WI The British Monarchy Exercises Their FULL Powers

stefanbl

Banned

The decision to dismiss Prime Minister Whitlam and appoint a care-taker prime minister until elections could be held was taken by the governor general, John Kerr in his role as the Australian Head of State – not by the Queen of England. The only consultation Kerr made with Buckingham Palace was to enquire in the weeks before the dismissal as to what action the queen would take if Whitlam notified her that the G.G. no longer enjoyed his confidence; her reply was that, in accordance with established protocol, she would follow the advice of the prime minister on all things; if the G.G. no longer had the confidence of the prime minister then he would be dismissed. In short, if Whitlam had realised that Kerr was no longer ‘his man’, it would have been Kerr who would have been gone, not Whitlam.

The other examples you have provided are the same; they are decisions taken by the governor or Governor Generals in their constitutional roles, not by the Queen of England.

The Queen of England would struggle to do such, mainly due to not existing.
 
Okay, well the Queen waking up and deciding "Fuck this noise let's fuck with the government" is ASB so no that's not going happen, the idea is stupid. It would take the government doing something that wasn't in people's and the nation's best interests, but still within the legal power of the government. Something like going into a pointless war that most people are extremely vocal against and the government is ignoring them. Maybe then, just maybe you could get the Queen to force the government to dissolve and temporarily take power until new elections are held, but Parliament going that far with something like that is highly unlikely.
 
I had a thought once that if Wil or Harry did something awesome in Afghanistan, got a medal for bravery or something about the time some scandal rocked Parliament in the midst of a constitutional crisis, maybe a minority govt, there could be a temporary upswing of support for Royals and simultanous disgust with Parliament. In such an environment the Royals may intervene without the advice of a scandal-ridden m inorty govt PM and call an election or sack the PM or whatever. But they won't be taking back the reigns of govt themselves.
 

Hyperion

Banned
I wouldn't say the OP is ASB in nature, but it is stretching the suspension of disbelief.

Here's an idea, what would happen of some member of the Royal Family(through marriage, not a blood relative) where to decide to run for a local election, and ended up winning?

Or is that even legal?
 
The decision to dismiss Prime Minister Whitlam and appoint a care-taker prime minister until elections could be held was taken by the governor general, John Kerr in his role as the Australian Head of State – not by the Queen of England. The only consultation Kerr made with Buckingham Palace was to enquire in the weeks before the dismissal as to what action the queen would take if Whitlam notified her that the G.G. no longer enjoyed his confidence; her reply was that, in accordance with established protocol, she would follow the advice of the prime minister on all things; if the G.G. no longer had the confidence of the prime minister then he would be dismissed. In short, if Whitlam had realised that Kerr was no longer ‘his man’, it would have been Kerr who would have been gone, not Whitlam.

The other examples you have provided are the same; they are decisions taken by the governor or Governor Generals in their constitutional roles, not by the Queen of England.


This is the twenty-first century, not the early nineteenth; the queen can only do what the Prime Minister advises.

And here I was thinking that he did it in his role as the representative of the Queen of Australia who just so happens to reside in the same body as the Queen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
 
The Queen technically has the power to disallow any Bill of Parliament within one year of passing under section 59 of the constitution.

But I imagine that if the Queen did this, Australia would hold a referendum instantly with the vast majority voting to become a republic.
 
The Queen technically has the power to disallow any Bill of Parliament within one year of passing under section 59 of the constitution.

But I imagine that if the Queen did this, Australia would hold a referendum instantly with the vast majority voting to become a republic.

Would depend on what the legislation was.
 
Okay, well the Queen waking up and deciding "Fuck this noise let's fuck with the government" is ASB so no that's not going happen, the idea is stupid. It would take the government doing something that wasn't in people's and the nation's best interests, but still within the legal power of the government. Something like going into a pointless war that most people are extremely vocal against and the government is ignoring them. Maybe then, just maybe you could get the Queen to force the government to dissolve and temporarily take power until new elections are held, but Parliament going that far with something like that is highly unlikely.

Like Iraq war? ;)
 
I wouldn't say the OP is ASB in nature, but it is stretching the suspension of disbelief.

Here's an idea, what would happen of some member of the Royal Family(through marriage, not a blood relative) where to decide to run for a local election, and ended up winning?

Or is that even legal?

I can't see why not - the hereditary peers are no longer automatically members of the Lords, so they're not disqualified for that reason any more. The Palace bureaucracy would probably do their best to discourage it, though (depending on how far down the line this hypothetical Royal is).
 
So you would have a King-Prime Minister or Prime Minister-King or Prime-King? :)

I think I read some where that no royal could be a prime-minister.
 
We've deposed monarchs before, we can do it again. We have the technology.
I've got one of those in my shed.

Parliament can get whatever monarch they choose. I refer you to 'The Glorious Revolution' where James II was replaced by King Billy.

Then the accession of the Hannoverians. Virtually a small ad in the european papers:

"Wanted, King for Britain and Ireland. Must be male, virile and protestant. Need not speak english."

Swap German Lil for a better model?. No problem. Boris Johnson was made for the job. Perish the thought, maybe even someone English for a change? No, that will never happen. Nearly a thousand years since the last english one; Edgar II.
 
What's this "more" stuff?:p Does Stephen Harper know about this?:p
No, he doesn't.

And on topic for a moment... the larger dominions/realms raise their eyebrows, look at each other, chuckle, and go republican. Or they bring in some no-name family member and give him/her the crown, with instructions to keep silent.
 
Remember that not weilding direct control, is in itself an exercising of power.


So if we are to take the Queens recent visits to the big UK banks and Cabinet Meetings, i.e. the Monarch is directly overseaing government/economic process, then that is tantimount to a royal repremard.

Although she has enacted not of her powers in these recent events, the very presence of the monarch is enough to send a message that the monarchy has not been happy with how these insitutions have created problems for the UK, and so is making it clear...you need to get something done about this for the future....or we might have to consider new PMs etc....


The main point is, the British Monarchy typically doesn't have to use any of its 'rights' because for the most part the British Government plays by the rules. We don't have wild political uprisings, even Coalition Governments have been rare, so what we see from the Monarchy is more the 'political policeman' against radicalism withing the government, as well as a symbol for 'Moral Britian' as our prestigious head of state and armed forces.


In the situation the monarcy would use their powers, somthing drastically wrong is more than likely threating British politics like the BNP start trying to force through racist legislation, or UKIP gets power and starts doing crazy shiz.

In those cases, or perhaps an incompeted PM, being far more likely then you might see the monarch of the times step in and advise the person/party in question to resign/change its ways or the monarch might have to take things more seriously.

-----------------------------

...Swap German Lil for a better model?. No problem. Boris Johnson was made for the job....

Heh...the House of Johnson ¬.¬
 
The thing is that the queen doesnt have those powers.

One of the interesting things about the westminister system is that the constitution (almost all of it in the uk, large chunks in e.g. canada and australia) is unwritten.

One of the effects of which is that custom becomes constitution. If the queen acted that way, in any of her realms, then she would be acting unconstitutionally, and wouldnt be obeyed.
 
The 21st century custom is clear. The monarch reigns not governs. Parliaments would simply enact any necessary legislation to ignore such silliness and get a new incumbent in. It's not as if there is a shortage of the buggers. Plenty of historical precedence for doing this.

The Queen reigns over her subjects but doesn't go into your bedroom and go through your trouser pockets for loose change when she is a bit short. It's the ..**!s you democratically vote for who do that.

I still think Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson would make a superb King with that 18th century image of erudition and eccentricity and a private life to match. God alone knows what his successors would be like. His father's appearance on 'Have I Got News for You' made Boris look quite considered, and conventional.
 
Top