If the elected UK parliament falls into disarray, can the reigning monarch take over?
Suppose that opinions in the UK parliament become so fragmented that no-one can form a government. What powers does the reigning monarch have?
At the moment Queen Elizabeth II is the Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces.
Could she she use this or any of her powers to rule until the politicians have sorted themselves out?
united-kingdom constitutional-monarchy
New contributor
add a comment |
Suppose that opinions in the UK parliament become so fragmented that no-one can form a government. What powers does the reigning monarch have?
At the moment Queen Elizabeth II is the Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces.
Could she she use this or any of her powers to rule until the politicians have sorted themselves out?
united-kingdom constitutional-monarchy
New contributor
2
In the letter of the law, she's ruling already. In the UK the monarch holds constitutional power as head of state, with the Prime Minister as the first of her advisors.
– origimbo
7 hours ago
In the sort of instance you're describing, she'd probably command (ask nicely) each party to form a government of national unity. Any party that refused would get murdered in the polls, effectively ending the crisis at the next election.
– Valorum
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Suppose that opinions in the UK parliament become so fragmented that no-one can form a government. What powers does the reigning monarch have?
At the moment Queen Elizabeth II is the Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces.
Could she she use this or any of her powers to rule until the politicians have sorted themselves out?
united-kingdom constitutional-monarchy
New contributor
Suppose that opinions in the UK parliament become so fragmented that no-one can form a government. What powers does the reigning monarch have?
At the moment Queen Elizabeth II is the Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces.
Could she she use this or any of her powers to rule until the politicians have sorted themselves out?
united-kingdom constitutional-monarchy
united-kingdom constitutional-monarchy
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 8 hours ago
chasly from UK
1163
1163
New contributor
New contributor
2
In the letter of the law, she's ruling already. In the UK the monarch holds constitutional power as head of state, with the Prime Minister as the first of her advisors.
– origimbo
7 hours ago
In the sort of instance you're describing, she'd probably command (ask nicely) each party to form a government of national unity. Any party that refused would get murdered in the polls, effectively ending the crisis at the next election.
– Valorum
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2
In the letter of the law, she's ruling already. In the UK the monarch holds constitutional power as head of state, with the Prime Minister as the first of her advisors.
– origimbo
7 hours ago
In the sort of instance you're describing, she'd probably command (ask nicely) each party to form a government of national unity. Any party that refused would get murdered in the polls, effectively ending the crisis at the next election.
– Valorum
2 hours ago
2
2
In the letter of the law, she's ruling already. In the UK the monarch holds constitutional power as head of state, with the Prime Minister as the first of her advisors.
– origimbo
7 hours ago
In the letter of the law, she's ruling already. In the UK the monarch holds constitutional power as head of state, with the Prime Minister as the first of her advisors.
– origimbo
7 hours ago
In the sort of instance you're describing, she'd probably command (ask nicely) each party to form a government of national unity. Any party that refused would get murdered in the polls, effectively ending the crisis at the next election.
– Valorum
2 hours ago
In the sort of instance you're describing, she'd probably command (ask nicely) each party to form a government of national unity. Any party that refused would get murdered in the polls, effectively ending the crisis at the next election.
– Valorum
2 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Questions about the power of the Queen come up occasionally on this site. The normal answer goes something like this. The queen has absolute authority to do as she pleases however she does not choose to use this authority and instead carries out the will of parliament. If the queen chose to remove parliament and rule in its place this could lead to some serious consequences for the queen and a possible revolt thus the queen so far has not chosen to use these powers and it seems somewhat unlikely that this will change.
Additionally I would question to what extent parliament is in disarray. While there is some difficulty with respect to brexit there is no suggestion that the parties are struggling (more than usual) with the other issues.
The risk of no-one being able to form a government is somewhat limited if there was a serious risk of this a no confidence vote would have been called by the leader of the opposition. If such a vote took place to conservatives along with the DUP would eventually express confidence in the prime minister or some other acceptable MP to avoid a general election.
add a comment |
The UK hasn't had a revolution or a new constitution recently to take the monarch's royal prerogative away, but custom puts most of her powers into the hands of HM government and the parliament.
So what we would be talking about is the monarch breaking centuries-old custom to rule directly. Right now I would bet that the vast majority of citizens, officials, and soldiers would not accept direct role, even if they are loyal to the Queen in her current role.
I think you mean "direct rule."
– phoog
4 hours ago
add a comment |
No.
This question is normally taken to mean "what powers does the natural body of the queen have in the UK constitution". The answer is "none". She must follow the advice of her Ministers.
It is not clear what you call "disarray". If you mean political parties splitting up, repeated votes of confidence, mass resignations form Cabinet. I.e. politics continuing in disarray, then no the Queen has no reserve powers. She acts only according to the advice of her Ministers.
It is absolutely unconstitutional for the Queen to rule as an absolute monarch "until the politicians have sorted it out."
If you mean the much much less likely situation of an illegal and unconstitutional government (say, for example, the Prime Minister ordering the army to round up and execute the opposition party). Then we are dealing with a situation that is beyond "what powers does the Queen have" and to a situation where "who will the people with guns chose to obey". This is by definition not covered by the constitution.
Please provide some citations. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you use terms like "unconstitutional" despite the fact that (AFAIK) we have no written constitution. Similarly, you claim that the Queen must follow the advice of her Ministers. I do not necessarily doubt this, but can you tell us what law requires this, and how she does not have authority to unilaterally override such a law?
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 hours ago
Agree with @LightnessRacesinOrbit. Whilst this is how things “must” be, they “must” only be so by constitutional convention (and such conventions can and do develop and change over time). So, if the reigning monarch were to act against that convention, it would likely precipitate a constitutional crisis in the sense that there’s no definite understanding of what should then happen.
– eggyal
1 hour ago
Right, and this question (by my understanding) is about that scenario. IMO the answer is really just begging the question.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
chasly from UK is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37543%2fif-the-elected-uk-parliament-falls-into-disarray-can-the-reigning-monarch-take%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Questions about the power of the Queen come up occasionally on this site. The normal answer goes something like this. The queen has absolute authority to do as she pleases however she does not choose to use this authority and instead carries out the will of parliament. If the queen chose to remove parliament and rule in its place this could lead to some serious consequences for the queen and a possible revolt thus the queen so far has not chosen to use these powers and it seems somewhat unlikely that this will change.
Additionally I would question to what extent parliament is in disarray. While there is some difficulty with respect to brexit there is no suggestion that the parties are struggling (more than usual) with the other issues.
The risk of no-one being able to form a government is somewhat limited if there was a serious risk of this a no confidence vote would have been called by the leader of the opposition. If such a vote took place to conservatives along with the DUP would eventually express confidence in the prime minister or some other acceptable MP to avoid a general election.
add a comment |
Questions about the power of the Queen come up occasionally on this site. The normal answer goes something like this. The queen has absolute authority to do as she pleases however she does not choose to use this authority and instead carries out the will of parliament. If the queen chose to remove parliament and rule in its place this could lead to some serious consequences for the queen and a possible revolt thus the queen so far has not chosen to use these powers and it seems somewhat unlikely that this will change.
Additionally I would question to what extent parliament is in disarray. While there is some difficulty with respect to brexit there is no suggestion that the parties are struggling (more than usual) with the other issues.
The risk of no-one being able to form a government is somewhat limited if there was a serious risk of this a no confidence vote would have been called by the leader of the opposition. If such a vote took place to conservatives along with the DUP would eventually express confidence in the prime minister or some other acceptable MP to avoid a general election.
add a comment |
Questions about the power of the Queen come up occasionally on this site. The normal answer goes something like this. The queen has absolute authority to do as she pleases however she does not choose to use this authority and instead carries out the will of parliament. If the queen chose to remove parliament and rule in its place this could lead to some serious consequences for the queen and a possible revolt thus the queen so far has not chosen to use these powers and it seems somewhat unlikely that this will change.
Additionally I would question to what extent parliament is in disarray. While there is some difficulty with respect to brexit there is no suggestion that the parties are struggling (more than usual) with the other issues.
The risk of no-one being able to form a government is somewhat limited if there was a serious risk of this a no confidence vote would have been called by the leader of the opposition. If such a vote took place to conservatives along with the DUP would eventually express confidence in the prime minister or some other acceptable MP to avoid a general election.
Questions about the power of the Queen come up occasionally on this site. The normal answer goes something like this. The queen has absolute authority to do as she pleases however she does not choose to use this authority and instead carries out the will of parliament. If the queen chose to remove parliament and rule in its place this could lead to some serious consequences for the queen and a possible revolt thus the queen so far has not chosen to use these powers and it seems somewhat unlikely that this will change.
Additionally I would question to what extent parliament is in disarray. While there is some difficulty with respect to brexit there is no suggestion that the parties are struggling (more than usual) with the other issues.
The risk of no-one being able to form a government is somewhat limited if there was a serious risk of this a no confidence vote would have been called by the leader of the opposition. If such a vote took place to conservatives along with the DUP would eventually express confidence in the prime minister or some other acceptable MP to avoid a general election.
answered 7 hours ago
Steve Smith
1,254214
1,254214
add a comment |
add a comment |
The UK hasn't had a revolution or a new constitution recently to take the monarch's royal prerogative away, but custom puts most of her powers into the hands of HM government and the parliament.
So what we would be talking about is the monarch breaking centuries-old custom to rule directly. Right now I would bet that the vast majority of citizens, officials, and soldiers would not accept direct role, even if they are loyal to the Queen in her current role.
I think you mean "direct rule."
– phoog
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The UK hasn't had a revolution or a new constitution recently to take the monarch's royal prerogative away, but custom puts most of her powers into the hands of HM government and the parliament.
So what we would be talking about is the monarch breaking centuries-old custom to rule directly. Right now I would bet that the vast majority of citizens, officials, and soldiers would not accept direct role, even if they are loyal to the Queen in her current role.
I think you mean "direct rule."
– phoog
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The UK hasn't had a revolution or a new constitution recently to take the monarch's royal prerogative away, but custom puts most of her powers into the hands of HM government and the parliament.
So what we would be talking about is the monarch breaking centuries-old custom to rule directly. Right now I would bet that the vast majority of citizens, officials, and soldiers would not accept direct role, even if they are loyal to the Queen in her current role.
The UK hasn't had a revolution or a new constitution recently to take the monarch's royal prerogative away, but custom puts most of her powers into the hands of HM government and the parliament.
So what we would be talking about is the monarch breaking centuries-old custom to rule directly. Right now I would bet that the vast majority of citizens, officials, and soldiers would not accept direct role, even if they are loyal to the Queen in her current role.
answered 7 hours ago
o.m.
5,8041920
5,8041920
I think you mean "direct rule."
– phoog
4 hours ago
add a comment |
I think you mean "direct rule."
– phoog
4 hours ago
I think you mean "direct rule."
– phoog
4 hours ago
I think you mean "direct rule."
– phoog
4 hours ago
add a comment |
No.
This question is normally taken to mean "what powers does the natural body of the queen have in the UK constitution". The answer is "none". She must follow the advice of her Ministers.
It is not clear what you call "disarray". If you mean political parties splitting up, repeated votes of confidence, mass resignations form Cabinet. I.e. politics continuing in disarray, then no the Queen has no reserve powers. She acts only according to the advice of her Ministers.
It is absolutely unconstitutional for the Queen to rule as an absolute monarch "until the politicians have sorted it out."
If you mean the much much less likely situation of an illegal and unconstitutional government (say, for example, the Prime Minister ordering the army to round up and execute the opposition party). Then we are dealing with a situation that is beyond "what powers does the Queen have" and to a situation where "who will the people with guns chose to obey". This is by definition not covered by the constitution.
Please provide some citations. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you use terms like "unconstitutional" despite the fact that (AFAIK) we have no written constitution. Similarly, you claim that the Queen must follow the advice of her Ministers. I do not necessarily doubt this, but can you tell us what law requires this, and how she does not have authority to unilaterally override such a law?
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 hours ago
Agree with @LightnessRacesinOrbit. Whilst this is how things “must” be, they “must” only be so by constitutional convention (and such conventions can and do develop and change over time). So, if the reigning monarch were to act against that convention, it would likely precipitate a constitutional crisis in the sense that there’s no definite understanding of what should then happen.
– eggyal
1 hour ago
Right, and this question (by my understanding) is about that scenario. IMO the answer is really just begging the question.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
1 hour ago
add a comment |
No.
This question is normally taken to mean "what powers does the natural body of the queen have in the UK constitution". The answer is "none". She must follow the advice of her Ministers.
It is not clear what you call "disarray". If you mean political parties splitting up, repeated votes of confidence, mass resignations form Cabinet. I.e. politics continuing in disarray, then no the Queen has no reserve powers. She acts only according to the advice of her Ministers.
It is absolutely unconstitutional for the Queen to rule as an absolute monarch "until the politicians have sorted it out."
If you mean the much much less likely situation of an illegal and unconstitutional government (say, for example, the Prime Minister ordering the army to round up and execute the opposition party). Then we are dealing with a situation that is beyond "what powers does the Queen have" and to a situation where "who will the people with guns chose to obey". This is by definition not covered by the constitution.
Please provide some citations. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you use terms like "unconstitutional" despite the fact that (AFAIK) we have no written constitution. Similarly, you claim that the Queen must follow the advice of her Ministers. I do not necessarily doubt this, but can you tell us what law requires this, and how she does not have authority to unilaterally override such a law?
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 hours ago
Agree with @LightnessRacesinOrbit. Whilst this is how things “must” be, they “must” only be so by constitutional convention (and such conventions can and do develop and change over time). So, if the reigning monarch were to act against that convention, it would likely precipitate a constitutional crisis in the sense that there’s no definite understanding of what should then happen.
– eggyal
1 hour ago
Right, and this question (by my understanding) is about that scenario. IMO the answer is really just begging the question.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
1 hour ago
add a comment |
No.
This question is normally taken to mean "what powers does the natural body of the queen have in the UK constitution". The answer is "none". She must follow the advice of her Ministers.
It is not clear what you call "disarray". If you mean political parties splitting up, repeated votes of confidence, mass resignations form Cabinet. I.e. politics continuing in disarray, then no the Queen has no reserve powers. She acts only according to the advice of her Ministers.
It is absolutely unconstitutional for the Queen to rule as an absolute monarch "until the politicians have sorted it out."
If you mean the much much less likely situation of an illegal and unconstitutional government (say, for example, the Prime Minister ordering the army to round up and execute the opposition party). Then we are dealing with a situation that is beyond "what powers does the Queen have" and to a situation where "who will the people with guns chose to obey". This is by definition not covered by the constitution.
No.
This question is normally taken to mean "what powers does the natural body of the queen have in the UK constitution". The answer is "none". She must follow the advice of her Ministers.
It is not clear what you call "disarray". If you mean political parties splitting up, repeated votes of confidence, mass resignations form Cabinet. I.e. politics continuing in disarray, then no the Queen has no reserve powers. She acts only according to the advice of her Ministers.
It is absolutely unconstitutional for the Queen to rule as an absolute monarch "until the politicians have sorted it out."
If you mean the much much less likely situation of an illegal and unconstitutional government (say, for example, the Prime Minister ordering the army to round up and execute the opposition party). Then we are dealing with a situation that is beyond "what powers does the Queen have" and to a situation where "who will the people with guns chose to obey". This is by definition not covered by the constitution.
answered 4 hours ago
James K
33.6k8101142
33.6k8101142
Please provide some citations. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you use terms like "unconstitutional" despite the fact that (AFAIK) we have no written constitution. Similarly, you claim that the Queen must follow the advice of her Ministers. I do not necessarily doubt this, but can you tell us what law requires this, and how she does not have authority to unilaterally override such a law?
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 hours ago
Agree with @LightnessRacesinOrbit. Whilst this is how things “must” be, they “must” only be so by constitutional convention (and such conventions can and do develop and change over time). So, if the reigning monarch were to act against that convention, it would likely precipitate a constitutional crisis in the sense that there’s no definite understanding of what should then happen.
– eggyal
1 hour ago
Right, and this question (by my understanding) is about that scenario. IMO the answer is really just begging the question.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Please provide some citations. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you use terms like "unconstitutional" despite the fact that (AFAIK) we have no written constitution. Similarly, you claim that the Queen must follow the advice of her Ministers. I do not necessarily doubt this, but can you tell us what law requires this, and how she does not have authority to unilaterally override such a law?
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 hours ago
Agree with @LightnessRacesinOrbit. Whilst this is how things “must” be, they “must” only be so by constitutional convention (and such conventions can and do develop and change over time). So, if the reigning monarch were to act against that convention, it would likely precipitate a constitutional crisis in the sense that there’s no definite understanding of what should then happen.
– eggyal
1 hour ago
Right, and this question (by my understanding) is about that scenario. IMO the answer is really just begging the question.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
1 hour ago
Please provide some citations. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you use terms like "unconstitutional" despite the fact that (AFAIK) we have no written constitution. Similarly, you claim that the Queen must follow the advice of her Ministers. I do not necessarily doubt this, but can you tell us what law requires this, and how she does not have authority to unilaterally override such a law?
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 hours ago
Please provide some citations. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you use terms like "unconstitutional" despite the fact that (AFAIK) we have no written constitution. Similarly, you claim that the Queen must follow the advice of her Ministers. I do not necessarily doubt this, but can you tell us what law requires this, and how she does not have authority to unilaterally override such a law?
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 hours ago
Agree with @LightnessRacesinOrbit. Whilst this is how things “must” be, they “must” only be so by constitutional convention (and such conventions can and do develop and change over time). So, if the reigning monarch were to act against that convention, it would likely precipitate a constitutional crisis in the sense that there’s no definite understanding of what should then happen.
– eggyal
1 hour ago
Agree with @LightnessRacesinOrbit. Whilst this is how things “must” be, they “must” only be so by constitutional convention (and such conventions can and do develop and change over time). So, if the reigning monarch were to act against that convention, it would likely precipitate a constitutional crisis in the sense that there’s no definite understanding of what should then happen.
– eggyal
1 hour ago
Right, and this question (by my understanding) is about that scenario. IMO the answer is really just begging the question.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
1 hour ago
Right, and this question (by my understanding) is about that scenario. IMO the answer is really just begging the question.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
1 hour ago
add a comment |
chasly from UK is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
chasly from UK is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
chasly from UK is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
chasly from UK is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37543%2fif-the-elected-uk-parliament-falls-into-disarray-can-the-reigning-monarch-take%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
In the letter of the law, she's ruling already. In the UK the monarch holds constitutional power as head of state, with the Prime Minister as the first of her advisors.
– origimbo
7 hours ago
In the sort of instance you're describing, she'd probably command (ask nicely) each party to form a government of national unity. Any party that refused would get murdered in the polls, effectively ending the crisis at the next election.
– Valorum
2 hours ago