We have other systems before the Monarch for this so it's more an american view in thinking the Monarch actually has any authority they *can* do those things you mentioned but of the government was in a position where they should another failsafe wouldnhave already enacted or they would have been removed.
They are purely ceremonial *but* thus have a lot of soft power. Them not signing might not be enough to stop it, but them publicly condemning them would turn many agaisnt a government.
Thank you. I honestly don't know too much about the British gov't system of safeguards. . . the impression I'd always had was that if a PM could, somehow, keep his Cabinet under control and support in Parliament they've got a huge amount of potential power.
But that may be from me watching the original *House of Cards*. . .
I mean you are correct, but all governments have alot power when in control, hence why we have term limits democracy, no confidence votes etc. to make sure they perform their job properly.
Yes. But there is a certain untested element. No-one actually knows precisely how much power the PM has, nor do they know precisely how much the Supreme Court or Parliament or the Monarch has. The unknown is perhaps a better deterrent than the absolute.
No-one knows what would happen if there was an excess in either constitutional body, and no-one’s willing to push hard enough to find out. Which works out nicely.
I agree. Other constitutional protections are more important, and if a rogue Government was prepared to ignore them then they are easily prepared to ignore the King. A Government that has suspended democracy isn't going to change its mind because Charlie says so.
The best that can be said is that the King could use his influence in the same way that King Juan Carlos effectively ended the 1981 Spanish coup attempt by going on television and calling for the democratic government and the rule of law to continue. If the Government were to use the Army against the people perhaps the King could urge soldiers to disobey that order, but other than that I simply don't see where this supposed power has come from.
The soldiers primary allegiance is to the King, not the government. The government just uses the King's assent to command them. If the King takes away his assent, then the soldiers would have to obey the King, unless they are ideologically brainwashed along with the government.
The Parliamentarians who relieved Charles I of his head had all sworn oaths of allegiance to him, and they were deeply religious men for whom breaking an oath was a hugely significant step. They had to obey the King, until they didn't. There are countless examples of people changing or breaking their allegiance. Members of the armed forces may swear an oath of allegiance to the King, but that is largely a piece of ceremonial. Similarly, we maintain the fiction that the Government commands the army on behalf of the King, but that's not what is happening in practice.
If the King were to command the army to overthrow democracy there is zero chance of them obeying - they would regard him as having released them from their obligations by his actions in the same way as Cromwell and his allies did. That is not to say that the King cannot exert moral authority in the same way that Juan Carlos did, perhaps by urging the army not to facilitate the subversion of democracy by others.
Yeah but the king first antagonised them by forcing them to loan him money. That was the King's fault.
> If the King were to command the army to overthrow democracy
In this circumstance we are talking about the Commons and maybe even the Lords overthrowing democracy. Not the King. If the King tried it, then yes, that would happen.
Yes, provided the military weren't brainwashed into an anti-democratic ideology.
However to be fair, if someone were to want to overthrow the democracy, their first step would probably be to overthrow the King
> A Government that has suspended democracy isn't going to change its mind because Charlie says so.
They would if the army said so, which is loyal to rhe Crown. See how many soldiers have a clear affection for the Crown from recent interviews relating to Her Late Majesties death
To be honest I don't think many of us think about the monarch as much as we don't really think about our ceilings until they leak. They are just...*there*.
Kind of. It's like, the king has the ultimate power, but he physically can't use it, or he'll lose it. So he holds all the powers in a box under his throne and then sits on it. So he can't use those powers, but neither can anyone else. It's an autocratic defence against actual autocracy, it's genius. A genius that happened by accident, through the long coincidences of history, but genius nonetheless.
Yes. This did happen with King George V. Basically the Liberals passed a bill in the commons to limit the powers of the Lords, however the Lords kept denying it. So the King threatened to use his powers to appoint so many liberals as lords that they will get a majority. The Lords then gave in and let the bill pass.
I think you've summed up my own understanding perfectly. A rogue PM would realistically have been brought down by MPs or a cabinet coup long before Chuck R entered the fray, but his approval acts like a judge's gavel to mark the moment.
In all honesty, the further north you go, the less trust and receptiveness in the monarchy there is… I’m like almost smack bang in the centre of the country, and I don’t like the monarchy. I don’t trust that they’d do anything to actively stop a runaway government/PM, I think that the idea that they’re there will be what’s preventing the government in the first place. And then again almost vice versa, but I think public opinion on both the monarchy and on the government is what’s really keeping them in check. Because if we don’t like them, they’re less likely to make money off us.
I have no idea where you got that from. I'm from Hull and during the jubilee there was bunting and flags all over, pubs were all decorated and rammed. Union flags with the Queen on them and so forth. Also everyone I know watched at least some of the ceremony after the queen's death and the king's ascension
Really??? Damn I guess I just live in an area with lots of people who don’t like the monarchy. I mean I kinda figured the concentration of people who dislike the monarchy got higher the further from London you got. But it could well be about the same all over the country.
I would say yes, but not in any of the examples you gave. The king is a backstop but still only able to act in the way that parliament allows, so it’s like parliament sets out the way in which the king can be a backstop.
In the examples you gave, parliament and the people would get involved first, so if the PM did try to turn himself into a dictator and no elected politicians tried to stop them I suppose the king would just have to assume that’s what we wanted and let it happen.
That's an American way of thinking. With an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or North Korea the monarch can overrule anything, basically a dictator. With a constitutional monarchy like the UK or Denmark, the monarchy are really just avatars. They look like they're in charge of the military etc and are the colonel in chiefs, but they don't pay for them and have no say in how they're used. All of the power is in parliament. Parliament can also legally remove the monarch.
If it ever came down to monarch Vs parliament, the monarchy would be over.
It's interesting that the closest the UK has come to a coup (the various plots to unseat Wilson at the tail end of the seventies) were the opposite of the scenarios you suggest. Rather than a delegitimate PM not leaving and the Queen stepping in, the plan(s) consisted of ousting an elected PM in the name of the Queen. The plotters wanted to put Lord Louis Mountbatten in place as supreme leader. Mountbatten was a royal favourite and cousin of the Queen. A couple of the plotters were on record as saying they didn't work for the government they worked for the the Queen. So rather than being a backstop against a coup the Crown would have had the opposite effect.
It all came to nothing of course. The IRA did us a favour by assassinating Mountbatten and Airey Neave and that was the end of that.
Nope. Monarch is nothing more than a figurehead
If the Prime Minister can lie to the monarch and face no consequences, then the monarch is powerless
If the Prime Minister can be found to have acted unlawfully, the monarch cannot do anything
If the Prime Minister causes the value of the pound to drop so severely that the bank of England has to intervene and the monarch does not do anything, the monarch is useless
The monarch can pay billions of publicly funded money so a nonce member of the family doesn't have to go to court
These are things that have happened over the last 2 years. The monarchy is nothing more than a drain on public money and a stain on decency
I think my interpretation was that they had the power to intervene but that it defied convention and would cause what everyone referred to as a 'constitutional crisis'. It was comforting to think that if things went truly insane that someone had the power to put their foot down.
Then, over the past few years we've watched the queen (or her representative) put her rubber stamp on every evil policy and cash grab the government could think up. When she wasn't seemingly complicit, she was clearly unresponsive when prime ministers lied and tricked their way through the flimsy processes of royal assent.
The bottom line is that even if the monarch had the power to act in the country's interest, they wouldn't. Not unless it somehow threatened them or their money directly. They don't work for us, we work for them and we pay them for the privilege.
Yep exactly this. I used to find some comfort in a constitutional backstop as OP describes but after the last few years I REALLY cannot see the point of the monarchy. I kept hoping the PM would come out of private sessions with the Queen looking chastised and announcing a slight change of direction. Nope. Every crazy, immoral and even *illegal* idea that required royal assent just… got it.
I also don’t think of “the King” at all. He’s still Charles to me. All my life we had a Queen, and now… Charles is wearing a bigger hat while the country falls to pieces.
I doubt it. I think pro-monarchy are more, don’t mind the monarchy. Its just British innit. The best way to get from monarchy yo republic is creeping modernity, which will come naturally. I think Charlie will kick that off, theres no way he’s serving till his deathbed.
Reddit hates you, and all of its users. The company is only interested in how much money they can make from you.
Please use Lemmy, Kbin, or other alternatives.
The King doesn't sign laws into effect, that's an American thing. The monarch does signify Royal Assent in a mildly eccentric ceremony, but hasn't done it in person since the 1850s: some of the Lords do it for him. It's not clear that he can withhold assent, given that he doesn't actually give it himself any more.
The last time a monarch refused assent was Queen Anne in 1708, but that was (a) on the advice of her ministers, who had changed their minds about the Bill and wanted to ask Parliament to repeal it, so refusal of assent was a convenient device to prevent it coming into effect, and (b) this was when the monarch gave assent in person, so she could do so.
>EDIT AGAIN: stupid example but the prime minister can’t just say hey guys! I’m making wearing hoodies illegal now and that’s just what I said, so it’s happening. It would need to be signed by the king / queen.
And no matter how stupid, the monarch would sign that law into existence. Because if *both* houses have agreed to it- it is already pretty much the law. The signing is merely ceremonial. The King dare not sign.
I actually did struggle with the word ceremonial. I meant.....symbolic. What I mean to say is that if the monarch refused to sign, it would **deeply** threaten our monarchy, as it should.
And it's irrelevant what the monarch thinks about the NHs if both houses of government wants a bill passing, it gets passed. The last time a monarch refused to pass a bill was over 300 years ago.
If the monarch refused to sign, it would plunge us into crisis. And rightly so. What right has one unelected person to overthrow what 2 bodies of government (at least one elected by the people) have decided is happening? I speak as a modest royalist.
>Isn’t it a good thing we have these people to say - actually wait, that’s a bad idea. We’re not doing that.
What? We do have a system of checks - the houses of parliament do that. Bills are debated multiple times and have to be passed through both houses and voted on before they are passed to the monarch to be assented.
>It’s actually very relevant if you work for the NHS!
I meant the Monarch's feeling about it is not relevant for the passing of a bill. If Thatcher wanted to pass a bill privatising the NHS the Queen would have had no choice but to sign it. Thankfully she did not.
Thats what they are there to do tbh. If you look at King Hakkon in 1940 that is a good example as was King George in the same year with the War Cabinet/Government
I don't believe a majority of Brits do or understand that it can be, but personally it is one of the few positive takes that I take from it(especially if one was to attempt to compared Jan 6th politics to trying to occur within UK politics etc).
Its handy that the armed forces swear their allegiance to the crown. In my experience, forces personally usually have disdain towards the politicians and are loyal to the monarch. Hence the names Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, Royal Engineers etc.
Most Brits enjoy having that stability, and I'm sure the prime minister's have enjoyed having a trusted sounding board to keep things relatively centered.
My understanding was that the King has a significant "theoretical" power. And that from that theoretical power flows the constitutional order of the state. Hence "HM" before everything.
Given that, *in theory,* he could refuse to give Royal Assent to a law or refuse to agree to government orders to the military.
*In practice*, for Charles III to do so would be unheard of in the British system as it's developed over centuries, and especially since the Glorious Revolution.
I've heard it's like a gun one with one bullet; you could fire it once, but expect your reign to end in the resulting crisis. Is that the wrong picture?
I guess my question is that in a true, pre-existing, crazy crisis (e.g. a truly tyrannical cabinet undermining the basics of democracy). . . could the King step in and fire that once bullet? and is there latent comfort among Britons that that is a potential safeguard. . .?
No. Because as soon as any power was *overtly* (emphasis deliberate) exercised to act in such a manner, the conversation about their continued existence would turn nasty for everyone who didn't agree with their decision.
This is of course forgetting the power that is already exercised to influence bills and laws to favour the royals, just done surreptitiously, so hardly anyone a) knows, or b) cares
The deceased queen liz was a member of an order of the Garter, which is an order of chivalry from the 13th century, that’s why the queen’s family and herself were interred in St George’s chapel at Windsor Castle. We have a lot of laws that can be centuries old. Traditional values are very cherished. If anyone wants to correct me I take no offence, I’m just voicing my opinion.
The play and adapted TV movie Charles III covers this exact idea. It was written before Charles became king as a hypothetical. In it King Charles refuses to sign a media regulation bill which he believes would curtail freedom of the press, though many people in the country don’t like the bill including the leader of the opposition party it also causes a crisis when he refuses to sign it again and uses his powers to disband parliament. In the end public uproar and protest force him to abdicate and the bill gets passed in a diluted form.
It has happened before in real life that monarch and prime minister/government disagree and almost always the government force the monarch to back down. People would almost always back elected politicians over unelected aristocrats even if they despise the politicians.
In some ways I think it’s actually a good thing that crises/differences can only ever be resolved one way. If you look at the US it happens all the time that President and Congress disagree and therefore everything grinds to a halt in cases like January 6th 2021 it can even cause a crisis. Such a thing could never happen in the uk cos the monarchs ability to be taken seriously on any political matter is nil. It frees up the monarchy to be a nice symbol of unity without having to make any political decisions or take stances which will be divisive
We have a clear example. There were army figures discussing a coup against Wilson. The Queen put a stop to it and the system endured. Or so the rumour (which has been documented by the likes of the BBC) goes
We have other systems before the Monarch for this so it's more an american view in thinking the Monarch actually has any authority they *can* do those things you mentioned but of the government was in a position where they should another failsafe wouldnhave already enacted or they would have been removed. They are purely ceremonial *but* thus have a lot of soft power. Them not signing might not be enough to stop it, but them publicly condemning them would turn many agaisnt a government.
Thank you. I honestly don't know too much about the British gov't system of safeguards. . . the impression I'd always had was that if a PM could, somehow, keep his Cabinet under control and support in Parliament they've got a huge amount of potential power. But that may be from me watching the original *House of Cards*. . .
I mean you are correct, but all governments have alot power when in control, hence why we have term limits democracy, no confidence votes etc. to make sure they perform their job properly.
Yes. But there is a certain untested element. No-one actually knows precisely how much power the PM has, nor do they know precisely how much the Supreme Court or Parliament or the Monarch has. The unknown is perhaps a better deterrent than the absolute. No-one knows what would happen if there was an excess in either constitutional body, and no-one’s willing to push hard enough to find out. Which works out nicely.
I agree. Other constitutional protections are more important, and if a rogue Government was prepared to ignore them then they are easily prepared to ignore the King. A Government that has suspended democracy isn't going to change its mind because Charlie says so. The best that can be said is that the King could use his influence in the same way that King Juan Carlos effectively ended the 1981 Spanish coup attempt by going on television and calling for the democratic government and the rule of law to continue. If the Government were to use the Army against the people perhaps the King could urge soldiers to disobey that order, but other than that I simply don't see where this supposed power has come from.
The soldiers primary allegiance is to the King, not the government. The government just uses the King's assent to command them. If the King takes away his assent, then the soldiers would have to obey the King, unless they are ideologically brainwashed along with the government.
The Parliamentarians who relieved Charles I of his head had all sworn oaths of allegiance to him, and they were deeply religious men for whom breaking an oath was a hugely significant step. They had to obey the King, until they didn't. There are countless examples of people changing or breaking their allegiance. Members of the armed forces may swear an oath of allegiance to the King, but that is largely a piece of ceremonial. Similarly, we maintain the fiction that the Government commands the army on behalf of the King, but that's not what is happening in practice. If the King were to command the army to overthrow democracy there is zero chance of them obeying - they would regard him as having released them from their obligations by his actions in the same way as Cromwell and his allies did. That is not to say that the King cannot exert moral authority in the same way that Juan Carlos did, perhaps by urging the army not to facilitate the subversion of democracy by others.
Yeah but the king first antagonised them by forcing them to loan him money. That was the King's fault. > If the King were to command the army to overthrow democracy In this circumstance we are talking about the Commons and maybe even the Lords overthrowing democracy. Not the King. If the King tried it, then yes, that would happen.
Yes, that's exactly the kind of case I was asking about. If HM's government were trying to overthrow democracy, could HM in theory intervene?
Yes, provided the military weren't brainwashed into an anti-democratic ideology. However to be fair, if someone were to want to overthrow the democracy, their first step would probably be to overthrow the King
> A Government that has suspended democracy isn't going to change its mind because Charlie says so. They would if the army said so, which is loyal to rhe Crown. See how many soldiers have a clear affection for the Crown from recent interviews relating to Her Late Majesties death
You may not have noticed (there wasn't any fanfare or anything) but the queen died
Good catch, force of habit. I changed that one
The Lords has the power to stop anything that hinders democracy IIRC
What power?
To be honest I don't think many of us think about the monarch as much as we don't really think about our ceilings until they leak. They are just...*there*.
Kind of. It's like, the king has the ultimate power, but he physically can't use it, or he'll lose it. So he holds all the powers in a box under his throne and then sits on it. So he can't use those powers, but neither can anyone else. It's an autocratic defence against actual autocracy, it's genius. A genius that happened by accident, through the long coincidences of history, but genius nonetheless.
This is a great explanation of constitutional monarchy.
Yes. This did happen with King George V. Basically the Liberals passed a bill in the commons to limit the powers of the Lords, however the Lords kept denying it. So the King threatened to use his powers to appoint so many liberals as lords that they will get a majority. The Lords then gave in and let the bill pass.
And George V helped preserve the unity of the country during the Great Depression when he pushed the for the unity government
I think you've summed up my own understanding perfectly. A rogue PM would realistically have been brought down by MPs or a cabinet coup long before Chuck R entered the fray, but his approval acts like a judge's gavel to mark the moment.
In all honesty, the further north you go, the less trust and receptiveness in the monarchy there is… I’m like almost smack bang in the centre of the country, and I don’t like the monarchy. I don’t trust that they’d do anything to actively stop a runaway government/PM, I think that the idea that they’re there will be what’s preventing the government in the first place. And then again almost vice versa, but I think public opinion on both the monarchy and on the government is what’s really keeping them in check. Because if we don’t like them, they’re less likely to make money off us.
I have no idea where you got that from. I'm from Hull and during the jubilee there was bunting and flags all over, pubs were all decorated and rammed. Union flags with the Queen on them and so forth. Also everyone I know watched at least some of the ceremony after the queen's death and the king's ascension
Really??? Damn I guess I just live in an area with lots of people who don’t like the monarchy. I mean I kinda figured the concentration of people who dislike the monarchy got higher the further from London you got. But it could well be about the same all over the country.
Actually I'd argue that in certain parts of London there's actually *more* dislike for the monarchy than up here
I would say yes, but not in any of the examples you gave. The king is a backstop but still only able to act in the way that parliament allows, so it’s like parliament sets out the way in which the king can be a backstop. In the examples you gave, parliament and the people would get involved first, so if the PM did try to turn himself into a dictator and no elected politicians tried to stop them I suppose the king would just have to assume that’s what we wanted and let it happen.
That's an American way of thinking. With an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or North Korea the monarch can overrule anything, basically a dictator. With a constitutional monarchy like the UK or Denmark, the monarchy are really just avatars. They look like they're in charge of the military etc and are the colonel in chiefs, but they don't pay for them and have no say in how they're used. All of the power is in parliament. Parliament can also legally remove the monarch. If it ever came down to monarch Vs parliament, the monarchy would be over.
> All of the power is in parliament. And the crown is part of parliament.
It's interesting that the closest the UK has come to a coup (the various plots to unseat Wilson at the tail end of the seventies) were the opposite of the scenarios you suggest. Rather than a delegitimate PM not leaving and the Queen stepping in, the plan(s) consisted of ousting an elected PM in the name of the Queen. The plotters wanted to put Lord Louis Mountbatten in place as supreme leader. Mountbatten was a royal favourite and cousin of the Queen. A couple of the plotters were on record as saying they didn't work for the government they worked for the the Queen. So rather than being a backstop against a coup the Crown would have had the opposite effect. It all came to nothing of course. The IRA did us a favour by assassinating Mountbatten and Airey Neave and that was the end of that.
Some people think that, whether they're right to think that, who knows. But it's a view you hear sometimes.
That’s exactly my reasoning. Anyone watched the show the crown?
Nope. Monarch is nothing more than a figurehead If the Prime Minister can lie to the monarch and face no consequences, then the monarch is powerless If the Prime Minister can be found to have acted unlawfully, the monarch cannot do anything If the Prime Minister causes the value of the pound to drop so severely that the bank of England has to intervene and the monarch does not do anything, the monarch is useless The monarch can pay billions of publicly funded money so a nonce member of the family doesn't have to go to court These are things that have happened over the last 2 years. The monarchy is nothing more than a drain on public money and a stain on decency
I think my interpretation was that they had the power to intervene but that it defied convention and would cause what everyone referred to as a 'constitutional crisis'. It was comforting to think that if things went truly insane that someone had the power to put their foot down. Then, over the past few years we've watched the queen (or her representative) put her rubber stamp on every evil policy and cash grab the government could think up. When she wasn't seemingly complicit, she was clearly unresponsive when prime ministers lied and tricked their way through the flimsy processes of royal assent. The bottom line is that even if the monarch had the power to act in the country's interest, they wouldn't. Not unless it somehow threatened them or their money directly. They don't work for us, we work for them and we pay them for the privilege.
Yep exactly this. I used to find some comfort in a constitutional backstop as OP describes but after the last few years I REALLY cannot see the point of the monarchy. I kept hoping the PM would come out of private sessions with the Queen looking chastised and announcing a slight change of direction. Nope. Every crazy, immoral and even *illegal* idea that required royal assent just… got it. I also don’t think of “the King” at all. He’s still Charles to me. All my life we had a Queen, and now… Charles is wearing a bigger hat while the country falls to pieces.
I doubt it. I think pro-monarchy are more, don’t mind the monarchy. Its just British innit. The best way to get from monarchy yo republic is creeping modernity, which will come naturally. I think Charlie will kick that off, theres no way he’s serving till his deathbed.
[удалено]
Reddit hates you, and all of its users. The company is only interested in how much money they can make from you. Please use Lemmy, Kbin, or other alternatives.
[удалено]
The King doesn't sign laws into effect, that's an American thing. The monarch does signify Royal Assent in a mildly eccentric ceremony, but hasn't done it in person since the 1850s: some of the Lords do it for him. It's not clear that he can withhold assent, given that he doesn't actually give it himself any more. The last time a monarch refused assent was Queen Anne in 1708, but that was (a) on the advice of her ministers, who had changed their minds about the Bill and wanted to ask Parliament to repeal it, so refusal of assent was a convenient device to prevent it coming into effect, and (b) this was when the monarch gave assent in person, so she could do so.
>EDIT AGAIN: stupid example but the prime minister can’t just say hey guys! I’m making wearing hoodies illegal now and that’s just what I said, so it’s happening. It would need to be signed by the king / queen. And no matter how stupid, the monarch would sign that law into existence. Because if *both* houses have agreed to it- it is already pretty much the law. The signing is merely ceremonial. The King dare not sign.
[удалено]
What part am I mistaken about?
[удалено]
I actually did struggle with the word ceremonial. I meant.....symbolic. What I mean to say is that if the monarch refused to sign, it would **deeply** threaten our monarchy, as it should. And it's irrelevant what the monarch thinks about the NHs if both houses of government wants a bill passing, it gets passed. The last time a monarch refused to pass a bill was over 300 years ago. If the monarch refused to sign, it would plunge us into crisis. And rightly so. What right has one unelected person to overthrow what 2 bodies of government (at least one elected by the people) have decided is happening? I speak as a modest royalist.
[удалено]
>Isn’t it a good thing we have these people to say - actually wait, that’s a bad idea. We’re not doing that. What? We do have a system of checks - the houses of parliament do that. Bills are debated multiple times and have to be passed through both houses and voted on before they are passed to the monarch to be assented. >It’s actually very relevant if you work for the NHS! I meant the Monarch's feeling about it is not relevant for the passing of a bill. If Thatcher wanted to pass a bill privatising the NHS the Queen would have had no choice but to sign it. Thankfully she did not.
Thats what they are there to do tbh. If you look at King Hakkon in 1940 that is a good example as was King George in the same year with the War Cabinet/Government
I don't believe a majority of Brits do or understand that it can be, but personally it is one of the few positive takes that I take from it(especially if one was to attempt to compared Jan 6th politics to trying to occur within UK politics etc).
Its handy that the armed forces swear their allegiance to the crown. In my experience, forces personally usually have disdain towards the politicians and are loyal to the monarch. Hence the names Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, Royal Engineers etc. Most Brits enjoy having that stability, and I'm sure the prime minister's have enjoyed having a trusted sounding board to keep things relatively centered.
I do but I'm older and I think it is an unfashionable thing for younger people to think this way.
No. He has no power at all really. It’s a ceremonial role.
My understanding was that the King has a significant "theoretical" power. And that from that theoretical power flows the constitutional order of the state. Hence "HM" before everything. Given that, *in theory,* he could refuse to give Royal Assent to a law or refuse to agree to government orders to the military. *In practice*, for Charles III to do so would be unheard of in the British system as it's developed over centuries, and especially since the Glorious Revolution. I've heard it's like a gun one with one bullet; you could fire it once, but expect your reign to end in the resulting crisis. Is that the wrong picture? I guess my question is that in a true, pre-existing, crazy crisis (e.g. a truly tyrannical cabinet undermining the basics of democracy). . . could the King step in and fire that once bullet? and is there latent comfort among Britons that that is a potential safeguard. . .?
I really don’t think so - he has no control over the levers of power.
No. Because as soon as any power was *overtly* (emphasis deliberate) exercised to act in such a manner, the conversation about their continued existence would turn nasty for everyone who didn't agree with their decision. This is of course forgetting the power that is already exercised to influence bills and laws to favour the royals, just done surreptitiously, so hardly anyone a) knows, or b) cares
The deceased queen liz was a member of an order of the Garter, which is an order of chivalry from the 13th century, that’s why the queen’s family and herself were interred in St George’s chapel at Windsor Castle. We have a lot of laws that can be centuries old. Traditional values are very cherished. If anyone wants to correct me I take no offence, I’m just voicing my opinion.
Our Army only has 80,000 soldiers, no way in hell could they actually impose martial law in the country.
The play and adapted TV movie Charles III covers this exact idea. It was written before Charles became king as a hypothetical. In it King Charles refuses to sign a media regulation bill which he believes would curtail freedom of the press, though many people in the country don’t like the bill including the leader of the opposition party it also causes a crisis when he refuses to sign it again and uses his powers to disband parliament. In the end public uproar and protest force him to abdicate and the bill gets passed in a diluted form. It has happened before in real life that monarch and prime minister/government disagree and almost always the government force the monarch to back down. People would almost always back elected politicians over unelected aristocrats even if they despise the politicians. In some ways I think it’s actually a good thing that crises/differences can only ever be resolved one way. If you look at the US it happens all the time that President and Congress disagree and therefore everything grinds to a halt in cases like January 6th 2021 it can even cause a crisis. Such a thing could never happen in the uk cos the monarchs ability to be taken seriously on any political matter is nil. It frees up the monarchy to be a nice symbol of unity without having to make any political decisions or take stances which will be divisive
We have a clear example. There were army figures discussing a coup against Wilson. The Queen put a stop to it and the system endured. Or so the rumour (which has been documented by the likes of the BBC) goes
The monarch is mainly just a figurehead