The Right of the Crown

Former Member

BBC News Online; war against Iraq

I don't wish to be drawn in to the merits of declaring war on Iraq or not - there are other posts for that. This will, hopefully, discuss something highlighted in this article, namely;

Under Britain's rather complicated constitution, only the Crown - acting on the advice of the Prime Minister AND the Cabinet - can declare war.
Source; BBC News Online, see URL above

Is it constitutional for the monarch to reject the advice of the Cabinet? Can Her Majesty defy the PM? If Mr. Blair proposed war, could Her Majesty turn round and say "No"?

And if so; where would that leave us? Is it a constitutional crisis?

Do you think that the Queen would defy the Cabinet?

Former Member

No way will this queen defy the orders she receives from Blair. She does what shes told, mores the pity

Its just the figurehead thing again, mixed in with some sense of ceremony. Parliament makes the decisions, the queen puts her fancy stamp of approval on them and they happen.

Former Member

I imagine it's very similar to the rule that the Queen can decide not to let the government form Parliament after the election (or somesuch). As in, she could, but it would serve little purpose, the situation would be unmanagable without a parliament.

Former Member

If the Queen were to do such thing I would convert from republican to fervent monarchist. But there is a better chance of Ian Paisley being the next Pope than that happening.

In any event, Blair will do as he's told by Bush. They don't seem to give a shit about seeking UN approval anyway, so I don't think he would stop from joining a war either if the Queen didn't give her consent.

Former Member

The PM is within his rights to declare war if he chooses.

In essence he only does so on the Queen's behalf, as a result of the Royal Prerogatives. These are executive governmental powers that had been handed from the monarch to the PM over the past few centuries.

Former Member

I think it would be good if the queen to make a stand on something like this....

I mean, she can't see much future after she's gone, so she may as well go out in a blaze of glory. Maybe it could come down to a UFC type ring fight between her and blair... And you all know you'd be rooting for the monarchy then.

Former Member

Do you really think the Queen would take Saddam's side? After all, he attacked a royal house, remember?

Former Member

I think it's not so much taking Saddam's side as to questioning why Blair insists on taking Britain to war when the U.S. is capable of winning it hands down without outside help, and more importantly when the majority of the population, politicians and opinion makers in Britain are against it.

Former Member

The reality is that it would never happen.

It would bring down the monarchy if they openly opposed something which the elected Govt wanted to do. Unless, of course, the vast majority of the population didn't support them.

Even that is no certainty, afterall she gave assent to the Poll Tax, didn't she

Former Member

Are there Englishmen here who would not come to the defense of the Crown? Heaven forbid! Whatever happened to "God Save the Queen"?

It is all getting rather foul since the loss of the Empire! How about a good civil war? There has not been a good one in ages! Overdue wouldn't you say? Royalists versus Parliamentarians!

I side with the Crown. I am ever so sentimental. Disarm and crush the rabble of peasants! God save the Queen!

Off with their heads if they disagree!

Former Member

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
The reality is that it would never happen.

She has the power to refuse to sign anything that is given for her approval, BUT she is obliged to sign. If the government gave her a piece of paper with a law saying that the monarchy should be abolished, then she's obliged to sign it.

[sorry about my lack of eloquency this morning, I can't seem to get my brain into action]

Former Member

People have some odd ideas about the extent to which the Queen is involved in law-making.

Yes, all new laws must be given royal assent, but the Queen does not even sign them herself. The Lord Chancellor, the Queen's Representative in the House of Lords, signs them on her behalf; on most issues she is not even consulted.

The Prime Minister does meet with the Queen weekly, and it is likely that they would discuss military action against Iraq at one of these meetings. However, even if the Queen gave firm objections, it would only be one of the many factors Blair considered. He's far more interested in keeping Bush happy than he is the Queen.

The other question largely ignored by this thread is why would the Queen want to stop involvement? Have I missed something? Has she become a peace-loving hippy with the interests of Iraqi children close to her heart? I don't think so.

This Queen has probably never intervened in military affairs directly; several monarchs directly before her played no major role either. I find it highly unlikely that she will start now, in this issue over Iraq.

Former Member

The Lord Chancellor is the head of the judicial branch of government, no?

Former Member

Yes, as well as being the House of Lords equivalent to the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Interestingly, on a little more research I have found that the last monarch to reject a Bill was Queen Anne in 1707, whilst the last time a Monarch actually signed a Bill themself was Queen Victoria in 1854.

Former Member

As vox says, as far as i know, the last monarch to use their 'Royal perogotive' was Queen Ann.

Didn't know about the queen vic one!

Former Member

Originally posted by Balddog
No way will this queen defy the orders she receives from Blair. She does what shes told, mores the pity

Its just the figurehead thing again, mixed in with some sense of ceremony. Parliament makes the decisions, the queen puts her fancy stamp of approval on them and they happen.

Except that parliament may not be given the opportunity to vote on military action in iraq. Blair may just go ahead and follow Bush's lead anyway. And even if parliament voted to attack, there is no certainty that the British people they represent would agree with this decision. If the UK was a genuine democracy, there'd be a referendum on the issue.

Former Member

Originally posted by Bucksta

If the UK was a genuine democracy, there'd be a referendum on the issue.

We permanently be in the polling booths then, if the population had to be consulted on every major decision :rolleyes:

The concept of an elected parliament is that we ask our MP to make these decisions on our behalf.

Former Member

Originally posted by Bucksta


Except that parliament may not be given the opportunity to vote on military action in iraq. Blair may just go ahead and follow Bush's lead anyway. And even if parliament voted to attack, there is no certainty that the British people they represent would agree with this decision. If the UK was a genuine democracy, there'd be a referendum on the issue.

The UK is a representative democracy.

Only in a direct democracy (which cannot really be feasible with large populations) would consistent referenda take place.

Former Member

Originally posted by Man Of Kent



The concept of an elected parliament is that we ask our MP to make these decisions on our behalf.

So you're saying that you voted for your MP with full knowledge of where they would stand if a possible conflict with Iraq arose? Or do you simply have faith that they'll do the "right thing" ? Iraq was not a significant issue at the last election. It is now. The government needs a new mandate from the people before they undertake this excercise "on our behalf". Either they can call a general election, or - and this makes much more sense - they can hold a single issue referendum.

I'm not advocating holding one of these on every issue, but I reckon that the possibility of a nuclear war is a big enough reason to warrant us actually having a say on what this country is going to do. Both sides put forward their case, the people vote. It's a simple enough excercise - and it puts the power back with the people, where it belongs.

Former Member

Originally posted by Bucksta
So you're saying that you voted for your MP with full knowledge of where they would stand if a possible conflict with Iraq arose? Or do you simply have faith that they'll do the "right thing" ?

No, I didn't actually vote ofr the person who is now my MP, but I do believe that he will act within his conscience, and would rush headlong into a immoral war.

Iraq was not a significant issue at the last election.

Yes it was, we just voted on other things. Iraq has been important for over ten years now.

The government needs a new mandate from the people before they undertake this excercise "on our behalf".

No it doesn't, that is just something which the anti-war protesters want, because they believe they could win the "fight".

We elected the Govt for five years, to deal with whatever came up in that five years.

We didn't vote for them to dodge the really tough decisions when they came.

I'm not advocating holding one of these on every issue, but I reckon that the possibility of a nuclear war is a big enough reason to warrant us actually having a say on what this country is going to do.

So, if we were directly attacked, you would want a referendum before we reacted?

Former Member

If enough people oppose the prime minister, then it is a liklihood that the Queen would also oppose and block his plans. Her job is to serve the best interests of the country. If she feels a 3rd world war isn't in our best interests she is entitled to prevent it from happening.
She has the armed forces and the police on her side (all officers, soldiers take oathes of loyalty to the Queen, and most people in these instituions are Royalists anyway) and a majority of the population who think a war would be a bad idea. Blair has John Prescott. Who's your money on....?

Former Member

The PM (as the head of the Civil Service) has the ability to declare war, not the Queen. This is one of the Royal Prerogative powers.

Former Member

The Prime Minister is not head of the Home Civil Service, nor is he even part of it. Organisationally, he is part of the Exchequer. Politically, he is a person chosen by the sovereign to form a government; he does not necessarily have to be leader of the largest party in the Commons, or even an MP at all. He does not actually have the power to declare war; however, he does have such a power de facto simply due to the steady 'creep' of No. 10's power over the last century.

Former Member

That's not true. The PM's official title is the Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister of the Civil Service. Go here for more information:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/a-z_of_parliament/p-q/82559.stm