y ago
  You'd have to be prepared to get rid of the entire concept of the "head of state". The USA has proven quite well that having the head of government and head of state combined has substantial problems. A head of government needs to be somewhat competent and deliver results, but a head of state needs to project "gravitas", "dignitas", and other virtues. In the case of the UK, the prime minister has been relieved of the need to project these qualities and be a "mascot", but a US president has not. In theory, the people themselves are the source of legitimacy for modern governments. But the media and some of the population demands a figurehead that provides centralized moral leadership.
pmoriarty 6y ago
"The Crown plays a useful and vital role in the Westminster system." What role does it play that an elected official isn't better suited for?
- ColFrancis 6y ago
  I'll bite. One way to look at it is that with a portfolio of investments you want to spread your risk amongst different classes. If you are securing an IT system then you have defence in depth. If you produce medical devices you want to have physical and logical locking mechanisms (see Therac-25). The US style is to make everything elected: judges, sheriffs, presidents, governors, DAs and school boards are all elected. Which means that they are all vulnerable to the same class of failure. Note: This particular role mentioned in the article, of providing consent/impact to certain broad classes of legislation, are not included in my argument above. I'm merely replying to your statement that an elected official is always better suited to all roles.
philistine 6y ago
Here’s my point of view: it would be extremely simple to change our system to give reduced powers of our Governor General to an unelected president named by our prime minister every five years. But because the Canadian government rammed the constitution down the throat of the Quebec government, any constitutional change is now a political impossibility. And now Indigenous groups are demanding a seat at any constitutional discussion, which is absolutely appropriate but also fraught with uncertainty. So the lack of change to our constitutional monarchy is not because we cannot think of how to replace it: it’s because Pierre Elliot Trudeau done goofed.
- retrac 6y ago
  You're certainly right. It's generally agreed that Canada could become a republic simply by amending the constitution to outline a new law of succession that established a de facto presidency, that would be "heir" to the monarchy, and then advising the Queen to abdicate as Queen of Canada. Then the new head of state inherits the office of the Crown, and is now the President as outlined in law. Elegant, really. But, politically, the unanimous consent of the provinces to do so is essentially impossible to obtain, due to the history you mention. Canadians also simply don't care much about this. My impression is that most people are basically republicans by sentiment, but their level of actually caring about this is near zero. I'm in that camp myself. I'd like a republic. But the headache of opening up constitutional negotiations? Gah! That has never ended well in our history.

twoslide 6y ago

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.

etrevino 6y ago
In my opinion? She would have consented to the final form of Brexit and the IMB.[1] I can't say about the process of proroguing Parliament, but I don't think she has the power to interfere in the running of Parliament. If she gave consent it was to the bill mandating Parliaments last no more than five years (which was a terrible plan) back when the Lib Dems and Tories allied. Personally, I think that the best way to characterize the Queen is that she was liberal for the 1950s, but as times have changed and as she's changed she's become more conservative. [1] EDIT: Because at the minimum they can be interpreted as affecting her finances.
closeparen 6y ago
The Queen’s job is to be above the fray of any particular moment’s politics and politicians. She represents the abstract institution of state, regardless of who is calling the shots today. In the same way that Americans can be loyal to America even if they hate the President... the British people have a specific human being to which they can feel the same loyalty.
- KineticLensman 6y ago
  > the British people have a specific human being to which they can feel the same loyalty In particular so do the British Armed Forces, who swear allegiance to the Crown [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces#Command_organisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces#Command_o...
  - dtparr 6y ago
    I thought the Navy didn't. I recall something about how they weren't eligible for certain ceremonial roles that the army and RAF were due to never having sworn an oath to the crown.

lacker 6y ago

The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. This isn't really guaranteed to be a "moderating" influence except in the most technical sense. The current queen does not seem very eager to grab more power, but one could easily imagine a more devious and power-hungry monarch parlaying the ability to interfere with some laws into greater political power. Imagine a Trump-type figure in England. Popular on social media, eager to bend the laws, and calling on the support of a loud minority willing to sacrifice the principles of democracy. Now imagine that figure is also the King of England, with the current powers given to the monarch. Why would you want such a hereditary system? Britain should scrap the monarchy entirely while they have the chance.

HenryKissinger 6y ago
I view the monarchy as Britain's system32. A backup in case the OS fails, or something like that.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  How? If Parliament fails the queen doesn't start writing laws, we'd have had a revolution.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Parliament has failed many times, including at least once in the last decade. When it does, the Queen appoints whoever can form a credible government to be the prime minister.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      > When it does, the Queen appoints whoever can form a credible government to be the prime minister. Because if she did anything else someone else would. Constitutions barely mean anything when tested, our unwritten constitution might isn't worth fuck all
- etrevino 6y ago

csours 6y ago

I just watched Cromwell (1970) the other day and if you know of a decent but approachable popular history of the civil war and protectorate I'd love a recommendation. I don't know much about it, but the anachronisms in terminology were pretty hilarious.

etrevino 6y ago
It doesn't go very far into the protectorate-- that's nearly always a separate book-- but I think that Christopher Hibbert's Cavaliers and Roundheads: The English Civil War, 1642-1649 does a really good job. More in depth but I think interesting to a lot of HN readers would be The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution by Christopher Hill. If you have the time, I think that Veronica Wedgwood's (she published as CV Wedgwood) history of the era is pretty great. The writing is fun and engaging. The problem is, it's contained in four books: The King's Peace The King's War The Trial of Charles I Oliver Cromwell I don't think that Dame Wedgwood is really someone that academics read anymore (she's definitely old school history), but her scholarship is good and she wrote wonderfully.
- csours 6y ago
  While I have your attention: Any books on the church state duality? As an American with modern freedom of religion, the question of belief is very different than it was at that time. For instance, while belief was deeply personal and spiritual it was also extremely political. I'm not necessarily asking for a discourse here on that, but maybe a reference to firm up my thinking about how it was viewed at the time.
  - etrevino 6y ago
    It's another Cromwell bio, but I think I found a book that could answer your questions on church-state relationships: God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution, by Christopher Hill. I can't remember any exact books on this, though it was basically the theme undergirding pretty much all of the politics of the time. Sorry I don't have more. It's been awhile!

ZoomerCretin 6y ago

>The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. Assuming the only negative changes that can occur to a person or group's interests are from the government, this makes sense. In reality, where we have enormous corporations who have the power and ability to negatively affect the lives of citizens in new ways previous legislators could not have envisioned, un-democratic checks against legislative action strongly benefit the powerful.

generalizations 6y ago

> Obviously there's nothing to force her to follow the laws, but that's true of any country. Not quite. The laws that are unenforceable, because they apply to the 'person at the top', act as a bright line; in any country with a sufficiently capable citizenry, this line is the indicator that the 'person at the top' needs to be made to step down. Edit. I'm thinking of the Magna Carta as an example, where the monarch was held accountable by the barons who forced him to sign. Seems like the barons make my point, since they're not planning on enforcing their agreement within the legal framework. One of the provisions in that document was: > Under what historians later labelled "clause 61", or the "security clause", a council of 25 barons would be created to monitor and ensure John's future adherence to the charter.[44] If John did not conform to the charter within 40 days of being notified of a transgression by the council, the 25 barons were empowered by clause 61 to seize John's castles and lands until, in their judgement, amends had been made.

crumbshot 6y ago

> I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. She used her powers to get an exemption from transparency laws with regards to her personal wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que..., and Charles did the same to ban his tenants from purchasing freeholds: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charl.... This constitutional corruption of our laws by the most privileged family in Britain is indeed a bad thing, and one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished. Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled.

StavrosK 6y ago
> one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished. Doesn't that just shift corruption to the next party? I don't see why logically switching the ruling party would abolish corruption. It might even increase it.
- deepsun 6y ago
  Speaking from a very corrupt eastern european country -- practice shows that each change of power lessens corruption somewhat -- who knows what next leaders will dig out, better stay safe. The longer same functioneers stay in power, the deeper is corruption.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    Hey neighbour! Our lot aren't deterred, each government is about as corrupt as the last...
  - type0 6y ago
    That's no good, in the Soviet Union corruption only lasted for 5 years until it was replaced by the new one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_national_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_nation...

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> but the Lords is no longer a hereditary body Wait, what? What's the alternative? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords says this: > Membership is granted by appointment or by heredity or official function. > Membership was once an entitlement of all hereditary peers, other than those in the peerage of Ireland, but under the House of Lords Act 1999, the right to membership was restricted to 92 hereditary peers.

handelaar 6y ago
Before the changes resulting in 92 remaining in the House of Lords, hereditary members numbered over 1200. Once in a blue moon the Conservatives would mobilise basically all of them and destroy any opposition to a bill in progress
etrevino 6y ago
So, 90 of those hereditary peers are elected, just, they're elected by other hereditary peers. So, just because you're a peer does not mean you have the right to sit in the House of Lords, whereas before you could. If I recall, you didn't have to ever sit, but if you wanted to show up, you basically could come in to vote. The other two hereditary peers are not elected. They have some ceremonial role (though they can vote) that was thought prudent to retain. I don't remember (if I ever know) what it was.

Apofis 6y ago

Except she has not exercised her right to stop the Brexit which is entirely damaging to the United Kingdom and which the population was lied into by their current prime minister Boris Johnson. She also will not abdicate to allow someone younger and with more sense to actually make the decision.

akmarinov 6y ago
If that happened, the monarchy would’ve been abolished within an year. Overriding a democratic referendum by someone who wasn’t even elected to rule...
- im3w1l 6y ago
  That's what I used to think, but with the increasing tensions and polarization I'm not entirely sure anymore. Well, my perception is that the UK is not as divided as the US is, but if it were, then a Queen picking a side and wielding her powers might see the side she picked cheer her on.
detaro 6y ago
Even if it were feasible, the solution to the Brexit mess certainly wasn't "have the Queen override it". (It's an interesting theoretical question though: at what point and how could the Queen have stopped it? I guess she could have rejected the Act authorizing the Article 50 invocation - at that point it would have been even harder to argue a good case for doing so. After that, the process was running.)
benlumen 6y ago
Utter nonsense for too many reasons to go into. You could just as easily say that the Queen needed to make sure it happened while parliament was trying to stop it.

philistine 6y ago

While what you are presenting is all factual and true, it completely ignores the new discovery that the Guardian has made: that the monarch has used Queen’s Consent, which was thought to be a mere legislative formality, to steer the government in a self-serving direction. We were not publicly aware of such a deep involvement.

mhh__ 6y ago

> I've characterized the Queen's powers as "reserve powers" inasmuch as, if everything goes wrong and Parliament dies from a meteor strike, the government still legally operate provided there is a monarch (even if you have to reach deep into the line of succession to find that person). Ignoring that the Queen and much of her staff would likely be dead, where exactly do you think Governments come from? Parliament would just reform and be recognized de facto until the laws were either reconstructed or replaced. Sometimes words have no meaning, and the queen has no practical power to do any of this, so it's basically irrelevant in my view.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Historically there are a lot more spontaneously formed kingdoms than parliaments.

jjtheblunt 6y ago

this is a fantastically explained comment...thank you for it

throwaway_kufu 6y ago

There is a common phrase bandied about: “Democracy is the worst form of government, besides all the others.” It’s oddly used as a pro-Merica. To which I normally say the US isn’t a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. I don’t know why I do that, it only causes people to dig in deeper to their position. Their argument generally boils down to the US has elections and elections = democracy. I can even see hints of that in this thread applied to the UK, but I’m assuming those are Americans. It makes me curious as a British Scholar would you call the government a Constitutional Monarch? Do you find it commonly referred to as a democratic monarchy or just a democracy consistent with what I tend to see in the US?

skissane 6y ago
> To which I normally say the US isn’t a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic It is a silly semantic debate. If you define "democracy" narrowly to mean only direct democracy, then no the US isn't a democracy. If you define "democracy" broadly, to include representative democracies with constitutionally entrenched protection of minority rights, then yes the US is a democracy, as are quite a few others. Whether a country is a republic or a constitutional monarchy is rather orthogonal. You can have a representative democracy with constitutionally entrenched protections of minority rights, and with that you can either have a mostly ceremonial constitutional monarch, or a President. The later is a republic, the former is not. I think the UK does fall short somewhat, in lacking a codified constitution, there is really no such thing as entrenched rights – other countries without an entrenched constitution include Israel and New Zealand. Then you also have countries like Australia, which does have an entrenched written constitution, but the rights protected by the Australian constitution are rather limited – protection against religious discrimination and the implied right of political free speech. But "democracy" vs "constitutional republic" isn't a good way of capturing those deficiencies.
- throwaway_kufu 6y ago
  > If you define "democracy" broadly, to include representative democracies I don’t think this is a matter of being overly pedantic. What you have done is redefined “democracy” to “republic”. To use a real world example you don’t find many historians that call the ancient republic of Rome a democracy, or a representative democracy. A republic is just that, a form of government where the people are represented by elected officials/representatives. Does the US have any characteristic besides elections that results in you calling it a democracy? Do you call China a representative democracy? They do elect representatives after all. Yes, clearly I give democracy the narrow definition where the people directly manage the affairs of the State, not elected representatives. It’s not just out of tradition though it’s because other forms of government have other names and democracies from the beginning have nothing to do with elections or electing officials. For example in Ancient Greece, the original “democracy”, they had officials for certain purposes that were not elected, they were selected from the populace through a lottery.

sytelus 6y ago

I view British monarchy as tyranny prevention mechanism. Democracies are notoriously weak and can collapse at any momemnt by a charasmatic leader. Any long lasting democracies need some serious mechanisms to squash the tyranny. In American version this is achieved by having 3 almost equally powerful branches of governments. In British version, this is achieved by subdued monarchie. It's much like injecting a dead virus in the body. As monarchie already exist in the British system, there cannot be a separate tyrant rising up. At the same time, monarchs themselves cannot become tyrant as they have been heavily subdued to essentially act as dead-man walking. In many ways, this is more ingenious than American system, although more expensive and less intutive. In American system, there is still a good chance that a single party can dominate all 3 branches and tyranny might still emerge. In Briish system, this is near impossible.

vasco 6y ago
Why would you want a solution that makes one family be treated as if they're above everyone else by birth? Is that the signal that as a country you want to give your citizens? I cannot understand how people consent to monarchies in so called developed countries while at the same time making huge fusses about everything else related to equality.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
janeroe 6y ago
>> In many ways, this is more ingenious than American system, although more expensive Is it though (more expensive)? I've heard they spend 1.5 billion dollars per year for the president (flights, security, meetings, etc). And that's the explicit part; the implicit one is the election spendings which last year constituted 6.5 billion dollars; if they come from special interest groups, I suspect, they should be somehow payed back in the form of legislation, tariffs, taxes, and projects appeasing those special interest groups (so taxpayers will probably pay way more than what was donated).
benhurmarcel 6y ago

fit2rule 6y ago

The Queen of Australia is all that stands in the way of a real investigation by a democratic sovereign into Australia's heinous, evil war crimes and crimes against humanity. "Reserve Powers" is weasel-word for "she shall not be questioned by her subjects".

benlumen 6y ago

What did you make of the debacle of the Fixed Term Parliament Act and the government being left unable to call a General Election in 2019 because of it? Supposedly it removed the power of the Queen to dissolve parliament. Lots of British people, me included, were deeply alarmed by it. Parliament was essentially rogue.

etrevino 6y ago
I agree with you that it was a debacle. It was meant to hold together the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition and once that went to pot it should have been scrapped. I don't think that it removed the Queen's (technical) ability to dissolve Parliament, instead it removed the government's ability to ask her to dissolve Parliament. It locked Parliament into a situation where no one had the power to do anything more than keep the lights on. It was gross. * Had the Queen tried to dissolve Parliament I think they would have ignored her.