5 ms·
There's a reason for this, I'm a bit vague on the details, but when Parliament took control of the country from Charles II, one of the agreements was that the m
by mattowen_uk 6y ago
There's a reason for this, I'm a bit vague on the details, but when Parliament took control of the country from Charles II, one of the agreements was that the monarch would keep out of political affairs.
- sgt101 6y agoWell, it was Charles I, it was done with an Axe, and then there was a complicated tooing and froing for a long while until about 1918 when universal suffrage finally came in.
- dghf 6y ago> about 1918 when universal suffrage finally came in. It was 1928.
- iso1631 6y agoYes, 1918 allowed some women to vote -- over 30, and property owners (or married to such). In 1918 all men over 21 could vote. 1928 equalised it to everyone over 21
- sgt101 6y ago1928 is what I should have written.
- iso1631 6y agoMost people think "1918" as that was the first time some women were allowed to vote, and later in the year they were allowed to stand for parliament (and Nancy Astor did so in 1919) Like most things, Suffrage was a scale - before 1835 most men didn't have a vote either, working men got it in 1867, 1918 all men over 21 and property holding women over 30 got the vote, in 1928 all women over 21 and in 1969 everyone over 18. In devloved areas like Scotland suffrage is even lower (16). Unlike in the US I don't think it's ever regressed
- dghf 6y ago> In devloved areas like Scotland suffrage is even lower (16) Only for certain elections -- local and Scottish parliamentary. You still have to be 18 to vote in elections for Westminster; the same was true of European elections when they were still a thing in the UK.
- iso1631 6y agoTrue, I think all of Scotland's elections (aside from Westminster) are relative and democratic too unlike in England
- dghf 6y agoIt went on quite a bit longer than that. In 1834, William IV sacked a prime minister for purely political reasons. His successor, Victoria, was probably the UK's first constitutional monarch in the modern sense.
- marshmallow_12 6y agoi understand victoria did the same. She was a pretty powerful monarch. Maybe even more so than her predecessors.
- blackshaw 6y agoIt's not just about the constitutional precedent - it's a strategy the monarchy follows for its own survival. Politics is by definition divisive; if the Queen publicly takes a side on the issues of the day she'll alienate half the country, which is a surefire way to hasten the demise of the monarchy. She's free to have her private political opinions, but it's very much against her interests to express them.