Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Brexit
Original poster

can the Queen refuse?

30 replies

vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 28/08/2019 14:38

Could she just say "no" to Boris' request?

I know she has always taken the advice of her PM and has never commented on politics - but, this PM is not elected, has only had one day in Parliament while it was open and is causing a constitutional crisis. I can't imagine she is enjoying working with Boris (and Trump) after working with some brilliant minds over the decades.

Added bonus - would stop us all from paying attention to Prince Andrew.

I'd be seriously tempted, if I was Betty.

OP posts:
SleepyKat · 28/08/2019 14:42

I should think she can. It's whether she will or not that is the question. She may feel that she can't get involved even if she wants to. On the other hand she may feel it's shady practice and shouldn't be allowed.

It's interesting stuff. Has it ever happened before?

FelixFelicis6 · 28/08/2019 14:49

She wouldn’t, it’s just not at all realistic. We have an unwritten constitution so it’s not formally written into law - but it would be absolutely unthinkable and just wouldn’t happen.

Original poster
vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 28/08/2019 14:51

The situation we are in now is also not realistic.

My grandma seemed to thrive on saying exactly what she thought when she was in her 90s.

Bet the Queen is ITCHING to tell Boris what she thinks, and I'm confident that she's very bright and not amused one bit.

OP posts:
verticality · 28/08/2019 14:53

She can, but I highly doubt she will.

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 28/08/2019 14:57

In theory, the Queen has the right to refuse to suspend Parliament, or to call an election, or to accept the leader of the party with a majority as her Prime Minister - but in practice, she would not do any of these things because it would cause constitutional mayhem.

The unwritten rule of our constitution is that the monarch possesses a range of powers, but that they do not actually exercise them independently of the will of Parliament and the electorate.

She could, however, counsel against a step that she felt was not constitutional. She has had 14 Prime Ministers during her reign, and has, since before her accession to the throne, been reading Government papers and talking to politicians and her PMs, and is a wealth of constitutional and governmental knowledge and experience. She has to remain impartial, but can advise - and it would be a foolish PM who didn't at least listen to what she has to say.

BambooBoobam · 28/08/2019 15:03

Well she’s just given her permission...

ArtichokeAardvark · 28/08/2019 15:06

Nope, she can't. Watch the play King Charles III (it was adapted for TV last year so probs on iPlayer still), the entire premise of the play is based on Charles becoming king and overruling parliament. It would be a major constitutional disaster, technically yes the monarch can veto parliament but it hasn't gone well since the days of Oliver Cromwell.

flouncyfanny · 28/08/2019 15:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

hiddenmnetter · 28/08/2019 15:23

This prime ministers is elected. The people who get to vote for PM voted for him. He was elected, the same as every other PM, by his or her colleagues in their party.

verticality · 28/08/2019 15:23

"yes the monarch can veto parliament but it hasn't gone well since the days of Oliver Cromwell."

This isn't about parliament. It's a relation between the monarch and the executive government.

BelindasGleeTeam · 28/08/2019 15:24

Too late. She has.

BustedDreams · 28/08/2019 15:34

This is something that generally happens each autumn. The current parliamentary session is from June 2017. That is the longest session in 400 years.

What is questionable is if Boris uses to his advantage.

woman19 · 28/08/2019 19:20

We can all choose to act well.
She chose not to.

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 28/08/2019 19:36

In reality, @woman19, she didn’t have a choice. In theory she could have said no, but in practice the monarch does not act against the wishes of her Government - for example, the Queen can dissolve Parliament, forcing a General Election, but in reality, she only does this at the request of the Prime Minister - she can’t just wake up and do it of her own bat.

Theworldisfullofgs · 28/08/2019 19:48

Not really. It would be v difficult constitutionally.

Reality is royalty is a decorative bauble with some influence about how things are but no real power. Interesting side effect of brexit is it has made me a Republican. They are an expensive decorative bauble, which have no real use in a democracy.

woman19 · 28/08/2019 19:57

We all have choices.

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 28/08/2019 20:06

In the constitutional relationship between the Monarch and Parliament, the monarch’s choices are very limited, @woman19. It doesn’t matter how many times you say everyone has choices, the facts in this particular case are that the Queen did not have the choice to refuse the Government’s request to prorogue Parliament.

I know it seems counterintuitive - after all, she is the Queen, Head of State, and in the past, the Monarch truly did rule the country, but that has changed dramatically over the centuries, and now it is Parliament and the Government who are really in charge. They act in the Queen’s name, and she has to give her assent to things, or sign Acts of Parliament, but in practice, she would not refuse her assent.

If she did, it would precipitate a constitutional crisis.

woman19 · 28/08/2019 20:08

This is a constitutional crisis.

Other european royals have stood up to fascists.

She chose not to.

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 28/08/2019 20:11

If she did, it would be the end of the Monarchy - she is deeply committed to her duty to the country, and she would not make a decision that would turn the country into a Republic.

So no, she did not have any choice, in reality.

woman19 · 28/08/2019 20:17

It's a question of values.

Spanish and Greek royalty put morality before whatever that 'windsor' family value.

They stood up for their 'subjects' .

She hasn't.

Ironically the brexists are anti monarchist anyway, so it's probably over for them anyway as an institution.

countrygirl99 · 28/08/2019 20:23

What is the queen for?

MrsTerryPratchett · 28/08/2019 20:26

My theory is she gets one. Once she's used it, it won't be available any more.

She's chosen not to this time. I think that's a mistake but I'm not the monarch and I am a republican so no shits given for the future of the monarchy. I think me and her Maj differ on this point.

colouringinpro · 28/08/2019 21:05

I'm sorry, but I just do not understand how she had absolutely No choice. Difficult? yes, practically unheard of? yes. But IMPOSSIBLE???

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 28/08/2019 21:29

I would explain it as the difference between the right to do something and the ability to do it.

I have the right to run marathons, but I emphatically do not have the ability.

The Queen has a lot of powers, but essentially they are in name only - she signs Acts of Parliament, but she can only sign Acts that have been passed by Parliament - she can’t create her own laws, nor can she refuse to sign any Act Parliament has passed.

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 28/08/2019 21:31

I forgot to say - she can offer advice (and given the breadth and depth of her knowledge and experience of politics in the UK, it would be a stupid PM who didn’t at least listen), but she cannot tell them what to do.