Queen Query

JohnnyBravo

Just a quick Question
Does the Queen of england have any actual Political Power

mycroft

Yes and No.

1. She has a weekly meeting with Tony Blair (schedules permitting). Anyone who gets an hour of uninterrupted chit chat with the leader of the country has some political weight.

2. All bills has to be signed by her before they are made law. She technically can refuse to sign a bill or modify it. They're be uproar.

3. She has the power to create peers. Which means she can stack the house of lords in her favour. Read your Irish history books it's how Gladstone was able to force the house of lords to accept his revolutionary budget in the early part of the last century.

4. All courts, police officers and the army are technically hers. She's a figurehead but can't have a figurehead without a head There was a good article online re Paul Burrell (Diana's butler) and the Queens extraordinary behaviour during the trial, and how she couldn't be held in contempt by the court cause it's technically her court

PH01

Quick answer is no.

Though King or Queen of England is head of state they don't have any political power. They lost all political power back in the civil war (now that's civil war politics) I think.

Hagar

PH01 - think of a witty repost quick, you're just on 1000 posts.

JohnnyBravo

So who is right

PHO 1

Or

MyCroft

mycroft

I stand over my post, she has the ear of the prime minister can appointment senile gits who hold some political power, and can't be arrested or charged with a crime.

I'd call that some power

Hagar

I tend to agree with Mycroft.
The true machinations of politics go on out of sight of the average person.
We never really know why any decisions are made or what influence is brought to bear on the decision makers.

PH01

JohnnyBravo wrote:

So who is right

PHO 1

Or

MyCroft

We're both right, though Mycroft has given the better answer.
Though I'd argue the point about the Queen having Tony's ear - I wonder how much heed Blair gives to the Queen...
QEII: "...Er, 'Ton me ol'cocksparra! Go easy on the ol' 'unting question, will ya? Ya know my sort likes ta go chasin the ol foxes"
Tony: "...ah close yer ol' cake hole, Queenie! Ya know I don't havta listen to you "

Hagar wrote:

PH01 - think of a witty repost quick, you're just on 1000 posts.

This is 999;)

ishmael whale

There’s a few pages around the link below that might be of interest. Its much as has been said above, with a little expansion.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page338.asp
“The Queen retains certain residual powers, notably to appoint a prime minister, and to decide whether or not to grant a dissolution of Parliament. The prime minister is normally the leader of the party which has a majority in Parliament, but there could still be exceptional circumstances when The Queen might need to exercise the discretion she still retains to ensure that her Government is carried on.”

Gurgle

Feel free to correct me (everyone ) but as I understand it England doesn't have a specific constitution, the rights of an individual are based in law and precedent.

As such, there are centuries of precedent that say she has a whole heap of power, there has never been an act of parliament to put clear limits on what she can and cannot do. She is, after all, the head of state.

If she uses it at all, she does so quietly, behind closed doors. Thats how she personally decided to manage her business.

That doesn't neccessarily mean that her successors are going to do it the same way. We may see an apparent increase in the power of the monarchy if the next king or two feel that its more appropiate for a 21st century monarch to participate visibly in running the country.

Stabshauptmann

Im going to go look for the details of this for ya but there was an interesting case I was told only last week. Like I said Ill go get the details but after an election (I cant remember when) there was no majoriy party but instead of inviting the largest party to try form a coalition the queen invited the second largest. Thats power.

mycroft

Gurgle wrote:

Feel free to correct me (everyone ) but as I understand it England doesn't have a specific constitution, the rights of an individual are based in law and precedent.

The closest thing the British have to a constitution is the magna carta and everything afterwards has kind of been tacked on. However laws have been put in place limiting the power and role of the monarchy while at the same time maintaining the monarchy as the head of state.

Which when you think about it is really bloody stupid.

As such, there are centuries of precedent that say she has a whole heap of power, there has never been an act of parliament to put clear limits on what she can and cannot do. She is, after all, the head of state.

yes there was, again my knowledge of names and dates are limited but Cromwell pretty much limited the power of King Charles when y'know beheaded him. Although the monarchy make a resurgance, it's powers were severly limited.

That doesn't neccessarily mean that her successors are going to do it the same way. We may see an apparent increase in the power of the monarchy if the next king or two feel that its more appropiate for a 21st century monarch to participate visibly in running the country.

No no no no. Essentially the royal families position is incredibly precarious, they're tolerated by a large portion of the country. Charles can make speeches and pleas of homopathic medicines on the NHS, and appeals about archtecture, but if actually started insisting his government start doing his will, England would be in a uproar and a republic would be declared faster than you could say wheres the scarlett pimpernel when you need him eh

Im going to go look for the details of this for ya but there was an interesting case I was told only last week. Like I said Ill go get the details but after an election (I cant remember when) there was no majoriy party but instead of inviting the largest party to try form a coalition the queen invited the second largest. Thats power.

I think that was at the turn of the century and I think it was with Gladstone, and I think it was during the whole Parnell home rule saga.

Thats another interesting point, the leading party isn't elected, it's then invited to form her government.

Seriously when you actually give the system some thought it's just bizarre

billy the squid

hurrah the air to god save the queen is 239 years old today

doesnt she own all the pigeons in trafalgar square as well?

sceptre

billy the squid wrote:

hurrah the air to god save the queen is 239 years old today

Wasn't it first performed by Henry Carey in honour of Henry Vernon in 1740?

(ignore the traditional 1745 "first performance in honour of George II after whipping Bonnie Prince Charlie" story because it wasn't)

PH01

billy the squid wrote:

doesnt she own all the pigeons in trafalgar square as well?

Don't think so. Didn't see an pigeons on Trafalgar Square the last time I was there.
I thinks it's the swans on the Thames which she has first call on. Apparently, long ago the swans neck was highly valued. It has really soft downy feathers so I'm told. And they were used by royality to wipe their arses. Now, if that isn't political power I don't know what is?

Victor

Nominally the Queen or rather the crown owns quite a lot of things, including all the land between high and low tide.

Gurgle

mycroft wrote:

Cromwell pretty much limited the power of King Charles when y'know beheaded him.

lol
So he didn't just carry on as normal afterwards ?

Hagar

And all the swans don't forget the swans.
Good job the Children of Lir got out in time

flogen

Have you missed the power to dissolve the parliment?
I remember Blair went to her to ask for that when he was calling the next election, she's not really going to say no, but she still has to be asked.

I doubt it, but I wonder if she can dissolve parliment and assume control!
I suppose she could dissolve a government she didn't like, but that would cause riots and speed up any chance of the royalty being abolished.

flogen

mycroft

PH01 wrote:

Don't think so. Didn't see an pigeons on Trafalgar Square the last time I was there.
I thinks it's the swans on the Thames which she has first call on. Apparently, long ago the swans neck was highly valued. It has really soft downy feathers so I'm told. And they were used by royality to wipe their arses. Now, if that isn't political power I don't know what is?

I'm assuming the swans are dead when the arse wiping happens :eek:

No she owns all the swans in england, and killing them is considered treason, back in the day swan stuffed with pigeon stuffed with larks was considered a delicacy

Hairy Homer

flogen wrote:

Have you missed the power to dissolve the parliment?
I remember Blair went to her to ask for that when he was calling the next election, she's not really going to say no, but she still has to be asked.

I doubt it, but I wonder if she can dissolve parliment and assume control!
I suppose she could dissolve a government she didn't like, but that would cause riots and speed up any chance of the royalty being abolished.

flogen

She can also be used as the mechanism for removing recalcitrant commonwealth governments without an election.

Like what happened to Australia in the 1970s. The Labour government under Gough Whitlam was deposed by decree of the Governor General, the Queen's representative in Australia. No election. No impeachment. Just 'Sorry old boy but we've decided to revoke your club membership. Please close the door behind you.'

Now I fully suspect it wasn't her idea personally, but the power vested in her office was manipulated by others to overthrow a democratically elected government.

And at the risk of going off topic, I believe there are some well meaning lovie dovie types who think it would be a good idea if Ireland rejoined the Commonwealth.

F@*! that for a game of cowboys.