I'm really glad you touched on the Queen's lobbying, of course she directly rule and Charles doesn't either, it doesn't mean she has no influence, and mentioning it was really important as 'they don't have any real power' is a common defence of the monarchy, plus the focus on how the loss of power is a process was really interesting as well
I’d say they have authority rather than power. If King Charles started overruling Parliament, his position would quickly become untenable. Look at all the fuss over him wearing a Greek necktie. Of course, we don’t really know what happens in private, but if there was an elected PM who was a Republican, they would have a mandate to cut the monarch’s authority.
The one positive about monarchy is the experience they can share. The Queen told Liz Truss 'Pace Yourself' obviously that was ignored 😂 but that was good advice and probably learnt from decades of talking with Prime Ministers.
@@alanlittle4589 Yeah I can see that as a valid argument but for me personally it's both wrong in principle and has practical risks in terms of both lobbying and pressure from unelected people and also from a tendency for the monarch to nod through most of what the government wants, such as the 2019 prorogation, even when its illegal, while in countries like Ireland they have an elected president who, similar to our monarch, doesn't directly hold power but does have the power of referring laws to the supreme court to check if they're constitutional
@@Antipaxos_Nadja123 I completely agree with you. As I started my comment - The one positive. I wouldn't argue for the monarchy at all, quite the contrary. I'm not entirely sure what system I would choose, but probably something similar to the Irish model as you say.
It sort of reminds me of Hirohito, the Japanese Emperor during WWII. On paper he was an absolute god-emperor who could single-handedly make decisions for the whole country with no objections. But even though the Meiji restoration had brought the Japanese Emperors back into actual power, and so Hirohito really did have power, he also knew that if he tried to fully use his nominal power too much, he would quickly find that actually, most of his nominal powers don't exist, and his advisors and others who were supposed to follow his orders would basically act independently while pretending to follow the Emperor's orders. Similarly, the Monarch of the UK holds a lot of power on paper, but the moment they actually tried to use those powers, they would quickly find that no one (except maybe some unusual monarchist fanatics) is actually going to follow their orders, and if the monarch insisted too much, they would most likely end up "overthrown" in a "peaceful revolution", that is, the parliament would tell them no, and then pass some law that removes that power from the monarch.
This doesn't mean they don't have immense political and economic influence even if it isn't direct though. And we see this all the time in things they want to support or don't.
In the case of both pre- (and post-war) Japan, and Britain, and other constitutional monarchies, the way I kind of explain it is that it's like how the national flag is like to Americans. The monarch is *supposed* to be an apolitical figure who the entirety (or the majority of, anyway) of the nation can rally round. Which okay; isn't that unifying in times of peace, but is *very* effective in times of war or national crisis. Just look at how the people of Britain rallied round the symbolic fact that George VI refused to leave London during the Blitz. Or Haakon VII's refusal to appoint the Nazi puppet Vidkun Quisling as PM of Norway after the German invasion in 1940. The Norwegian resistance used his monogram 'H7' as a symbol, whether it be graffiti, lapel pins, or other simple shows of resistance to the Nazis. The same was true at the same time for the Danish King, Christian X, who not only did everything he could within his limited power to annoy and circumvent the Nazi occupation authorities (including riding his horse around the streets of Copenhagen as a symbol of Danish nationhood, but also-intentionally-diplomatically insulting Hitler). Like in Norway, his monogram was also used as a symbol by members of the Danish resistance (and he was also buried with a Danish resistance armband), and it was he who suggested to his government that if the Germans tried getting the Danish Jewish population to wear yellow stars (which they never actually did) he and the government should wear them too. He was also instrumental in helping get the Danish Jews to safety in neutral Sweden. And also, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and Grand Duchess Charlotte were similarly focuses on national resistance for their respective countries too.
@@orbatos no more than a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary republic does. And just like with constitutional monarchies, they're not free from corruption or scandal either-for example, the German (ceremonial) President Christian Wulff, who had to resign due to a scandal. There's a few other examples too.
@@kierangorman3052 For a long time the official story was that the governor general (Sir John Kerr) acted on his own without informing the Queen (acting on her behalf to choose whoever she pleases to be PM). Up until his death Kerr officially said that he acted alone. Recently a journalist went to court* to obtain Kerr's diary and found that he had spoken to (then) Prince Charles on the idea of dismissing the government almost a year ahead of time (when Charles was visiting Australia) and had been led to believe that the Queen would be on board with this idea. I may be misremembering but I think the diaries indicate that he also spoke to someone in the Royal household who indicated the Queen would approve of him using this power. *really cool note the lawyer who initially represented this journalist was the son of Gough Whitlam (the PM who was dismissed in this case).
@@aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoalthough technically he did it in the queen's name without asking her if it was ok, basically so that he could take the heat of there was a big stink about it.
They don't have power, but they do have authority. That, at least, is how the Dutch King described it. In the Netherlands, the ministers are constitutionally responsible for the actions of the Monarch. So if the King would murder someone, the minister would have to go to prison. But then again, the highest classification of a state secret includes crimes committed by members of the Royal House (not to be confused with the Royal Family). It's a tightrope, though. In essence, it's the Prime Minister who decides what the King can do and say, just because of the ministerial responsibility.
The way my partner and I like to phrase it is that the monarch has the power to veto exactly one bill because once they do it they'll probably lose the ability to in the future.
In Malaysia only a few decades ago the kings were forced to limited power after a king clubbed his caddy to death due to him giggling at the king's missing an easy putt. It became known publicly in words of mouth after the caddy's brother who was a commando ran amok throughout the city and again was hushed as to the reason why. The family was compensated though and so resulted in our own magna carta
The running amok soldier guy isn't related to the caddy and it has been debunked by the family members themselves many times. Also he isn't a commando, just a regular rank soldier.
@@mcarp555clearly not, but notes on shorts are not the most visible things, especially on mobile, and I thought the idea of Camilla having power amusing
Camilla is Queen Consort not Queeen regnant so she has no more power than Prince Phillip had. If a regency is required the powers will devolve to the PoW.
Charles III; recently threatened to withhold royal assent to a law unless he gets exempted. It was Welsh rural regulations. Also, very wealthy people have implicit political power purely from being rich, and the royal family is definitely rich
He wasn't numbered 'the First' of Ireland though; because Ireland didn't have a separate numbering from England, even though it was a separate Kingdom and he was the first King William of it. Same goes for Hanover when it was a Kingdom-the Kings of Hanover followed the British numbering-making them Georg III, Georg IV, Wilhelm IV, Ernst August I, and Georg V respectively. Even though the last two were not Kings of the UK too. You're absolutely correct that he was William II of Scotland though-as Scotland kept it's own separate numbering despite the personal union-James II of England was also James VII of Scotland as well.
That’s how the British think they see themselves as 4 seperate countries and identities even though they have been intermarrying for centuries and many if not most English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people having family in all 4 countries. As well as the fact that many of the British monarchs have had lineage from all 4 nations, they seem to regard it only as English monarchy. And you hear dumb stuff like “English television” when you see a whole plethora of Welsh, Scottish and Irish characters and entertainers all over “English television”. Not saying that there isn’t legitimate reason that British people see themselves separately and yes the English have done many bad things to all the other nations historically. But when facts like the fact that 1 in 4 British people have an Irish grandparent or the fact that a Welsh person like Taron Egerton literally having both his parents being English. Or TV shows literally showing the reality like in the programme Fleabag who is English, has a father that’s Scottish. And many many more famous people having English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh ancestors. I would just think the British would kind of solved this conundrum but literally you can have Scottish or English nationalistic pride while say the English person’s mother is Welsh and the Scottish person’s parents are English. It just kinda makes less and less sense as time goes by. Like Maggie Smith is English but one of her parents is Scottish. It seems weird after all that mixing has been done.
Bills in Australia require royal ascent too. This role is performed by the Governor General as the Monarchs representative. In theory they can choose anyone, but in practice they go off the prime ministers recommendation. Sometimes they recommend a few for the monarch to choose, but they can recommend just one. In theory they can throw out the government and this happened once. the dysfunctional whitlam government was thrown out and malcolm frasier was made caretaker PM, and he immediately called an election.
Interesting that you call Whitlam's government dysfunctional. It was only dysfunctional because the Liberals blocked supply, and immediately passed laws to make it impossible to happen again as soon as they got into power.
@@Rynewulf Depending on how you look at it, the UK was never part of the empire, more like the spider at the center of its web. And although the government doesn't seem to use the word Empire anymore, for obvious reasons, it definitely still exists in a much reduced form. It's called the Overseas Territories.
Yes, I was shocked to learn recently that the Royals don’t have to follow the same rules as EVERYONE ELSE when it comes to employment and discrimination. I tried to think of logical, practical reasons why they would be immune from such prosecution 🤔 but all I did was end up imagining some poor person excitedly arriving for a job interview at Buck Palace, walking in and immediately being told to leave for some awfully “personal” reason 😳 Edit: Please read the awesome reply below that provides a detailed explanation
I think it's for a practical reason. Hundreds of suits would be filed against the monarch over scores of things just to make a political statement or for someone's ego who wants to say they filed a suit against the monarch under.
I think maybe the exception is done to keep things as private as possible within the family. The royal family gives each other titles and positions and earn money from that, it’s already nepotism which is illegal in most of the world.
@@Madamoizillionyou are correct; your guess is wrong. You just making sense of your own preconceptions.😂 the person who posted before you was closer to the truth. The Royal Family is a business and runs like it, too. Keep in mind that the business also leads by example. If you don't get hired, it's for the same reason any organization decide to hire you or not. There are people of all colours and creeds working at the palace. It basically comes down to one thing: if they feel they can trust you, you're hired. And they trust nobody😂. During the application process, people are heavily screened but also put into situations where even the slightest, most innocent indiscretion is enough to not get hired. That's why the royals didn't like Meghan, wanting to bring cameras into Kensington palace to blog and vlog😂
So, I know the actual reason from someone who works in a royal palace, and its actually pretty simple but sounds worse than it is.. Its basically down to security and minimising potential risks such as (for example) being able to simply refuse to hire a national from an unfriendly country such as say china can be far simpler than trying to do any level of dilligent security vetting, likewise for many foreign nationals living in the uk, while they may be good for the job, being able to ensure they are not a security risk... is often very difficult or near impossible which is why the royals can refuse to employ them.. There are actually near identical legal clauses for the government, militay, atomic weapons establishment and other similar organisations that need to employ people who can be security vetted
De jure vs de facto power. That said there’s really no such thing as de jure power because that’s just the old de facto power making some fancy document and then being replaced silently or not so silently.
Even in terms of “de facto” power the monarchy is far from powerless. Anyone who can call up any member of parliament and get a meeting or can put an issue on the national radar has some degree of power. Being ridiculously rich and well known means you have some de facto power.
Elizabeth the Long Lived did directly choose Prime Ministers at times. For instance it was her choice explicitly that we had Douglas Hume as PM not Buttler after MacMillan resigned.
This is not true - it was Macmillan's choice. Yes, it was unexpected (e.g. to the media), but the notion that it was the Queens idea to appoint Douglas Home is wrong. In fact, the Great Reform Act of 1832 put paid to the idea the sovereign could impose a PM on parliament. When William IV wanted to put in Robert Peel as PM in 1834, he was forced to recall Lord Melbourne instead as Peel could not command the confidence of the house. Since then, no one has tried.
@@JT29501 Nope. The choice between Douglas Hume and Buttler was a choice of a PM who would become leader of the Tories. She chose Douglas Hume who was the choice of the elite. Buttler was the choice of the Tory party. The country wanted a Labour government under Wilson. The incident led to the Tory party creating a mechanism for choosing a party leader. The situation in 1834 was different in that Melbourne and Peel led different parties and Peel couldn’t form a government. That was a principle established well before 1832. Odd you should choose those two as your example because a few years later Victoria sustained Melbourne in office over Peel during the bed chamber crisis which was the last time that a monarch imposed a PM on parliament. That was resolved by decoupling the monarch’s private household from the offices of state as that was the mechanism Victoria had used to bring down Peel. The 1832 act didn’t change anything there. What it did was reduce and eventually remove the monarch’s ability to command a swing group in parliament more loyal to the monarch than to the party who would back the Monarch’s choice. The principle of being able to form a government also gradually morphed into the modern definition of being able to get your business through the commons. A principle that has taken a battering in recent years with first May and then Johnson. It is still possible that Charles the Tampon could choose a PM. If Sunk’s helicopter crashed today then there would need to be an interim PM while the Tory party conducted its knife fight to choose a leader. As there is no clear line of succession he would have to select from a number of possible people the main constraint being to avoid any contenders in the knife fight.
@@davidwright7193 You know, that is a good point about Melbourne/Peel/Victoria.. although I'd still say its accurate that 1834 is the last time a monarch dismissed a government based on personal choice. And Peel came to office and THEN won a majority, no? Anyhow, as for Douglas-Home, I've heard this idea that Elizabeth chose him quite a bit but I've never read anything reputable which convinces me it is true.. Without being one of "those guys"... what is your source? Every reputable source I have says that it was Macmillan who advised the queen to send for Douglas-Home. The queen must (by convention) act on the advice of her ministers, and so she is not really exercising her "choice" by doing so and sending for Douglas-Home, right?
During the time of Walpole intellectuals in France had come to the conclusion that Britian was now a republic masquerading as a monarchy and as a result would inevitably collapse into chaos because that what happens to nations not ruled by enlightened despots
1740: French intellectuals thinking the British state will collapse due to what they see as its ineffective constitutional regime 1786: British intellectuals Screaming with laughter
Wow, that sucks. Sadly I'm not surprised, though. Also, nice surprise seeing you here! Your Kishinev video was fantastic, I've been meaning to watch your other stuff when I have time.
@@alexanderwill2847He assented to it in Great Britain but not in Ireland! However in Britain it was repealed before going into effect and wasn’t revisited until the Grey government.
Great synopsis. Can you do or post (if already made) a supplement on the steps toward the House of Commons becoming proportionate to population (elimination of "rotten boroughs" and pocket boroughs), the House of Lords losing veto power, and the evolution of voting rights?
This is a good summary of how England's monarchs have lost (and continue to lose) their political power: first the _Magna_ _Carta,_ then the emergence of Parliament, then Walpole's acquisition of many of George I's powers, and many more stuff in the past, present, and future! Thanks for the video!
One tiny thing: it’s not actually HM’s army. We have the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, but *British* Army. The army, uniquely, is actually controlled more by Parliament than the crown and can only be maintained because Parliament allows it by passing a law every half decade. Anyway, in answer to the question, I’d argue William IV. He was the last monarch to get properly involved in political affairs, fighting with one of his PMs over a plan to flood the lords and later actually dismissing a ministry he disliked - against Parliament’s wishes - in favour of one closer to his politics, until that proved untenable.
Some regiments have "royal" in the title, many has received it as an honorific, but many high seniority units were part of the Kings Army in exile. Several other high seniority regiments do not have a "royal" in the name as they started as New Model Army regiments. But the army as a whole traces its start back to Cromwell/Fairfax's New Model Army and so can never be 'Royal'.
Because the British Army was initially *raised* by Parliament, not the monarch. As in the New Model Army, which was the Army of the Parliamentarians during the English Civil War. When the monarchy was restored in 1660, the regiments that had been part of the New Model Army were folded into the regiments that were 'royal' (mostly what is now the Household Cavalry and the two senior regiments of Foot Guards, the Grenadier and Coldstream Guards), creating the infant version of what is today's British Army. Hence the lack of the 'Royal' prefix for the whole Army-not really appropriate (or a quirk of a tradition) to call a force that literally was raised to fight against the King himself 'Royal'.
Yes but even in William IV's case (in dismissing the Prime Minister) that was massively controversial, even then. George V also threatened to do the same re. the Lords when the incumbent Liberal government under David Lloyd-George was trying to get the 'People's Budget' through Parliament, and the Conservative-dominated House of Lords kept on blocking it. George V had recently succeeded his father as King, and he threatened to create so many Liberal peers that the Conservatives in the House of Lords wouldn't be able to block the bill from getting passed. This never happened, but it is an example of the King getting involved. Also, this led to (the next year) the House of Lords losing its power to indefinitely block a Parliamentary bill from being passed into law, with the 1911 Parliament Act.
Interesting. I guess it was a vestige of the English civil war and the Cromwellian Commonwealth, because the King's army very much lost to Cromwell who controlled the New Model Army first then the whole Parliament.
The most salient characteristic of the British class system is that it does not talk about itself. This includes the monarch's power. This is vital to hide from the British working class and nations overseas just how much of the feudal system remains. It is no coincidence that London is THE centre of global tax evasion.
In Canada, the last time a bill was refused royal assent was in 1937, when the Lt. Governor of Alberta, on the advice of the Prime Minister refused assent on three bills put forward by the provincial government of the time. AFAIK, the last time a governor-general intervened was the King Byng Wing Ding of 1926.
@@justforplaylists the GG basically rubber-stamped the government's wishes. Choosing not to act is a decision, but it's not the same as actually intervening.
@@karlwiklund2108, I knew a Karl Wiklund who was a sergeant in the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and served with me in 5ème Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada.
I remember reading an article over 40 years ago (hence I can’t cite it) that Queen Victoria did refuse royal assent to a law passed by Parliament that she found objectionable. I believe it had to do with the health and/or the welfare of her subjects.
As someone who actually IS familiar with Danish monarchs, the gradual decrease in power is one thing that is really fascinating about the British monarchy. We pretty much went from the king being an absolute monarch to him being a figurehead overnight (with some blips in the early 20th century), and it’s easy to assume that all constitutional monarchies work the same way.
Something I read a long time ago. I think it was an anti monarchy flyer (Something I would grav with both hands) potentially related to the anarchist music and art group Crass. Anyway, it said that in order for the PM to make a war happen they need approval either from the houses of Parliament or just the monarch, and that in the case of The Falklands PM Thatcher went for the latter as she didn't trust the house of Parliament to do what she wanted in the time she wanted. I would really like to know whether this is true and find a source because part of me doesn't trust it because it sounds like something that would happen and my own prejudices against those involved would make me believe it.
So, I take it this was cut from a previous video since it's only two weeks old but she's talking about the Queen. That is unless the Brits are just in denial and are ignoring the whole Charles thing. I wouldn't really blame them.
The crown are still regularly consulted on political matters, in fact it was revealed after Elizabeth's death that in the 21st century alone she'd been consulted on hundreds of bills and may have influenced them. That's to say nothing of their hand in Ireland, Kenya, the Suez Crisis, the dismissal of the Australian PM etc.
In Denmark it was as late as 1898, when the king had to back down and allow democratic elections again after a stint with a coup in collaboration with the then prime minister. In 1920 the then king did attempt to influence politics but was swiftly told to stuff it or Denmark would be a republic as of that date. The royals have been completely representative since. The ruling monarch does sign laws, but it is for show only.
The last EUROPEAN king with REAL power was the king of Spain Juan Carlos l of Borbon. He was handed total power by the late dictator Francisco Franco. Don Juan Carlos gave it up and became a constitutional monarch.
Actually, if I’m not mistaken, King John immediately broke the Magna Carta agreement, which could’ve spelled disaster for England if they didn’t get his son and heir, the 9-year-old Henry III, to confirm a second one.
Royal ascent has to be sought because Parliament doesn’t take into consideration the impacts of its bills of legislation upon the monarch and the royal family. When King Charles gave his ascension speech he said that he agrees to forgo the traditional incomes in exchange for the sovereign grant. The traditional incomes for the monarch are basically all government taxes. As much as people complain about the amount of the sovereign grant and the privy purse. It’s really a pittance compared to the traditional incomes of the King. Therefore before the King basically rubber stamps bills into laws. His office will confirm what impact, if any, the legislation would have upon the monarchy.
I truly (want to) believe that occasionally the queen picked up the phone and was like "Boris, this isn't happening, change the law, stop the law but I am not signing this trash, don't go to war with me you won't win young lad" and he did exactly what he was told. Then I woke up
just been reading a book about Victoria and her prime ministers she may not have officially had the constitutional right to do some things but she put a lot of pressure on her ministers to do what she wanted
Political influence *is* political power. Rupert Murdoch has political power. The better way to phrase it might be that in practise the king doesn't exercise any legislative power.
@@RoonMianmore specifically "doesn't exercise any of his remaining powers without the government's advice". And by "advice", that's a legal fiction that means "instructions". So whenever the monarch does exercise any of their remaining powers, like declaring war, signing treaties, recieving and sending out ambassadors, appointing the Prime Minister, dissolving Parliament, etc., that is only ever done under those conditions.
I read about the Guardian investigation in the New York Times, so my first thought was the exemption from the anti-discrimination law. I didn't think you'd mention that because of how much people like Queen Elizabeth. It's like telling someone that their sweet old grandma was in the Klan. But you went there.
Actually, the English monarch has two important ways to influence government events. One is -- as Draper notes -- contacting individuals behind the scenes. (What British official would refuse a call from the monarch, even if they were lobbying for something they believed was important?) The other is the weekly meeting with the PM: often Queen Elizabeth was far better informed about events than the current PM -- being in office for decades would do that for her -- & her advice would be far too useful to lightly ignore. One can only speculate whether Charles will be astute enough to use these tools.
In Australia a mistake was made on a bill or something like that so the governed general had to on behalf of the Queen dissent to the bill, this happened like 10 years ago I think
Its not so much giving her immunity from laws. When Tony Blair was doing his asinine constitutional reforms, she threatened to withold royal assent from certain reforms of his which would threaten a constitutional crisis. Specifically he wanted the power to declare war to be in the PM and not the monarchy, she told him she would withold royal assent if that bill passed and he backed down. The monarchy has also had more power historically. In the early 20th century the house of lords had the power to prevent any law from passing. The oberwhelmingly conservative house of lords promised to prevent womens sufferage from passing. Seeing the writing on the wall, King George V told them that if they didnt pass it, he would stack the house until they did.
You do know she can also declare war without the consent of anyone else.... Well actually, he can do that....the fine Lady Elizabeth, has shed her mortal coils. This happened about 2 years ago as of the time you published this video....might want to check in on that.
I vaguely remember the monarch having a roll in the diminishment of power of the House of Lords in WW1 or WW2 or thereabouts. It was something like forcing the House of Lords to agree to pass a bill that would weaken the House of Lords, and the monarch forced their hand by threatening to raise a bunch of people to lord status if they refused. Would love for literally anyone to confirm the veracity of this because I am lazy
I love that we still say "The Queen" even though it's a king now. Because, yeah, our entire lifetime *and* our parents' entire lifetime it was The Queen BTW even though "Königin" is the normal word which means "queen" in Germany, when talking about the queen of the UK in Germany we say "Die Queen". It's like she wasn't just seen as the current occupant of the office but she was seen as the office itself
I bet that if the Crown were subject to workplace H&S laws, Buckingham Palace would have to be substantially remodeled. By all accounts, the back stairways used by household staff are steep and treacherous, and even more so if you happen to be carrying something in both hands. There would probably have to be elevators at the very least.
she keeps using "her majesty's this" and "queen that" when the sitting monarch is a man, I think she may have just forgotten. She speaks about her in context as if she is still the current ruler. Our generation grew up with a queen. Edit: its an old video, it says so in the description
There is a fantastic play/film about the king refusing assent in the modern day. Its called King Charles III and yes, its spooky hes now actually king!
I always thought it would have been amusing if, instead of inviting Boris to form a government, she’d simply walked into the room, stared at him for 10 seconds and walked out.
French guy here who loves Britain. I always say to my French fellows who have difficulties understanding UK's political system that it is obviously not a Republic, not even a Constitutional Monarchy (there is no constitution per se), but an outright Absolute Monarchy tempered by the fact that the last king who opposed parliament, Charles I, had his head cut off 150 years before the king of France. From this point, you can begin to have have an understanding, to elaborate and to nuance.
Internationally, the Sultan of Brunei is an absolute monarch so monarchs in general stillhave political power. For major countries I think it's likely the Shah of Iran who was deposed in 1979. So monarchs either last had real political power up to 1979 or up to today if you count tiny petrostates.
The last EUROPEAN king with REAL power was the king of Spain Juan Carlos l of Borbon. He was handed total power by the late dictator Francisco Franco. Don Juan Carlos gave it up and became a constitutional monarch.
Queen Victoria. First, she delegated the entire process of royal participation in government to Albert. Then after Albert's death, she abandons her royal duties almost entirely for a decade, while "mourning". Yeah, right! She hated those duties from the get-go; and Parliament was delighted to see her give up the last true vestiges of royal authority.
She meddled in Australian politics in the 70's when legally elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was sacked by her representative Govenor General John Kerr
Monarchs still have power, they just don’t do it openly anymore, backroom deals are now the norm, what do you know what transpires when the PM meets with the sovereign?
Given the monarchy has effectively arranged to be excused from numerous new laws in recent years (eg. relating to FOI and landlords) I'd say they still have political power. They now just use it for personal benefit alone.
While it may look like the Queen was trying to avoid some new law by having an opted out. It could be argued that becuase anyone breaking these laws would be prosecuted in her name of she had been included and broken the law law she would would be prosecuting herself
In Württemberg, a smaller, but not tiny former german state, in 1514 the , Tübinger Vertrag'/ Treaty of Tübingen ' was signed. The non- noble upperclass, not so much knights and church, suceeded in reducing power of the unpopular Duke, and getting more power for parlament/ Landtag. Power of württembergian Landtag was limited, but stronger than in other german states. The württembergian Landtag was not able to stop the Dukes ideas, but cuold slow down his ideas and made ruling for the Duke more complicated. So when due to Napoleon HRE collapsed , the last Duke ( and first King) used the oppoertunity (?), to change a lot for introducing a last decade of absolutism and end the power of Landtag. So the , for german situation, power of Parlament made the Dukes angry for nearly 300 years. Most time rulers of Württemberg had been hard ruling men, but from mid 19th century to end of Monarchy, the kings became more moderate, and the last one became very popular, because he prefered lifestyle of a wealthy citizen over Royal lifestyle.
Question didn't specify country. There are multiple currently existing kings outside of Great Britain that still have political power. Jordan, Bahrain, Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand all have kings that wield significant amounts of political power today.
The last EUROPEAN king with REAL power was the king of Spain Juan Carlos l of Borbon. He was handed total power by the late dictator Francisco Franco. Don Juan Carlos gave it up and became a constitutional monarch.
Surely the title 'Prime Minister' became official far later (with Disraeli, I think?) having been a slang term for the 'First Lord of the Treasury'? And didn't the late Liz II refuse to sign a budget once? I believe they agreed to make an alteration. On that, why are you referring to the Queen in the present tense?? Have you actually been a time traveller this whole time and got confused? lol
Rev war Reenactor here. The army in Britain hasn’t been “Royal” since Charles I. The New Model Army continued its influence as being solely under the auspices of Parliament until the return of the House of Stewart. But then the King, to avoid another civil war, let the army stay separate from his command, so they are the British Army. An exception can be made for Royal Regiments, which include the Guards and such, along with all Artillery (Royal Artillery) as they were basically Paid for by the king, thus they were his property, and therefore wore royal blue facings and the royal artillery broke with the army red coats and wore blue coats with red facings showing that they were owned by the British Monarch. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, and Royal Marines have always been royal, because the King basically owned them as HE paid for them. But other then that… I have no notes lol!
Monarch even today has to give consent to Parliament if they want to pass a law that affects the monarchy. So they don't need to refuse to sign a law, they can prevent a law being introduced to Parliament so it will not exist to be signed.
I'm very confused, because I thought the queen was dead.... I remember this big to do where they had queues to get in the queue to see her. Is the queen a zombie, and still running things? Are the royals actually vampires? Or are they werewolves like it was hinted they might be, in Doctor Who?😅
All the branches of the UK Armed Forces have the word “Royal” in front of their names EXCEPT for the Army. The reason for this goes back to when Parliament executed King Charles I, and Oliver Cromwell became the ruler of England, not as King, but as “Lord Protector”. And Cromwell and Parliament controlled the Army, and to this day it’s just the “British Army”, not the ‘Royal Army’.
Wasn’t William VI the last monarch to appoint a prime minister, so could be said to be the last with political power, to the extent of directly choosing the government.
My mom was always so proud that we’re descended from 🎶 the phony king of England 🎵 AND many of the barons because it meant we were part of the Magna Carta. At this point, we’re so far past that, I’m pretty sure half of England is descended from John…
A bit more than that-it's more like 'anybody with white Western European ancestry' (and plenty besides that) will be. Don't forget, the number of your ancestors doubles with each generation, from 2 parents to 4 grandparents to 8 great-grandparents and so on-you're at 128 before you've got to five generations, which is on average less than 200 years (even less than that if you factor in some of them becoming parents at a young age). So you're well into the hundreds of thousands by the time you get to 800 years ago, which is the time of King John. Something like every single President of the US (with the exception of Martin van Buren) is descended, in some way, from King John. Even Barack Obama is (through his mother).
Walter Bagehot, in the mid-Victorian era, said that the monarch's right and duty is to advise, encourage and warn, and he or she does so behind the scenes when he or she meets the Prime Minister every week. So basically the monarch has the power to make the PM sit for a lecture, but the PM has the power and right to ignore the King/Queen.
I thought the Army was the one branch of the military not considered to be under the monarch. Like it's the Royal Marines, Royal Navy, & Royal Airforce, but it's always the British Army, not the Royal Army.
Wait, not again! Did I accidentally slip into an alternate reality where Queen Elizabeth is still alive? Woohoo! But what else is different here? I'm almost afraid to ask.
So, in a word… IT WAS WALPOLE!
That channel was great back in the day.
@@somethinglikethat2176 I mean, Extra History still exists now...
And it's still a great channel
@@nowanilfideme2 Yeah, with a different staff because the old one was driven away when the guy in charge wouldn't stop harassing his ex-girlfriend.
@nowanilfideme2 just not the same without Dan imo
"First _Prime_ Minister" amuses me more than it should.
why didnt I notice this before, that is pretty amusing! Imagine being the First First Minister of Scotland for example loll
I'm really glad you touched on the Queen's lobbying, of course she directly rule and Charles doesn't either, it doesn't mean she has no influence, and mentioning it was really important as 'they don't have any real power' is a common defence of the monarchy, plus the focus on how the loss of power is a process was really interesting as well
I’d say they have authority rather than power. If King Charles started overruling Parliament, his position would quickly become untenable. Look at all the fuss over him wearing a Greek necktie.
Of course, we don’t really know what happens in private, but if there was an elected PM who was a Republican, they would have a mandate to cut the monarch’s authority.
The one positive about monarchy is the experience they can share. The Queen told Liz Truss 'Pace Yourself' obviously that was ignored 😂 but that was good advice and probably learnt from decades of talking with Prime Ministers.
@@alanlittle4589 I think that's pretty much some advice anyone could give to someone facing a new high-pressure job. I'm sure I'd say that too
@@alanlittle4589 Yeah I can see that as a valid argument but for me personally it's both wrong in principle and has practical risks in terms of both lobbying and pressure from unelected people and also from a tendency for the monarch to nod through most of what the government wants, such as the 2019 prorogation, even when its illegal, while in countries like Ireland they have an elected president who, similar to our monarch, doesn't directly hold power but does have the power of referring laws to the supreme court to check if they're constitutional
@@Antipaxos_Nadja123 I completely agree with you. As I started my comment - The one positive. I wouldn't argue for the monarchy at all, quite the contrary.
I'm not entirely sure what system I would choose, but probably something similar to the Irish model as you say.
It sort of reminds me of Hirohito, the Japanese Emperor during WWII. On paper he was an absolute god-emperor who could single-handedly make decisions for the whole country with no objections. But even though the Meiji restoration had brought the Japanese Emperors back into actual power, and so Hirohito really did have power, he also knew that if he tried to fully use his nominal power too much, he would quickly find that actually, most of his nominal powers don't exist, and his advisors and others who were supposed to follow his orders would basically act independently while pretending to follow the Emperor's orders.
Similarly, the Monarch of the UK holds a lot of power on paper, but the moment they actually tried to use those powers, they would quickly find that no one (except maybe some unusual monarchist fanatics) is actually going to follow their orders, and if the monarch insisted too much, they would most likely end up "overthrown" in a "peaceful revolution", that is, the parliament would tell them no, and then pass some law that removes that power from the monarch.
This doesn't mean they don't have immense political and economic influence even if it isn't direct though. And we see this all the time in things they want to support or don't.
That's why they don't tell you it's happening.
In the case of both pre- (and post-war) Japan, and Britain, and other constitutional monarchies, the way I kind of explain it is that it's like how the national flag is like to Americans.
The monarch is *supposed* to be an apolitical figure who the entirety (or the majority of, anyway) of the nation can rally round.
Which okay; isn't that unifying in times of peace, but is *very* effective in times of war or national crisis.
Just look at how the people of Britain rallied round the symbolic fact that George VI refused to leave London during the Blitz.
Or Haakon VII's refusal to appoint the Nazi puppet Vidkun Quisling as PM of Norway after the German invasion in 1940. The Norwegian resistance used his monogram 'H7' as a symbol, whether it be graffiti, lapel pins, or other simple shows of resistance to the Nazis.
The same was true at the same time for the Danish King, Christian X, who not only did everything he could within his limited power to annoy and circumvent the Nazi occupation authorities (including riding his horse around the streets of Copenhagen as a symbol of Danish nationhood, but also-intentionally-diplomatically insulting Hitler). Like in Norway, his monogram was also used as a symbol by members of the Danish resistance (and he was also buried with a Danish resistance armband), and it was he who suggested to his government that if the Germans tried getting the Danish Jewish population to wear yellow stars (which they never actually did) he and the government should wear them too. He was also instrumental in helping get the Danish Jews to safety in neutral Sweden.
And also, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and Grand Duchess Charlotte were similarly focuses on national resistance for their respective countries too.
@@orbatos no more than a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary republic does.
And just like with constitutional monarchies, they're not free from corruption or scandal either-for example, the German (ceremonial) President Christian Wulff, who had to resign due to a scandal.
There's a few other examples too.
@@jonathanwebster7091 Yes more, in Britain especially, and the rest is moot. Of course there are limits. Note I said indirect.
the queens office dismissed an Australian elected prime minister. the crown very much still meddles in politics
Wasn't that the Australian Governor General who did that?
@@kierangorman3052 the governer general was the queen's representative
They have a lot of power to surprise themselves from taxes
@@kierangorman3052 For a long time the official story was that the governor general (Sir John Kerr) acted on his own without informing the Queen (acting on her behalf to choose whoever she pleases to be PM). Up until his death Kerr officially said that he acted alone. Recently a journalist went to court* to obtain Kerr's diary and found that he had spoken to (then) Prince Charles on the idea of dismissing the government almost a year ahead of time (when Charles was visiting Australia) and had been led to believe that the Queen would be on board with this idea. I may be misremembering but I think the diaries indicate that he also spoke to someone in the Royal household who indicated the Queen would approve of him using this power.
*really cool note the lawyer who initially represented this journalist was the son of Gough Whitlam (the PM who was dismissed in this case).
@@aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoalthough technically he did it in the queen's name without asking her if it was ok, basically so that he could take the heat of there was a big stink about it.
Yea I dont like it when people say the Monarchy has *no* power at all, *they do*, just not the major political force anymore.
They don't have power, but they do have authority. That, at least, is how the Dutch King described it.
In the Netherlands, the ministers are constitutionally responsible for the actions of the Monarch. So if the King would murder someone, the minister would have to go to prison. But then again, the highest classification of a state secret includes crimes committed by members of the Royal House (not to be confused with the Royal Family).
It's a tightrope, though. In essence, it's the Prime Minister who decides what the King can do and say, just because of the ministerial responsibility.
@@SeverityOne the city of london pilgrim society
The way my partner and I like to phrase it is that the monarch has the power to veto exactly one bill because once they do it they'll probably lose the ability to in the future.
In Malaysia only a few decades ago the kings were forced to limited power after a king clubbed his caddy to death due to him giggling at the king's missing an easy putt. It became known publicly in words of mouth after the caddy's brother who was a commando ran amok throughout the city and again was hushed as to the reason why. The family was compensated though and so resulted in our own magna carta
The running amok soldier guy isn't related to the caddy and it has been debunked by the family members themselves many times. Also he isn't a commando, just a regular rank soldier.
And the last King had started exercising the theoretical powers due to weak and unstable Parliament who backstabs a lot.
Either this is old content or Camilla is way more powerful than I realised
Did you not read: "This is an old TikTok, obvs"?
@@mcarp555clearly not, but notes on shorts are not the most visible things, especially on mobile, and I thought the idea of Camilla having power amusing
@@peaxoop It was amusing :) - mcarp555 just chose to be a “sourpuss” today 👍🏻🙂
@lorie76yt 😅 I'm feeling especially antisocial today. Zero calls or texts will be answered for at least 24hrs.
🎶 Just one of them days... 🎶
Camilla is Queen Consort not Queeen regnant so she has no more power than Prince Phillip had. If a regency is required the powers will devolve to the PoW.
Charles III; recently threatened to withhold royal assent to a law unless he gets exempted. It was Welsh rural regulations.
Also, very wealthy people have implicit political power purely from being rich, and the royal family is definitely rich
William III of England was also William II of Scotland and William I of Ireland.
He wasn't numbered 'the First' of Ireland though; because Ireland didn't have a separate numbering from England, even though it was a separate Kingdom and he was the first King William of it.
Same goes for Hanover when it was a Kingdom-the Kings of Hanover followed the British numbering-making them Georg III, Georg IV, Wilhelm IV, Ernst August I, and Georg V respectively.
Even though the last two were not Kings of the UK too.
You're absolutely correct that he was William II of Scotland though-as Scotland kept it's own separate numbering despite the personal union-James II of England was also James VII of Scotland as well.
But William IV was William IV of both?
Ol' Billy 3-2-1 they called him.
@@rat_thrower5604
Yes, William IV of both
That’s how the British think they see themselves as 4 seperate countries and identities even though they have been intermarrying for centuries and many if not most English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people having family in all 4 countries. As well as the fact that many of the British monarchs have had lineage from all 4 nations, they seem to regard it only as English monarchy. And you hear dumb stuff like “English television” when you see a whole plethora of Welsh, Scottish and Irish characters and entertainers all over “English television”.
Not saying that there isn’t legitimate reason that British people see themselves separately and yes the English have done many bad things to all the other nations historically. But when facts like the fact that 1 in 4 British people have an Irish grandparent or the fact that a Welsh person like Taron Egerton literally having both his parents being English. Or TV shows literally showing the reality like in the programme Fleabag who is English, has a father that’s Scottish. And many many more famous people having English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh ancestors. I would just think the British would kind of solved this conundrum but literally you can have Scottish or English nationalistic pride while say the English person’s mother is Welsh and the Scottish person’s parents are English. It just kinda makes less and less sense as time goes by. Like Maggie Smith is English but one of her parents is Scottish. It seems weird after all that mixing has been done.
Bills in Australia require royal ascent too. This role is performed by the Governor General as the Monarchs representative. In theory they can choose anyone, but in practice they go off the prime ministers recommendation. Sometimes they recommend a few for the monarch to choose, but they can recommend just one.
In theory they can throw out the government and this happened once. the dysfunctional whitlam government was thrown out and malcolm frasier was made caretaker PM, and he immediately called an election.
Interesting that you call Whitlam's government dysfunctional. It was only dysfunctional because the Liberals blocked supply, and immediately passed laws to make it impossible to happen again as soon as they got into power.
I thought Australia left the commonwealth?
@@montananerd8244 Australia is part of the commonwealth, we are not part of the empire
@@mixedstaples8030no one is part of the empire, not even the Uk. In hasn't existed for years now
@@Rynewulf Depending on how you look at it, the UK was never part of the empire, more like the spider at the center of its web. And although the government doesn't seem to use the word Empire anymore, for obvious reasons, it definitely still exists in a much reduced form. It's called the Overseas Territories.
Yes, I was shocked to learn recently that the Royals don’t have to follow the same rules as EVERYONE ELSE when it comes to employment and discrimination.
I tried to think of logical, practical reasons why they would be immune from such prosecution 🤔
but all I did was end up imagining some poor person excitedly arriving for a job interview at Buck Palace, walking in and immediately being told to leave for some awfully “personal” reason 😳
Edit: Please read the awesome reply below that provides a detailed explanation
I think it's for a practical reason. Hundreds of suits would be filed against the monarch over scores of things just to make a political statement or for someone's ego who wants to say they filed a suit against the monarch under.
I think maybe the exception is done to keep things as private as possible within the family. The royal family gives each other titles and positions and earn money from that, it’s already nepotism which is illegal in most of the world.
@@Madamoizillionyou are correct; your guess is wrong. You just making sense of your own preconceptions.😂 the person who posted before you was closer to the truth. The Royal Family is a business and runs like it, too. Keep in mind that the business also leads by example. If you don't get hired, it's for the same reason any organization decide to hire you or not. There are people of all colours and creeds working at the palace. It basically comes down to one thing: if they feel they can trust you, you're hired. And they trust nobody😂. During the application process, people are heavily screened but also put into situations where even the slightest, most innocent indiscretion is enough to not get hired. That's why the royals didn't like Meghan, wanting to bring cameras into Kensington palace to blog and vlog😂
So, I know the actual reason from someone who works in a royal palace, and its actually pretty simple but sounds worse than it is.. Its basically down to security and minimising potential risks such as (for example) being able to simply refuse to hire a national from an unfriendly country such as say china can be far simpler than trying to do any level of dilligent security vetting, likewise for many foreign nationals living in the uk, while they may be good for the job, being able to ensure they are not a security risk... is often very difficult or near impossible which is why the royals can refuse to employ them.. There are actually near identical legal clauses for the government, militay, atomic weapons establishment and other similar organisations that need to employ people who can be security vetted
@@Simon-ho6ly makes total sense. Thanks for sharing this.
De jure vs de facto power. That said there’s really no such thing as de jure power because that’s just the old de facto power making some fancy document and then being replaced silently or not so silently.
Even in terms of “de facto” power the monarchy is far from powerless. Anyone who can call up any member of parliament and get a meeting or can put an issue on the national radar has some degree of power. Being ridiculously rich and well known means you have some de facto power.
Elizabeth the Long Lived did directly choose Prime Ministers at times. For instance it was her choice explicitly that we had Douglas Hume as PM not Buttler after MacMillan resigned.
This is not true - it was Macmillan's choice. Yes, it was unexpected (e.g. to the media), but the notion that it was the Queens idea to appoint Douglas Home is wrong. In fact, the Great Reform Act of 1832 put paid to the idea the sovereign could impose a PM on parliament. When William IV wanted to put in Robert Peel as PM in 1834, he was forced to recall Lord Melbourne instead as Peel could not command the confidence of the house. Since then, no one has tried.
@@JT29501 Nope. The choice between Douglas Hume and Buttler was a choice of a PM who would become leader of the Tories. She chose Douglas Hume who was the choice of the elite. Buttler was the choice of the Tory party. The country wanted a Labour government under Wilson. The incident led to the Tory party creating a mechanism for choosing a party leader.
The situation in 1834 was different in that Melbourne and Peel led different parties and Peel couldn’t form a government. That was a principle established well before 1832. Odd you should choose those two as your example because a few years later Victoria sustained Melbourne in office over Peel during the bed chamber crisis which was the last time that a monarch imposed a PM on parliament. That was resolved by decoupling the monarch’s private household from the offices of state as that was the mechanism Victoria had used to bring down Peel.
The 1832 act didn’t change anything there. What it did was reduce and eventually remove the monarch’s ability to command a swing group in parliament more loyal to the monarch than to the party who would back the Monarch’s choice. The principle of being able to form a government also gradually morphed into the modern definition of being able to get your business through the commons. A principle that has taken a battering in recent years with first May and then Johnson.
It is still possible that Charles the Tampon could choose a PM. If Sunk’s helicopter crashed today then there would need to be an interim PM while the Tory party conducted its knife fight to choose a leader. As there is no clear line of succession he would have to select from a number of possible people the main constraint being to avoid any contenders in the knife fight.
@@davidwright7193 You know, that is a good point about Melbourne/Peel/Victoria.. although I'd still say its accurate that 1834 is the last time a monarch dismissed a government based on personal choice. And Peel came to office and THEN won a majority, no?
Anyhow, as for Douglas-Home, I've heard this idea that Elizabeth chose him quite a bit but I've never read anything reputable which convinces me it is true.. Without being one of "those guys"... what is your source? Every reputable source I have says that it was Macmillan who advised the queen to send for Douglas-Home. The queen must (by convention) act on the advice of her ministers, and so she is not really exercising her "choice" by doing so and sending for Douglas-Home, right?
During the time of Walpole intellectuals in France had come to the conclusion that Britian was now a republic masquerading as a monarchy and as a result would inevitably collapse into chaos because that what happens to nations not ruled by enlightened despots
_La "oops!",_ I think.
Average 18th century French opinion
1740:
French intellectuals thinking the British state will collapse due to what they see as its ineffective constitutional regime
1786:
British intellectuals Screaming with laughter
1708 was the last time the monarch vetoed a bill in _Great Britain._ In 1751; George II vetoed a bill emancipating Jews in Ireland.
Wow, that sucks. Sadly I'm not surprised, though.
Also, nice surprise seeing you here! Your Kishinev video was fantastic, I've been meaning to watch your other stuff when I have time.
@@alexanderwill2847He assented to it in Great Britain but not in Ireland! However in Britain it was repealed before going into effect and wasn’t revisited until the Grey government.
Based
Great synopsis. Can you do or post (if already made) a supplement on the steps toward the House of Commons becoming proportionate to population (elimination of "rotten boroughs" and pocket boroughs), the House of Lords losing veto power, and the evolution of voting rights?
The queen has lost all her powers, including breathing.
Yes, I’m confused
It's an old tiktok that she reuploaded
@@kosmikme Why would her Majesty re-upload old Tiktoks? Seems a bit out of character to me.
Since she died the queen has been MASSIVELY into TikTok - it is in keeping with her character now.
She may just be holding her breath.
This is a good summary of how England's monarchs have lost (and continue to lose) their political power: first the _Magna_ _Carta,_ then the emergence of Parliament, then Walpole's acquisition of many of George I's powers, and many more stuff in the past, present, and future!
Thanks for the video!
I was like, "I don't know what the final answer will be, but I bet Walpole will be involved somehow."
One tiny thing: it’s not actually HM’s army. We have the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, but *British* Army. The army, uniquely, is actually controlled more by Parliament than the crown and can only be maintained because Parliament allows it by passing a law every half decade.
Anyway, in answer to the question, I’d argue William IV. He was the last monarch to get properly involved in political affairs, fighting with one of his PMs over a plan to flood the lords and later actually dismissing a ministry he disliked - against Parliament’s wishes - in favour of one closer to his politics, until that proved untenable.
Some regiments have "royal" in the title, many has received it as an honorific, but many high seniority units were part of the Kings Army in exile. Several other high seniority regiments do not have a "royal" in the name as they started as New Model Army regiments. But the army as a whole traces its start back to Cromwell/Fairfax's New Model Army and so can never be 'Royal'.
Because the British Army was initially *raised* by Parliament, not the monarch.
As in the New Model Army, which was the Army of the Parliamentarians during the English Civil War.
When the monarchy was restored in 1660, the regiments that had been part of the New Model Army were folded into the regiments that were 'royal' (mostly what is now the Household Cavalry and the two senior regiments of Foot Guards, the Grenadier and Coldstream Guards), creating the infant version of what is today's British Army.
Hence the lack of the 'Royal' prefix for the whole Army-not really appropriate (or a quirk of a tradition) to call a force that literally was raised to fight against the King himself 'Royal'.
Yes but even in William IV's case (in dismissing the Prime Minister) that was massively controversial, even then.
George V also threatened to do the same re. the Lords when the incumbent Liberal government under David Lloyd-George was trying to get the 'People's Budget' through Parliament, and the Conservative-dominated House of Lords kept on blocking it.
George V had recently succeeded his father as King, and he threatened to create so many Liberal peers that the Conservatives in the House of Lords wouldn't be able to block the bill from getting passed.
This never happened, but it is an example of the King getting involved.
Also, this led to (the next year) the House of Lords losing its power to indefinitely block a Parliamentary bill from being passed into law, with the 1911 Parliament Act.
Interesting. I guess it was a vestige of the English civil war and the Cromwellian Commonwealth, because the King's army very much lost to Cromwell who controlled the New Model Army first then the whole Parliament.
@@mfaizsyahmi yes, that's exactly right.
It is nuts that she still has so much power after death
you can even see her in the mirror if you know the code
I love your channel. It is always so interesting. Thank you! ❤
The most salient characteristic of the British class system is that it does not talk about itself. This includes the monarch's power. This is vital to hide from the British working class and nations overseas just how much of the feudal system remains. It is no coincidence that London is THE centre of global tax evasion.
Thank you for this video. Very informative.
In Canada, the last time a bill was refused royal assent was in 1937, when the Lt. Governor of Alberta, on the advice of the Prime Minister refused assent on three bills put forward by the provincial government of the time.
AFAIK, the last time a governor-general intervened was the King Byng Wing Ding of 1926.
What about the 2008-2009 prorogations? The GG happened to make the decision the PM wanted, but I thought it was still the GG making the decision.
@@justforplaylists the GG basically rubber-stamped the government's wishes. Choosing not to act is a decision, but it's not the same as actually intervening.
@@karlwiklund2108, are you "un ancien du Cinquième Régiment"?
@@abchaplin what a bizarre question.
@@karlwiklund2108, I knew a Karl Wiklund who was a sergeant in the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and served with me in 5ème Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada.
I remember reading an article over 40 years ago (hence I can’t cite it) that Queen Victoria did refuse royal assent to a law passed by Parliament that she found objectionable. I believe it had to do with the health and/or the welfare of her subjects.
You haven’t popped up on my feed for a while. I’ve missed you.
0:25 "Parliament as a thing starts..." - I see what you did there
As someone who actually IS familiar with Danish monarchs, the gradual decrease in power is one thing that is really fascinating about the British monarchy. We pretty much went from the king being an absolute monarch to him being a figurehead overnight (with some blips in the early 20th century), and it’s easy to assume that all constitutional monarchies work the same way.
I think it was Jay Foreman whom taught me about the queen’s “threats” to use veto power, interesting stuff.
Something I read a long time ago. I think it was an anti monarchy flyer (Something I would grav with both hands) potentially related to the anarchist music and art group Crass. Anyway, it said that in order for the PM to make a war happen they need approval either from the houses of Parliament or just the monarch, and that in the case of The Falklands PM Thatcher went for the latter as she didn't trust the house of Parliament to do what she wanted in the time she wanted.
I would really like to know whether this is true and find a source because part of me doesn't trust it because it sounds like something that would happen and my own prejudices against those involved would make me believe it.
I've been frustrated by trying to find an answer to this question. Thanks!!!
So, I take it this was cut from a previous video since it's only two weeks old but she's talking about the Queen.
That is unless the Brits are just in denial and are ignoring the whole Charles thing.
I wouldn't really blame them.
The crown are still regularly consulted on political matters, in fact it was revealed after Elizabeth's death that in the 21st century alone she'd been consulted on hundreds of bills and may have influenced them. That's to say nothing of their hand in Ireland, Kenya, the Suez Crisis, the dismissal of the Australian PM etc.
In Denmark it was as late as 1898, when the king had to back down and allow democratic elections again after a stint with a coup in collaboration with the then prime minister.
In 1920 the then king did attempt to influence politics but was swiftly told to stuff it or Denmark would be a republic as of that date. The royals have been completely representative since.
The ruling monarch does sign laws, but it is for show only.
The last EUROPEAN king with REAL power was the king of Spain Juan Carlos l of Borbon. He was handed total power by the late dictator Francisco Franco. Don Juan Carlos gave it up and became a constitutional monarch.
"The Queen..."
Very confused until I saw the description.
Historia Civilis has a great series of videos about Charles's trial.
Actually, if I’m not mistaken, King John immediately broke the Magna Carta agreement, which could’ve spelled disaster for England if they didn’t get his son and heir, the 9-year-old Henry III, to confirm a second one.
Royal ascent has to be sought because Parliament doesn’t take into consideration the impacts of its bills of legislation upon the monarch and the royal family.
When King Charles gave his ascension speech he said that he agrees to forgo the traditional incomes in exchange for the sovereign grant. The traditional incomes for the monarch are basically all government taxes. As much as people complain about the amount of the sovereign grant and the privy purse. It’s really a pittance compared to the traditional incomes of the King.
Therefore before the King basically rubber stamps bills into laws. His office will confirm what impact, if any, the legislation would have upon the monarchy.
It’s so interesting how you still call them “her majesty’s” so-and-so
I truly (want to) believe that occasionally the queen picked up the phone and was like "Boris, this isn't happening, change the law, stop the law but I am not signing this trash, don't go to war with me you won't win young lad" and he did exactly what he was told.
Then I woke up
I bloody hope she's doing alright, for years now the voice of British business has been the wife of a tory MP.
"This is an old TikTok, obvs"
Yes, obvs.
just been reading a book about Victoria and her prime ministers she may not have officially had the constitutional right to do some things but she put a lot of pressure on her ministers to do what she wanted
Don't forget that the Queen still has the power to declare war if she wanted to... but she never does
We don't know how much power the Monarchy has because we don't know how much money they have.
😂no power but a large amount of INFLUENCE 😊
Political influence *is* political power. Rupert Murdoch has political power.
The better way to phrase it might be that in practise the king doesn't exercise any legislative power.
@@RoonMianmore specifically "doesn't exercise any of his remaining powers without the government's advice".
And by "advice", that's a legal fiction that means "instructions".
So whenever the monarch does exercise any of their remaining powers, like declaring war, signing treaties, recieving and sending out ambassadors, appointing the Prime Minister, dissolving Parliament, etc., that is only ever done under those conditions.
I read about the Guardian investigation in the New York Times, so my first thought was the exemption from the anti-discrimination law. I didn't think you'd mention that because of how much people like Queen Elizabeth. It's like telling someone that their sweet old grandma was in the Klan. But you went there.
Actually, the English monarch has two important ways to influence government events. One is -- as Draper notes -- contacting individuals behind the scenes. (What British official would refuse a call from the monarch, even if they were lobbying for something they believed was important?) The other is the weekly meeting with the PM: often Queen Elizabeth was far better informed about events than the current PM -- being in office for decades would do that for her -- & her advice would be far too useful to lightly ignore.
One can only speculate whether Charles will be astute enough to use these tools.
In Australia a mistake was made on a bill or something like that so the governed general had to on behalf of the Queen dissent to the bill, this happened like 10 years ago I think
Its not so much giving her immunity from laws. When Tony Blair was doing his asinine constitutional reforms, she threatened to withold royal assent from certain reforms of his which would threaten a constitutional crisis. Specifically he wanted the power to declare war to be in the PM and not the monarchy, she told him she would withold royal assent if that bill passed and he backed down.
The monarchy has also had more power historically. In the early 20th century the house of lords had the power to prevent any law from passing. The oberwhelmingly conservative house of lords promised to prevent womens sufferage from passing. Seeing the writing on the wall, King George V told them that if they didnt pass it, he would stack the house until they did.
You do know she can also declare war without the consent of anyone else....
Well actually, he can do that....the fine Lady Elizabeth, has shed her mortal coils. This happened about 2 years ago as of the time you published this video....might want to check in on that.
I vaguely remember the monarch having a roll in the diminishment of power of the House of Lords in WW1 or WW2 or thereabouts. It was something like forcing the House of Lords to agree to pass a bill that would weaken the House of Lords, and the monarch forced their hand by threatening to raise a bunch of people to lord status if they refused. Would love for literally anyone to confirm the veracity of this because I am lazy
I love that we still say "The Queen" even though it's a king now. Because, yeah, our entire lifetime *and* our parents' entire lifetime it was The Queen
BTW even though "Königin" is the normal word which means "queen" in Germany, when talking about the queen of the UK in Germany we say "Die Queen". It's like she wasn't just seen as the current occupant of the office but she was seen as the office itself
🎶My name is, my name is, my name is, Charles II 🎶
I don't know if it's him it's the first thing that popped into my head when I read the title
My brain does that
It worries me that I heard exactly the same thing as I read your comment despite it being so long since I heard that song
I bet that if the Crown were subject to workplace H&S laws, Buckingham Palace would have to be substantially remodeled. By all accounts, the back stairways used by household staff are steep and treacherous, and even more so if you happen to be carrying something in both hands. There would probably have to be elevators at the very least.
I mean, the *Queen* has approximately zero total power...
Watch till the end!
@@carrott36 She's been dead for over a year. I think that was the point.
she keeps using "her majesty's this" and "queen that" when the sitting monarch is a man, I think she may have just forgotten. She speaks about her in context as if she is still the current ruler. Our generation grew up with a queen.
Edit: its an old video, it says so in the description
@@poposterous236 The description says "This is an old TikTok, obvs"
@@kilppa Apologies for missing that haha, getting late for me.
There is a fantastic play/film about the king refusing assent in the modern day. Its called King Charles III and yes, its spooky hes now actually king!
I always thought it would have been amusing if, instead of inviting Boris to form a government, she’d simply walked into the room, stared at him for 10 seconds and walked out.
French guy here who loves Britain. I always say to my French fellows who have difficulties understanding UK's political system that it is obviously not a Republic, not even a Constitutional Monarchy (there is no constitution per se), but an outright Absolute Monarchy tempered by the fact that the last king who opposed parliament, Charles I, had his head cut off 150 years before the king of France. From this point, you can begin to have have an understanding, to elaborate and to nuance.
Internationally, the Sultan of Brunei is an absolute monarch so monarchs in general stillhave political power. For major countries I think it's likely the Shah of Iran who was deposed in 1979. So monarchs either last had real political power up to 1979 or up to today if you count tiny petrostates.
The last EUROPEAN king with REAL power was the king of Spain Juan Carlos l of Borbon. He was handed total power by the late dictator Francisco Franco. Don Juan Carlos gave it up and became a constitutional monarch.
Queen Victoria. First, she delegated the entire process of royal participation in government to Albert. Then after Albert's death, she abandons her royal duties almost entirely for a decade, while "mourning". Yeah, right! She hated those duties from the get-go; and Parliament was delighted to see her give up the last true vestiges of royal authority.
It’s something I have known for years. The Royal family will never allow a bill to even be discussed without prior approval.
So they approved all their losses of power? 😂
Every head of country, should always be the role model, to every of his/her speficic citizens!
Oldie but a relevantie 😂
She meddled in Australian politics in the 70's when legally elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was sacked by her representative Govenor General John Kerr
Monarchs still have power, they just don’t do it openly anymore, backroom deals are now the norm, what do you know what transpires when the PM meets with the sovereign?
Thanks again, British Lady
Probably George III, but indirectly by using his remaining powers of appointment and by helping his supporters to get elected to Parliament.
As always, BRILLIANT history presentation, filled with passion and integrity
👏 👍 😎 🇺🇸
Given the monarchy has effectively arranged to be excused from numerous new laws in recent years (eg. relating to FOI and landlords) I'd say they still have political power. They now just use it for personal benefit alone.
I wonder how many endangered species the queen shot.
I have So many more questions about this. I wish I could ask them all.
It's King and His Majesty now
Was this video made before the British queen passed away (and only uploaded now on UA-cam), or are you just not used yet to having a king?
While it may look like the Queen was trying to avoid some new law by having an opted out. It could be argued that becuase anyone breaking these laws would be prosecuted in her name of she had been included and broken the law law she would would be prosecuting herself
In Württemberg, a smaller, but not tiny former german state, in 1514 the , Tübinger Vertrag'/ Treaty of Tübingen ' was signed. The non- noble upperclass, not so much knights and church, suceeded in reducing power of the unpopular Duke, and getting more power for parlament/ Landtag. Power of württembergian Landtag was limited, but stronger than in other german states. The württembergian Landtag was not able to stop the Dukes ideas, but cuold slow down his ideas and made ruling for the Duke more complicated. So when due to Napoleon HRE collapsed , the last Duke ( and first King) used the oppoertunity (?), to change a lot for introducing a last decade of absolutism and end the power of Landtag. So the , for german situation, power of Parlament made the Dukes angry for nearly 300 years. Most time rulers of Württemberg had been hard ruling men, but from mid 19th century to end of Monarchy, the kings became more moderate, and the last one became very popular, because he prefered lifestyle of a wealthy citizen over Royal lifestyle.
Question didn't specify country.
There are multiple currently existing kings outside of Great Britain that still have political power.
Jordan, Bahrain, Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand all have kings that wield significant amounts of political power today.
The last EUROPEAN king with REAL power was the king of Spain Juan Carlos l of Borbon. He was handed total power by the late dictator Francisco Franco. Don Juan Carlos gave it up and became a constitutional monarch.
Surely the title 'Prime Minister' became official far later (with Disraeli, I think?) having been a slang term for the 'First Lord of the Treasury'? And didn't the late Liz II refuse to sign a budget once? I believe they agreed to make an alteration. On that, why are you referring to the Queen in the present tense?? Have you actually been a time traveller this whole time and got confused? lol
Rev war Reenactor here. The army in Britain hasn’t been “Royal” since Charles I. The New Model Army continued its influence as being solely under the auspices of Parliament until the return of the House of Stewart. But then the King, to avoid another civil war, let the army stay separate from his command, so they are the British Army.
An exception can be made for Royal Regiments, which include the Guards and such, along with all Artillery (Royal Artillery) as they were basically
Paid for by the king, thus they were his property, and therefore wore royal blue facings and the royal artillery broke with the army red coats and wore blue coats with red facings showing that they were owned by the British Monarch.
The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, and Royal Marines have always been royal, because the King basically owned them as HE paid for them.
But other then that… I have no notes lol!
Waiting for King William to take the throne and hope he becomes more assertive.
Ahh, so Walpole was the first Minister who could pass a bill and deliver it to the palace for royal assent on the same day.
After the battle of Naseby.
Parliament: Let's put the king back in power. I think he's learned his lesson.
Cromwell: Say what????
Monarch even today has to give consent to Parliament if they want to pass a law that affects the monarchy. So they don't need to refuse to sign a law, they can prevent a law being introduced to Parliament so it will not exist to be signed.
1:17 surely she doesn't have as much power, since she's dead?
The decline in Royal power took a pause during the reign of Henry VIIII and even Elizabeth where it was definitely expanded from their predecessors.
Is this an older video reuploaded? I'm pretty sure it's a King now.
😮💨: The crown has limited power over Parliament.
😎: Parliament can't conduct business in either house unless the King's Mace is present.
I'm very confused, because I thought the queen was dead.... I remember this big to do where they had queues to get in the queue to see her. Is the queen a zombie, and still running things? Are the royals actually vampires? Or are they werewolves like it was hinted they might be, in Doctor Who?😅
I’m guessing this is a re-upload; it’s a while since the queen died 😅
All the branches of the UK Armed Forces have the word “Royal” in front of their names EXCEPT for the Army. The reason for this goes back to when Parliament executed King Charles I, and Oliver Cromwell became the ruler of England, not as King, but as “Lord Protector”. And Cromwell and Parliament controlled the Army, and to this day it’s just the “British Army”, not the ‘Royal Army’.
Wasn’t William VI the last monarch to appoint a prime minister, so could be said to be the last with political power, to the extent of directly choosing the government.
My mom was always so proud that we’re descended from 🎶 the phony king of England 🎵 AND many of the barons because it meant we were part of the Magna Carta. At this point, we’re so far past that, I’m pretty sure half of England is descended from John…
A bit more than that-it's more like 'anybody with white Western European ancestry' (and plenty besides that) will be.
Don't forget, the number of your ancestors doubles with each generation, from 2 parents to 4 grandparents to 8 great-grandparents and so on-you're at 128 before you've got to five generations, which is on average less than 200 years (even less than that if you factor in some of them becoming parents at a young age). So you're well into the hundreds of thousands by the time you get to 800 years ago, which is the time of King John.
Something like every single President of the US (with the exception of Martin van Buren) is descended, in some way, from King John. Even Barack Obama is (through his mother).
Charles 1 had his powers cut
Walter Bagehot, in the mid-Victorian era, said that the monarch's right and duty is to advise, encourage and warn, and he or she does so behind the scenes when he or she meets the Prime Minister every week. So basically the monarch has the power to make the PM sit for a lecture, but the PM has the power and right to ignore the King/Queen.
My vote would’ve been for George V actually siding with Commons and preparing to appoint more Lords in 1911.
did Ireland ever have a monarchy? (aside from English/British rulers)
Ireland used to have more kings than saints. But I don't think any ever had more power than Brian Boru who fell at Clontarf.
I thought the Army was the one branch of the military not considered to be under the monarch.
Like it's the Royal Marines, Royal Navy, & Royal Airforce, but it's always the British Army, not the Royal Army.
Wait, not again! Did I accidentally slip into an alternate reality where Queen Elizabeth is still alive? Woohoo! But what else is different here? I'm almost afraid to ask.