Could HM dismiss a majority PM?

From either the Tories or Labour. Theoretically yes, as we saw in Oz in 1975, but what's the likelihood in the UK? It's well known that HM and Thatcher were incompatible, and Thatcher told Walden: "the Queen's the sort of woman who could vote SDP." She also allegedly thought MT's economic policies "unnecessarily confrontational and socially divisive." One could say the same about Attlee though...
 
The 1975 crisis in Australia could not come about in the UK because the political establishment, while of the same model, is a different variance and hence could not come about. What Kerr, the Governor-General did was controversial and skirted what had been 'convention' to that point, both in his planning and execution of resolving the crisis, and was not helped by the personalities and characters of Whitlam and Frasier.

Therefore, no, the monarch could not dismiss a Prime Minister who still controlled a majority in the House of Commons.
 
The 1975 crisis in Australia could not come about in the UK because the political establishment, while of the same model, is a different variance and hence could not come about. What Kerr, the Governor-General did was controversial and skirted what had been 'convention' to that point, both in his planning and execution of resolving the crisis, and was not helped by the personalities and characters of Whitlam and Frasier.

Therefore, no, the monarch could not dismiss a Prime Minister who still controlled a majority in the House of Commons.

Well theoretically the monarch could do it couldn't they? But it would be kind of suicidal as actually carrying out would probably mean the end of the monarchy as the party in the majority and most of the citizens will probably become republicans very quickly.
 
The Australian 1975 situation could not be replicated in the UK. The Australian crisis was because the upper house blocked the money bills in effect starving the government of cash which is impossible under the UK model.

However the reason the Brits still have a monarchy is because the Hanover / Saxe-Coberg / Windsor line have always known when to compromise so would never have the nerve to temp the nation to once again embrace republicism
 
Well Vittorio Emanuelle III pulled it off in Italy.
And the Italians have been known for a robust political system.:p

Well theoretically the monarch could do it couldn't they?
In theory yes. However for all practical purposes no. Maybe a hundred years ago when the House of Lords still had some powers, but not now.

The monarch would be forced to abdicate by parliament. Its been done before afterall.
 

Dure

Banned
In Britain the monarch can theoretically dismiss a govenment when he/she wishes, they can also call an election when they feel like it. However, the deal that parliament made with the monarchy is that it would not take away the monarch's power to do either of these things if the monarch did not do them unless asked to do so by parliament or its represenative. The deal has worked for a long time now.

If a monarch were to attempt to dismiss a govt. against the will of parliament then in all probability parliament would ignore it and take away the monarch's powers to do so in the future. It might even end the monarchy but and it is an huge but the British Armed Forces and I think the Constabulary swear their oath of alligance to the monarch, the monarch's family and the people in that order. Their alligance is not to parliament. So in the end it all comes down to the people with the guns and who they decide to obey or rather who the monarch and parliament think they will obey.
 
As Dure says, theoretically, yes. But remember, the monarch can't govern by decree. People go on about royal assent, but forget that Parliament has to provide it's assent first. A Prime Minister has to find a majority in the Commons and then respond to that affect to the monarch before they are Prime Minister. If they can't, then they are not Prime Minister.

The last time this happened was when William IV sought to supplant Melbourne with Peel. Peel couldn't find a majority in the Commons, William was eventually forced to back down, Melbourne got his job back. Much the same thing would occur in the majestically unlikely event of it happening today. If a monarch dismissed a Prime Minister on a whim, then the Commons, and in particular, senior ministers, would simply say to whoever the monarch tried to install, 'up with this we will not put.'

Both Parliament and the monarch could, in extremis, act as a check on the other if that was neccessary.
 
Last edited:
I would think that if a Prime Minister was acting against PARLIAMENT, then they could petition the monarch to dismiss the PM

That's the only really logical way it could work

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I guess if there were a situation where it was widely believed an election were stolen and there were a huge reaction that might be a possible response
 
Top