3 ms·

The king doesn’t really have any power in practice, I think the royal family mainly exist for tradition/tourism reasons at this point At least according to htt

The king doesn’t really have any power in practice, I think the royal family mainly exist for tradition/tourism reasons at this point At least according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index it’s one of the most democratic countries at 18th in the world (to be fair that’s made by a UK company but I don’t see why they would be biased)

c0m 4y ago
> The [monarch] doesn’t really have any power in practice Entirely untrue. The monarch has a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister. There have been many cases of the Queen getting carveouts, influencing laws, and vetting bills. There is no law forbidding the monarch from not granting Royal Assent. This notion that the British monarch has no power is an absolute farce. There’s also the whole concept of King’s Consent, wherein the King gets to vet every single bill for affect the crown's own prerogatives or interests, and negotiate secretly with the government to change the contents of that bill. The Guardian articles detail this process as well. If you seriously believe the King has no power in practice I have a bridge to sell you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-l... https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-fo... https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-l... https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/revealed-queen-vetted-67-laws-before-scottish-parliament-pass-them https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/revealed-queen-v...
- eternalban 4y ago
  Also the command-in-chief of UK and other Commonweath militaries? Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Canadian_Armed_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Cana... As all executive power is legally reposed in the Crown, the role of commander-in-chief is the only constitutional means by which decisions are made over the deployment and disposition of the Canadian Armed Forces.[6] Under the Westminster system's conventions of responsible government, the cabinet—which advises the sovereign or his viceroy on the exercise of the executive powers—generally exercises the Crown prerogative powers relating to the Canadian forces.[6][7] Still, all declarations of war are issued with the approval, and in the name, of the monarch and must be signed by either the sovereign or the governor general, as was done with the proclamation that declared Canada at war with Nazi Germany, issued on September 10, 1939; it stated: "Whereas by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada, We have signified Our Approval for the issue of a Proclamation in the Canada Gazette declaring that a State of War with the German Reich exists and has existed in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939." Australia: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s68.html http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca4... COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 68. Command of naval and military forces. The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.
  - c0m 4y ago
    It’s concerning to think of some sort of major constitutional crisis taking place during wartime due to disagreement between PM and King. I’m a little baffled that this has never been framed as a national security issue, at least it hasn’t been a popular narrative in my lifetime. At the same time, whatever government opens that particular Pandora’s box is in for a hell of a ride, so I understand why. I'm obviously an abolitionist but I would be much less worried about this if the powers matched the role. I'm sure HN could empathise better than most websites that giving a supposed read-only user unused, powerful permissions is probably not the best idea.
    - ck425 4y ago
      Bare in mind that the other reason noone wants to open that Pandora's box is that in reality the monarchy's interference is relatively minor and the political establishment (with full backing of the public) would permanently shut down any attempts to interfere in a more major way. That's not too say that the guardians findings aren't troubling or that the powers the UK monarchy do wield aren't antidemocratic. But they're only ignored because they're relatively minor. In the case of something major like a national security incident they'd be overruled and potentially trigger the dissolution or atleast severe weakening of the monarchy. They're aware of that fact and thus careful about what they do.
- vixen99 4y ago
  'There is no law forbidding the monarch from not granting Royal Assent'. True but I await the day that happens! The Brits don't go in for revolution but there'd be all hell to pay if this occurred. It would likely mark the beginning of the end for the House of Windsor. Anti-monarchists should hope such a thing comes to pass.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    There's no need to speculate, the reason we say Parliament is sovereign is that Parliament ordered Charles I executed for defying them. The King is replaceable, status as Monarch of the United Kingdom is something its Parliament can bestow. Turns out that people who hate fun (Puritans) are even less popular than a King who keeps starting wars, so Parliament installed a replacement King.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > There’s no need to speculate, the reason we say Parliament is sovereign is that Parliament ordered Charles I executed for defying them. Refusal of Royal Assent has happened since then, and not caused similar responses, though (in England; parts of British North America are…a different story; no regicide of course, but the monarchy itself was replaced.)
      - tialaramex 4y ago
        Yup, the government absolutely can "advise" the monarch to do whatever they want as we saw in that other sub-thread. If the monarch refuses such "advice" they can be replaced, I doubt Parliament would go to all the extraordinary bother to execute a modern King, especially over such small beans - but if the King won't go they can either abolish the monarchy (it wouldn't even be that unpopular to do so right now) or just replace them anyway, passing a law which says actually no, that's not the King, this other person is monarch now. Most recently Assent was withheld from a law passed in Scotland, on the advice of the British government. This conflict makes sense, the Scottish Parliament is necessarily subsidiary, and this was basically a Culture War law, in my opinion the Scottish were on the right side of history, but it's not astonishing that (as conceived when the Scottish Parliament was set up) the British parliament could say "No". Before that the last time assent (as opposed to consent) was refused in 1708 is genuinely interesting. It was used because of unfortunate timing. Parliament said OK, those Scots seem useful, we don't fully trust them but we need more armed men and nobody doubts they can fight, so here's a law arming the Scottish. And then, with the Bill passed but Assent not yet granted, they received news of a French Fleet landing in Scotland. Suddenly giving arms to the Scottish seemed less clever as who knows if they'd be on France's side. So Mary was told (by the Government) to withhold Assent from that bill.
jabradoodle 4y ago
This is a tiring narrative. They do have power, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq_(Parliamentary_Approval)_Bill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq... That the royal family is useful for tourism is also laughable
- iso1631 4y ago
  You're quoting royal prerogative, which is held by the government, specifically by the prime minister, who has to have the support of the house of commons, and aside from Alec Douglass Home for a period of 20 days in recess has always been a member of the house of commons for over a century.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  You need to learn to at least read between the lines. "On the advice of her government" means it's what the government decided to do. Why so? Because although they had sufficient numbers to ensure the bill wouldn't become law, using Consent allowed them to prevent debate.
  - jabradoodle 4y ago
    You need to learn to read. I am stating that the monarch has the power to veto legislation, not that the power was used in opposition to the advice of ministers. That you don't see an issue with democratic debate being shutdown on the advice of a government minister to the monarch is another issue.
    - vixen99 4y ago
      That's just rude.
    - iso1631 4y ago
      The government has the power to veto legislation, not Charlie Windsor the billionaire guy with a fancy hat.
- Veen 4y ago
iso1631 4y ago
The king does have some power, but it's mainly lobbying. Big party donors in America have far more power.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  Do they lobby much? I vaguely remember a bunch of silliness about trying to figure out the Queen’s preferences around Brexit based on the brooch she was wearing or something like that… I’ve always just thought of royalty as sort of like the prototype for American celebrities like the Kardashians. Just a bunch of people who are famous for being famous.
  - iso1631 4y ago
    Oh no, they definitively lobby, as listed in the sibling comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35687508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35687508 I'm just not sure that "rich person lobbies government" is the jackpot that republicans think it is. The day that Biden, Trump. Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and before don't get lobbying on a regular basis from major donors then I'll consider it one. Indeed I'd rather Charlie spend an hour a week lobbying Sunak as it takes an hour of lobbying away from anyone else.
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      Huh, interesting, well there goes one of their few redeeming virtues in my mind, I guess.
      - iso1631 4y ago
        I guess the question is would an elected head of state mean more lobbying from more corrupt people. Sure Charlie might lobby against something happening in his back yard, and that's a pain, but I'd rather that than have big pharma lobby to loosen safety features on drug approvals, or big food lobby to bypass animal welfare
        4y ago
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The king doesn’t really have any power in practice No, even aside from soft power, the monarch has some hard power (which can serve as a powerful lever for soft power, as well). Notably, for instance, the requirement for Monarch’s consent (not just the more pro forma Royal Assent) to legislation affecrtng the hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown or the Duchy of Lancaster or Cornwall, including the Royal Household and the Royal Palaces (including the Palace of Westminster), the Crown Estate and the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Monarch's private estates, and the Monarch's interest as a landlord or an employer.

c0m 4y ago

> The [monarch] doesn’t really have any power in practice Entirely untrue. The monarch has a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister. There have been many cases of the Queen getting carveouts, influencing laws, and vetting bills. There is no law forbidding the monarch from not granting Royal Assent. This notion that the British monarch has no power is an absolute farce. There’s also the whole concept of King’s Consent, wherein the King gets to vet every single bill for affect the crown's own prerogatives or interests, and negotiate secretly with the government to change the contents of that bill. The Guardian articles detail this process as well. If you seriously believe the King has no power in practice I have a bridge to sell you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-l... https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-fo... https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-l... https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/revealed-queen-vetted-67-laws-before-scottish-parliament-pass-them https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/revealed-queen-v...

eternalban 4y ago
Also the command-in-chief of UK and other Commonweath militaries? Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Canadian_Armed_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Cana... As all executive power is legally reposed in the Crown, the role of commander-in-chief is the only constitutional means by which decisions are made over the deployment and disposition of the Canadian Armed Forces.[6] Under the Westminster system's conventions of responsible government, the cabinet—which advises the sovereign or his viceroy on the exercise of the executive powers—generally exercises the Crown prerogative powers relating to the Canadian forces.[6][7] Still, all declarations of war are issued with the approval, and in the name, of the monarch and must be signed by either the sovereign or the governor general, as was done with the proclamation that declared Canada at war with Nazi Germany, issued on September 10, 1939; it stated: "Whereas by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada, We have signified Our Approval for the issue of a Proclamation in the Canada Gazette declaring that a State of War with the German Reich exists and has existed in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939." Australia: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s68.html http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca4... COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 68. Command of naval and military forces. The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.
- c0m 4y ago
  It’s concerning to think of some sort of major constitutional crisis taking place during wartime due to disagreement between PM and King. I’m a little baffled that this has never been framed as a national security issue, at least it hasn’t been a popular narrative in my lifetime. At the same time, whatever government opens that particular Pandora’s box is in for a hell of a ride, so I understand why. I'm obviously an abolitionist but I would be much less worried about this if the powers matched the role. I'm sure HN could empathise better than most websites that giving a supposed read-only user unused, powerful permissions is probably not the best idea.
  - ck425 4y ago
    Bare in mind that the other reason noone wants to open that Pandora's box is that in reality the monarchy's interference is relatively minor and the political establishment (with full backing of the public) would permanently shut down any attempts to interfere in a more major way. That's not too say that the guardians findings aren't troubling or that the powers the UK monarchy do wield aren't antidemocratic. But they're only ignored because they're relatively minor. In the case of something major like a national security incident they'd be overruled and potentially trigger the dissolution or atleast severe weakening of the monarchy. They're aware of that fact and thus careful about what they do.
vixen99 4y ago
'There is no law forbidding the monarch from not granting Royal Assent'. True but I await the day that happens! The Brits don't go in for revolution but there'd be all hell to pay if this occurred. It would likely mark the beginning of the end for the House of Windsor. Anti-monarchists should hope such a thing comes to pass.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  There's no need to speculate, the reason we say Parliament is sovereign is that Parliament ordered Charles I executed for defying them. The King is replaceable, status as Monarch of the United Kingdom is something its Parliament can bestow. Turns out that people who hate fun (Puritans) are even less popular than a King who keeps starting wars, so Parliament installed a replacement King.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > There’s no need to speculate, the reason we say Parliament is sovereign is that Parliament ordered Charles I executed for defying them. Refusal of Royal Assent has happened since then, and not caused similar responses, though (in England; parts of British North America are…a different story; no regicide of course, but the monarchy itself was replaced.)
    - tialaramex 4y ago
      Yup, the government absolutely can "advise" the monarch to do whatever they want as we saw in that other sub-thread. If the monarch refuses such "advice" they can be replaced, I doubt Parliament would go to all the extraordinary bother to execute a modern King, especially over such small beans - but if the King won't go they can either abolish the monarchy (it wouldn't even be that unpopular to do so right now) or just replace them anyway, passing a law which says actually no, that's not the King, this other person is monarch now. Most recently Assent was withheld from a law passed in Scotland, on the advice of the British government. This conflict makes sense, the Scottish Parliament is necessarily subsidiary, and this was basically a Culture War law, in my opinion the Scottish were on the right side of history, but it's not astonishing that (as conceived when the Scottish Parliament was set up) the British parliament could say "No". Before that the last time assent (as opposed to consent) was refused in 1708 is genuinely interesting. It was used because of unfortunate timing. Parliament said OK, those Scots seem useful, we don't fully trust them but we need more armed men and nobody doubts they can fight, so here's a law arming the Scottish. And then, with the Bill passed but Assent not yet granted, they received news of a French Fleet landing in Scotland. Suddenly giving arms to the Scottish seemed less clever as who knows if they'd be on France's side. So Mary was told (by the Government) to withhold Assent from that bill.

jabradoodle 4y ago

This is a tiring narrative. They do have power, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq_(Parliamentary_Approval)_Bill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq... That the royal family is useful for tourism is also laughable

iso1631 4y ago
You're quoting royal prerogative, which is held by the government, specifically by the prime minister, who has to have the support of the house of commons, and aside from Alec Douglass Home for a period of 20 days in recess has always been a member of the house of commons for over a century.
tialaramex 4y ago
You need to learn to at least read between the lines. "On the advice of her government" means it's what the government decided to do. Why so? Because although they had sufficient numbers to ensure the bill wouldn't become law, using Consent allowed them to prevent debate.
- jabradoodle 4y ago
  You need to learn to read. I am stating that the monarch has the power to veto legislation, not that the power was used in opposition to the advice of ministers. That you don't see an issue with democratic debate being shutdown on the advice of a government minister to the monarch is another issue.
  - vixen99 4y ago
    That's just rude.
  - iso1631 4y ago
    The government has the power to veto legislation, not Charlie Windsor the billionaire guy with a fancy hat.
Veen 4y ago

iso1631 4y ago

The king does have some power, but it's mainly lobbying. Big party donors in America have far more power.

bee_rider 4y ago
Do they lobby much? I vaguely remember a bunch of silliness about trying to figure out the Queen’s preferences around Brexit based on the brooch she was wearing or something like that… I’ve always just thought of royalty as sort of like the prototype for American celebrities like the Kardashians. Just a bunch of people who are famous for being famous.
- iso1631 4y ago
  Oh no, they definitively lobby, as listed in the sibling comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35687508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35687508 I'm just not sure that "rich person lobbies government" is the jackpot that republicans think it is. The day that Biden, Trump. Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and before don't get lobbying on a regular basis from major donors then I'll consider it one. Indeed I'd rather Charlie spend an hour a week lobbying Sunak as it takes an hour of lobbying away from anyone else.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    Huh, interesting, well there goes one of their few redeeming virtues in my mind, I guess.
    - iso1631 4y ago
      I guess the question is would an elected head of state mean more lobbying from more corrupt people. Sure Charlie might lobby against something happening in his back yard, and that's a pain, but I'd rather that than have big pharma lobby to loosen safety features on drug approvals, or big food lobby to bypass animal welfare
      - 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The king doesn’t really have any power in practice No, even aside from soft power, the monarch has some hard power (which can serve as a powerful lever for soft power, as well). Notably, for instance, the requirement for Monarch’s consent (not just the more pro forma Royal Assent) to legislation affecrtng the hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown or the Duchy of Lancaster or Cornwall, including the Royal Household and the Royal Palaces (including the Palace of Westminster), the Crown Estate and the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Monarch's private estates, and the Monarch's interest as a landlord or an employer.