When Was The Last Time His / Her Majesty's Government Meant Something?

A long time ago, I commented about wondering when the last time a British monarch had any REAL power within his government. It is "HIS / HER Majesty's Government" but that's not really true, the Prime Minister and Parliament has the real power. The time HMG is just a symbolic sign of respect for a royalty whom has long since lost their actual power.

I remember responses mentioning that the last time a monarch had any real power was before Victoria at least and they were rather interesting. Can someone please answer this question? Has anyone else ever thought of this topic as well?
 
American History is my forte but I have done a little bit of studying on Europe. The Glorious Revolution saw a good deal of the Monarch's Power get taken away William III didn't really mind since he was mainly in it to gain control over the British Navy to assist in his many wars. I believe that the Georges I,II, III let a lot of what was left slip away for various reasons, However I seem to remember that Victoria and Albert did have a good amount of say with in the Government during her reign at least early on. What power she had probably slipped away following Albert's death and her withdraw from public life. I don't believe Edward VII had much say in the government.
 

Thande

Donor
A long time ago, I commented about wondering when the last time a British monarch had any REAL power within his government. It is "HIS / HER Majesty's Government" but that's not really true, the Prime Minister and Parliament has the real power. The time HMG is just a symbolic sign of respect for a royalty whom has long since lost their actual power.

That's not actually true. The monarch could still dismiss the government today, it's just that there has never been any need for it. It's like saying the US President no longer has any power to launch nuclear weapons because he hasn't needed to do so since 1945. The last time the Queen personally appointed a PM who wasn't already the leader of their party was as recently as 1964, for instance--it was on the advice of ministers, but went against some views in the party. The monarch continues to have a key role in government, but it's more tempered by advisors and committees than it was in the past.

The last time a British monarch appointed a PM against the will of Parliament was in 1762 by the inexperienced George III, and said PM was gone within a year thanks to public outcry. Victoria had a bigger role in government than monarchs before or since purely because her reign produced many hung parliaments (first because of party realignment, and then because of the Irish Nationalist bloc continually holding the balance of power) and so her opinion in who should form a government was more important. That situation could easily come back: if the UK adopted a proportional representation voting system and hung parliaments became the norm, the monarch would take on the same role as the Dutch monarch currently has of being in charge of forming a government out of several parties.
 
Thande makes a good point but I think the Glorious Revolution and then the Hanoverian succession saw the balance of power shift. Until then it was ministers carry out the Monarchs will, after then it was Prime Ministers running the show even if the Monarch got some say in picking the PM.
 
A long time ago, I commented about wondering when the last time a British monarch had any REAL power within his government. It is "HIS / HER Majesty's Government" but that's not really true, the Prime Minister and Parliament has the real power. The time HMG is just a symbolic sign of respect for a royalty whom has long since lost their actual power.

I remember responses mentioning that the last time a monarch had any real power was before Victoria at least and they were rather interesting. Can someone please answer this question? Has anyone else ever thought of this topic as well?

Edward VII had a certain degree of informal power and influence-his role in British foreign policy, for example, was not completely insignificant. (For all that we only remember him as a tubby chap with a beard today.) I'd say 1911 was the last of it.
 
Well you used to see that term used in newspapers from WW2, so maybe the 50s or later was when it fell out of fashion?

I think in term of exerting power extended to Edward VII, so maybe WW1 played a role in changing that during George V's reign? I guess seeing your Russian relatives executed and your German cousins become your country's arch-enemy and forced to abdicate alongside the most powerful dynasty in European history (the Habsburgs) will make you think twice about exerting your power!
 
That's not actually true. The monarch could still dismiss the government today, it's just that there has never been any need for it. It's like saying the US President no longer has any power to launch nuclear weapons because he hasn't needed to do so since 1945. The last time the Queen personally appointed a PM who wasn't already the leader of their party was as recently as 1964, for instance--it was on the advice of ministers, but went against some views in the party. The monarch continues to have a key role in government, but it's more tempered by advisors and committees than it was in the past.

The last time a British monarch appointed a PM against the will of Parliament was in 1762 by the inexperienced George III, and said PM was gone within a year thanks to public outcry. Victoria had a bigger role in government than monarchs before or since purely because her reign produced many hung parliaments (first because of party realignment, and then because of the Irish Nationalist bloc continually holding the balance of power) and so her opinion in who should form a government was more important. That situation could easily come back: if the UK adopted a proportional representation voting system and hung parliaments became the norm, the monarch would take on the same role as the Dutch monarch currently has of being in charge of forming a government out of several parties.

Thought the last monarch to appoint a PM contrary to Parliament was William IV? I thought he had appointed a PM despite what was actually represented in Parliament. George IV was also particularly meddlesome.
 
The last monarch to actually take a day to day interest in the affairs of government, and actively work in a regular fashion politically beyond just the advice of ministers? George III, to be honest. He took an active role in the government, though one very much tempered by Parliament, and wielded his not insignificant influence to significant effect for much of the early part of his reign. What confuses it is that George III was an avowed believer in cooperation between the monarch and Parliament, and pretty much set the precedent for the monarch not interfering in politics; thus, after his initial missteps (which can largely be attributed to his youth), he generally would, publicly, support his government, though he did work actively behind the scenes to affect his government's policies.

The process of developing the modern monarchy started with William & Mary, whose accession had necessarily required Parliament's active support, and required the full support of a Cabinet from within the Privy Council, with the confidence of Parliament, to govern effectively. Under George I, the Cabinet acquired even more power, first, due to a certain level of disinterest on his part, and, second, after the South Sea bubble burst, when the first modern Prime Minister - the First Lord of the Treasury, Sir Robert Walpole - was effectively invested with the power and authority of both Crown and Parliament in response to the crisis.

George II and George III, unlike their predecessor, did actively and constantly intervene in political questions on a regular basis. The former had an unsteady relationship with Parliament, but, as I said above, George III moved his influence more into the background.

George IV, both as monarch and as Prince Regent, and later William IV, did intervene occasionally in government and political affairs, but not on any regular basis, while Victoria became influential due to the development of the United Kingdom's multi-party system, though she still acted on the advice of her ministers in almost all circumstances. George V's intervention in the Parliament Act 1911 was the last time the monarch directly intervened in the workings of Parliament, on behalf of the government, while Elizabeth II, as has already been said, has herself made a decision which was not clearly advised on in the normal fashion (though, even that was on the irregular advice of ministers).
 
I would have said the Parliment Act of 1911, which removed the power of the Lords to block the power of the Commons.
After this the monarch became an advisor and guide rather than someone that had direct influence.
 
That situation could easily come back: if the UK adopted a proportional representation voting system and hung parliaments became the norm, the monarch would take on the same role as the Dutch monarch currently has of being in charge of forming a government out of several parties.
Actualy that is not entirely true. The Dutch queen is not able to just determine which parties will form a new government. The queen only has the power to appoint the person who leads the talks that forms the new government. At first she appoints the persons who looks around to see what parties can actualy form a government together (for example the Dutch liberal party and socialist party together can't form a government together as they are on the opposite sides of the political spectrum). After that is completed she can appoint the person who can lead the negotiations between the parties that should form the next government and after that she appoints the person that actualy forms the government and looks for the ministers (and is usualy the next prime minister).

She is advised by the Dutch parliament in these appointments, although I must admit she can ignore that advice (which she usualy doesn't). She does have some influence though. In 1992 she guided the political process towards the first "purple" goverment. The first government since the second world war (and even longer) with Christian Democrats. But it is hardly certain. After the last election she appointed Lubbers who was opposed to a government with the PVV, but with Lubbers in charge the PVV did (sort of) became part of the next government. The thing is, although the queen has some influence, it is close to impossible for her to appoint someone who will not consider the possibility of forming a new government that includes the largest party.

That said people in the Dutch parliament are trying to limit the queens influence in government formations. This is unnecesary, though. Because it is perfectly possible to form a government without her. Dutch parliament got that right during the 70's (I think), it is just we like the tradition and our current queen is very good at her job. Maybe when Willem-Alexander or Amalia proves to be a lot less capable, Dutch parliament tries it themselves, with the largest party appointing (in)formators.

Anyhow, Thande you are right that with more hung parliament your monarch could get more influence, but it hardly a certainty. Your parliament can do it themselves, when/if they get used to coalition governments.
 
The last time a British monarch appointed a PM against the will of Parliament was in 1762 by the inexperienced George III, and said PM was gone within a year thanks to public outcry.


Not quite the last time.

In December 1783 he dismissed the Fox-North Coalition, though it had a solid majority in the House of Commons, and appointed William Pitt the Younger. Pitt held on until March 1784, ignoring votes of no confidence, and then called an election which he won in a landslide. Apart from a short break in 1801/2, he remained Prime minister until his death in 1806.
 
Not to mention that, IIRC, Victoria kept Melbourne on even after his party had lost its majority in Commons.
 
As others have pointed out, the monarch still has considerable statutory power, it's just that the 20th century Windsors have chosen not to exercise them in deference to Parliament and the idea of representative democracy. Most of their cards are "nuclear options" intended for when the Parliament goes seriously awry at this point - dismissing Parliament, the threat used by George V of creating so many new Liberal and Labour Peers that the Tories would be irrelevant for a generation, that sort of thing.
 
Supposedly Edward VII had certain, well interesting opinions on Irish Home Rule, and favored a dual monarchy. Had he lived a few additional years, it's possible Edward might have tested if those remaining royal perogatives were trump cards. In OTL he was largely responsible for 2 1910 elections being necessary to enact the people's budget.
 
The monarch continues to have a key role in government, but it's more tempered by advisors and committees than it was in the past.

Great responses, but I decided to quote this one because I think it mostly refers to what I'm mentioning.

The impression that I had is that the Queen mostly makes announcements handed to her by officials. It's the term I have hear once, a 'Walking Flag'. Where the Royalty don't really do anything just besides charity work. I'm talking about power, when a King or Queen said something...and it was done.

I'm mentioning a monarch that took charge and led, not just commented on what the Parliament did that day. If what I'm saying is true, can anyone suggest the last time a real monarch did this?

If not, and it's like what replies are saying. Like the monarch is still "important" and has a "key role" in governmental affairs. When was the last time such a monarch was in power?

I tend to think George III, because of the American Revolution. Because I thought that was when Britain was at its highest point, having control over most of North America.

Added to that, did the British Royalty want to give Canada, Australia and New Zealand its "freedom"? Because that ment breaking up the Empire, and putting these nations under America's heel. Did modern politics influence judgement? Or did the monarchs really feel about giving their subjects freedom?
 
Top