A question about British Royalty

[beebs]

I guess the first question is should I capitalize the word "Royalty" in regards to the British Kingdom.

Moving on, I was struck by an anecdote someone once told me. It had something to do with the Queen ruling as a monarch, but was unable to use her power due to the involvement of the parliament.

I'm not explaining this right, apologies.

Supposedly the ruler of the Royal Family still had absolute rights, but was unable to use them because they could be challenged, and therefore exposing the fallacy that the monarch had power. So it was understood that the current Queen can still rule, but cannot execute decisions. Because that would just blow up the whole British Royalty thing.


A follow-up: What purpose does the Royal Family have in the current political world of England?


Just to add, I'm not trying to insult this system, I find it rather romantic in a sense of honoring history. And don't you blokes ever give into that damn Euro!

Your resident Yank,
beebs

[CRSP]

The Queen still has certain powers. For instance, she can withold her consent to a bill that parliament passed, in effect preventing it from becoming law. It's widely understood that doing so would cause an immediate "constitutional crisis", and would likely bring about the end of the monarchy. She doesn't have absolute power, though. That issue was settled over a stretch of centuries, when Parliament tried Charles I for treason, then executed him, through the Bloodless Revolution, finally to the reform bills of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

[CRSP]

As an example of Parliament's supremity: the Queen was forced to start paying tax, as well as reduce the size of the list of royals that receive an income from the Government, after Windsor Castle burnt down. Parliament could also decide to abolish the monarchy tomorrow. I think one of the standard references on the relationship between Parliament and the Queen, and a comparative analysis of British and American governance is by Walter Bagehot (search for him on Guggenheim).

[Liberal]

If the monarchy were to be abolished, then who would become the heads of state in all the various places like England and Canada? Would they elect presidents?

[CRSP]

I don't think anybody is certain, as there's no risk that the monarchy would be abolished, for the moment. We may go the Irish route, and elect a figurehead. The idea of a Presidential style PM isn't very popular, in the UK, and one of the criticisms of Blair was his Presidential style of governing.

[Liberal]

Yeah, I gotta tell ya. In places like Russia and China, where there's a premier who's the head of government and a president who's the head of state, things get a bit dicey for the US Department of State. Our president, like the French president, is both the head of government AND the head of state. So when he meets with, say, the Chinese president, they are peers only in the context of state functions. Obama has to meet with the Chinese premier in order to negotiate treaties and such.

In short, count your blessings. You have a clear head of government, and a glorious head of state. She represents your kingdom in a grand manner, as far as I'm concerned. I adore her. I wish Brits did too.

[Giles]

If the monarchy were to be abolished, then who would become the heads of state in all the various places like England and Canada? Would they elect presidents?

Australia faced that issue with the Republic Referendum about 10 years ago. It was generally agreed that, if the monarchy were abolished, then there would be a President of Australia with much the same powers as the Governor-General.

However, as usual, the devil was in the details. Republicans could not agree on how the President would be chosen (by popular election, by the Parliament, by the Prime Minister, or by some special appointing body), or on if and how the President's powers should be codified (some of the monarch's -- and the Governor-General's -- powers are given in the Constitution of Australia, but some are left up to convention, and people can differ about what the conventions are or should be, as was learned in November 1975).

I guess the first question is should I capitalize the word "Royalty" in regards to the British Kingdom.

This is a matter of style. Consult the style manual that applies to what you're writing.

In general, I don't think there's any compelling reason to capitalize it in the phrase "British royalty." If you are using "the Royals" as a proper noun, you might capitalize that, the same way you would "the Windsors," but "the royals" would also be correct.

[Badtz Maru]

Canada has a "Governor-General" who acts as a head of state and commander-in-chief of their armed forces. She is appointed by the Queen on the recomendation of the Prime Minister of Canada. I listened to an interview with her on NPR, she's an interesting lady. She was born in Haiti and came to Canada as a refugee, and has a background in journalism.

[Liberal]

I believe she was the one who met President Obama at the foot of Air Force One when he visited Canada. That seems appropriate since the Queen can't possibly do that sort of thing at her age. Are there similar appointments all across the United Kingdom?

[Obelix]

The Queen still has certain powers. For instance, she can withold her consent to a bill that parliament passed, in effect preventing it from becoming law. It's widely understood that doing so would cause an immediate "constitutional crisis", and would likely bring about the end of the monarchy.

More precisely, by convention, the Queen only acts on the advice of her Prime Minister. So if (for some reason) the Prime Minister advised her to withhold Royal Assent, she would be constitutionally required to do so. This has happened in the past in some Westminster-based jurisdictions.

If she did it on her own, then of course all bets are off, and it's likely she'd be declared unable to reign before the dust cleared. There are cases where the Queen can act against the advice of her Prime Minister, but she'd better have the moral high ground and/or the support of the people.

That issue was settled over a stretch of centuries, when Parliament tried Charles I for treason, then executed him, through the Bloodless Revolution, finally to the reform bills of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

It's worth noting that the Bloodless or Glorious Revolution wasn't totally bloodless.

If the monarchy were to be abolished, then who would become the heads of state in all the various places like England and Canada? Would they elect presidents?

The Queen of the UK, Queen of Canada, Queen of Grenada, etc. are totally separate legal persons. If one of these countries abolishes the monarchy, it should in theory not affect the others. There is some discussion on this point, though. The preamble of the Statute of Westminster 1931 specifies that

it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

This may mean that in order to abolish the monarchy, all countries who have Queen Elizabeth as head of state must agree to the change. But likely not. The preamble is probably not legally enforceable, and in any case it would contradict the fact that all these countries are now totally sovereign.

Yes, it's likely that if a Commonwealth Realm abolishes the monarchy, it would switch to a presidential head of state. There are many kinds of presidents. As Giles points out, Australia held a referendum on abolishing the monarchy; if it had passed, the country would now have a figurehead president with no more duties than the Governor-General currently has.

I believe she was the one who met President Obama at the foot of Air Force One when he visited Canada. That seems appropriate since the Queen can't possibly do that sort of thing at her age. Are there similar appointments all across the United Kingdom?

The Canadian Governor General (usually spelled without a hyphen, unlike other Governor-Generals; I don't know why) represents the Queen in Canada. The Queen fills her head of state duties in Canada only on very specific occasions; most of the time it's the job of the Governor General. It has nothing to do with the Queen's age.

All Commonwealth Realms (the countries with Queen Elizabeth as head of state, actually a subset of the Commonwealth of Nations) have a Governor-General, except for the UK where the Queen resides.