AHC: Have a British Monarch exercise Royal Veto

The situation usually cited as the latest case of this was Queen Victoria insisting that a proposed law on homosexuality drop all references to lesbianism because she didn't believe that such a practice really existed and therefore considered those references to be insulted to Womanhood,

That's an urban legend.
 
There are several instances where the current Monarch could have used her veto and possibly have had it supported. In these cases I would say that the most liely result would be that the legislation in question would be put to referendum, and the standing of the monarchy would be put to question.
Going by all of the opinion polls, a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon would have been heavily in agreement with Her Majesty using the veto.
 
The way to do this would be to get a government to ask the monarch to do it.

This. It's pretty much the only realistic way in this day and age.

The difficult point is creating the situation where that could arise - where a piece of legislation had been just passed by Parliament, but then suddenly became some kind of almost existential threat overnight.

One scenario that does occur. If after the last election the Conservatives had gone for a minority government rather than a coalition then it's possible to imagine a situation whereby a private member's bill sabotaging a key government policy attracts the support of the Opposition front benches (including the LibDems and Nationalists) who force it through parliament in the face of government opposition. The government may well decide in such circumstances to advise the Queen to withhold assent - the usual constitutional convention is that HMQ is bound to obey her ministers, not parliament, it's just that it's extremely rare for ministers not to command a majority in parliament.
 
I can't see anything like that cutting it though. That's pretty unconstitutional - the government would in effect be utilising the royal prerogative to override Parliament.

I should amend my earlier post: you would need Parliament to also go along with it. I just can't think what this would be though. It would have to be something extremely outre, something which would create a real crisis if it passed. It's difficult to see how a circumstance could arise where there would be a shift in perceptions overnight on an issue amongst the entire political culture...

Mind you, I'm not actually sure if the government can withdraw legislation which has been sent for royal assent. If so, that renders my speculation here moot.
 
The butterflies required to make it happen in the first place are pretty massive, but if there were a proto-fascist bill passed that suspended habeas corpus, dissolved parliament indefinitely and banned opposition parties, the Queen would probably have Sir Mike Jackson at her side as she vetoed it and issued instructions to her Armed Forces to 'resolve the situation'. As said above, she is the ultimate fail safe and it's therefore conceivable that she could function as one in the event of an even more extreme Gordon Banks situation.
 
1. A bill for which the Monarch is in a better position to make the final call than parliament. I could have imagined Victoria vetoing the Royal Marriages bill if she didn't like the look of it. And any monarch might as well veto a bill abolishing the Monarchy.

2. If parliament passed a bill that it immediately regretted, and the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition jointly asked the Queen to exercise the veto.

3. A Bill of Attainder.

Parliament used to pass such things. A Bill of Attainder imposes criminal punishment on an individual without trial. The injustice is obvious (notorious example: Charles I's advisor the Earl of Strafford was executed pursuant to an attainder, which parliament passed because his trial was plainly going well for the defence). The US founders thought Bills of Attainder were odious and they are expressly outlawed in the US constitution. If a modern parliament passed one, I can imagine a monarch vetoing it.
 
The BNP or some other 'nasty' political party gets a seat in government, and then uses that as an excuse for 'hate speeches' then the Queen steps in and just goes nope your not a legal party anymore. Sorry....

Not quite vetoing a bill, but I can certainly see something of that ilk being a plausible use of the monarchs power.

Indeed the Queen/King of England is also the head of state of the Channel Islands, but she is our Duke instead, and also has the ability to veto our laws if she so wishes. Here you could see Royal Power being used to stop such 'tax havens' in crown dominons if the Royal wasn't that happy about such goings on.

Ironically it would be the British government who would kick up the fuss, because they are the ones with their shiny offshore accounts and 'trust investments' in the islands afterall there have been several UK ministers 'anti the Channel Islands' in that sense, and yet all of them had very short political careers, goes to show there's still 'corruption afoot' in the modern governments.
 
The BNP or some other 'nasty' political party gets a seat in government, and then uses that as an excuse for 'hate speeches' then the Queen steps in and just goes nope your not a legal party anymore. Sorry....

Not quite vetoing a bill, but I can certainly see something of that ilk being a plausible use of the monarchs power.

Indeed the Queen/King of England is also the head of state of the Channel Islands, but she is our Duke instead, and also has the ability to veto our laws if she so wishes. Here you could see Royal Power being used to stop such 'tax havens' in crown dominons if the Royal wasn't that happy about such goings on.

Ironically it would be the British government who would kick up the fuss, because they are the ones with their shiny offshore accounts and 'trust investments' in the islands afterall there have been several UK ministers 'anti the Channel Islands' in that sense, and yet all of them had very short political careers, goes to show there's still 'corruption afoot' in the modern governments.

Queen/King of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. Sorry, but saying he/she is the King/Queen of England is a) wrong and b) offends my unionist sensibilities.
 
Any Republican anti Monarchist bills are likely to get the Royal Veto, although no government or parliament is ever likely to pass such a bill without the support of the public, thus rendering the Veto pointless.

The key to all of these scenarios of course is the Armed Forces, which is where the real power is vested. If there was ever a split between the Monarch and Parliament for whatever reason, what the army does, or signals that it intends to do, could well be key. The Armed forces are nominally loyal to the Monarch, not parliament.
 
One scenario that does occur. If after the last election the Conservatives had gone for a minority government rather than a coalition then it's possible to imagine a situation whereby a private member's bill sabotaging a key government policy attracts the support of the Opposition front benches (including the LibDems and Nationalists) who force it through parliament in the face of government opposition. The government may well decide in such circumstances to advise the Queen to withhold assent - the usual constitutional convention is that HMQ is bound to obey her ministers, not parliament, it's just that it's extremely rare for ministers not to command a majority in parliament.

What about a variant? Through dirty tricks and unspecified skulduggery, a number of members of parliament are kept away so that some controversial legislation can pass. Almost immediately, the whole plot is revealed. Instead of just passing reversal legislation, the government, to make a point, requests that the monarch withhold her consent to the legislation.
 
In the book 'Alternate Tyrants' there's a pretty good story where one of the royal princes engages in a decades-long successful plot to discredit parliament and reassume his prerogatives.
 
I'm not totally familiar with the British so there may be parts that aren't quite like the Presidential veto. But, what about a Declaration of War?

Let's say that Parliament has a bunch of members calling for war. The declaration passes, but then the Queen, who is acting as a mediator, suspects that the sides are really close and so she veotes this before the military can be mobilized.

The only problem is, who else is negotiating for the British and why aren't they back in Parliament debating the declaration. I'm thinking it could be along the lines of a book i read where the U.S. Cabinet was debating a declaration of war against the Soviets at the very end and some were insisting the president was dead, and he comes in at the end and says "no he isn't," and goes on to explain why the supposed disappearance was planned. ("The President's Plane Is Missing" perhaps?) But, I don't know if that would necessarily be similar in the British system.

But, I *think* it could happen. Although you could argue that this goes back to the "government passes a bill then asks the Queen to" thing.
 

stefanbl

Banned
A government with a large majority thats already served through several Parliaments is facing almost certain defeat at an up coming general election and forces a bill through both houses via the Parliament act to indefinately postpone the election. The Queen vetos the bill and disolves Parliament immediately ordering the police to seal the Palace of Westminster until after the election.

It may have been said by someone else, but messing around with the elections schedule is the only time the HoL has a true Veto.
 
I'm not totally familiar with the British so there may be parts that aren't quite like the Presidential veto. But, what about a Declaration of War?

Let's say that Parliament has a bunch of members calling for war. The declaration passes, but then the Queen, who is acting as a mediator, suspects that the sides are really close and so she veotes this before the military can be mobilized.

The only problem is, who else is negotiating for the British and why aren't they back in Parliament debating the declaration. I'm thinking it could be along the lines of a book i read where the U.S. Cabinet was debating a declaration of war against the Soviets at the very end and some were insisting the president was dead, and he comes in at the end and says "no he isn't," and goes on to explain why the supposed disappearance was planned. ("The President's Plane Is Missing" perhaps?) But, I don't know if that would necessarily be similar in the British system.

But, I *think* it could happen. Although you could argue that this goes back to the "government passes a bill then asks the Queen to" thing.


Leagaly Parliament can't declare war, that's a power covered by Royal Perogitive exercised by the Prime Minister in the name of the Monarch. If the monarch of the day was acting as a mediator there would be no Declaration of War.
 
Leagaly Parliament can't declare war, that's a power covered by Royal Perogitive exercised by the Prime Minister in the name of the Monarch. If the monarch of the day was acting as a mediator there would be no Declaration of War.

I see, thanks; learned something new today. That is quite different than Congress in the U.S..
 
Top