AHC: Expand the British Monarchy's role (POD: post-WWII)

[Suzon]

The Challenge?
Expand the role of the Queen (or a subsequent Monarch) within the British government, with a point of divergence post-World War II.

Rather than seeing the Monarchy's role diminish, justify a stronger head of state through the Monarchy.

 

[Syriac]

It is hard to imagine how this could be done under normal circumstances. Divine right isn't a serious political philosophy in most people's opinion anymore. The only thing I could imagine is some dire political crisis (where parliament is incapacitated or in the middle of doing something truly evil/stupid) and the monarch has to step in and use a power that has been nothing but a formality for decades. Which seems quite unlikely. Even then, they are likely to be only slightly more significant, being seen as a potential brake on a dysfunctional government.

 

[Farmer12]

Now I am from the United States and my knowledge of just how the United Kingdom government are formed is limited. But if World War 3 breaks out and the government is destroyed and by some miracle a member of the royal house survives they are in theory the ruler of the United Kingdom. I understand that while the queen does not run the government but the power of the government comes from the crown. Right now the queen appoints who ever wins the election. But with no government to run the country and probably not much chance of an election anytime soon. Then the power to choose a person to run the government means a great deal of power would resided in that survivors hands. Its the symbol of legitimacy that resides in that person would legitimize the government they selected. It also means that until an election is held that person could deselect the government. That is power. Divine Right is not the issue it how the system works and how its used for good or bad. It also depends on just how politically astute the senior survivor is. Just how long that power would be retained is hard to say, it all depends on a lot of different circumstance but with a generation or two I would bet on a return to the current system in some form.

 

[missouribob]

WW3; England is largely destroyed. The remnants of the U.K. government cling onto the monarchy for legitimacy and in turn give the monarchy more power.

 

[BigDestiny]

Well, republicanism received a big boost after both World Wars. But with the Royal Family as popular as they are, when the UK exits the war weak and poor, the blame could have fallen on the Westminster system of government. Especially if the election of 1945 produces a hung parliament.

The people could then demand a constitution along the lines of the United States. England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland get the same rights as the American States, the Prime Minister loses his 'dictatorial' powers, and since no one wants to get rid of their beloved King, the monarch gets the executive powers that the American President has.

 

[Ciniad]

Its a bad idea to give executive power to a monarch you cant know how is successor will be giving some soft power as well as some veto and emergency power to a monarch is ok but giving him executive power is I think a bit to much.

 

[Welshroyalhistory]

The Challenge?
Expand the role of the Queen (or a subsequent Monarch) within the British government, with a point of divergence post-World War II.

Rather than seeing the Monarchy's role diminish, justify a stronger head of state through the Monarchy.

Its rather difficult because the Queen and her late father followed the path of George V, (who was Britain's first true constitutional monarch) to the absolute letter.

Your best bet would be to involve the Commonwealth, which is the Queen's true passion. Find some way of the Queen using her influence to encourage governments to take a more genuine interest in developing the Commonwealth into a much more real union of countries.