...the Queen rules at the convenience of Parliament and the Prime Minister holds weekly meetings with the sovereign out of courtesy more than anything else.
Might not the opposite of this be more likely? Strictly speaking, doesn't
everyone else rule at
her convenience? My understanding is that most of the examples commonly cited as evidence of how/why the sovereign is a "mere figurehead," are, after all's said and done, products of
custom. None is necessarily "enshrined" anywhere in any immutable way...
Again, I might be wrong here, but... Whenever I think about the modern British monarchy, my first thought is always of
a sovereign in self repose. Why? Because I have yet to come across anything that would indicate that it's not at least "technically" possible for a king or queen to rise up and reclaim any or all of the crown's ancient rights and powers. Would a constitutional crisis ensue from such reclamation? Absolutely. Hell, a civil war could ensue.
Who was the great English law scholar who said that any right or privilege or power of the Government that is
not otherwise specifically enumerated, falls under the
Royal Prerogative?
And look at military officers -- each "holds the Queen's commission" and all oaths are sworn to her alone. Similarly duty-bound: the national constabulary and the entire security apparatus of the UK -- upholding "the Queen's law," keeping "the Queen's peace" and meting out "the Queen's justice."
One might say "Yes, but those people are all bound to follow only
lawful orders." But that's precisely my point. It seems to me that a king or queen could wield the same amount of power in 2011 as his or her predecessors did centuries ago. Because there's simply a wide array of significant powers ceded to the PM and Parliament, and important royal duties performed only upon their advice that -- technically speaking -- the sovereign could claim as exclusively his/her own, at any time, without breaking any laws.
Anyway... Just tossing around some "what if" stuff that I happen to find somewhat fascinating -- as an American, in a society that doesn't consider anything a law unless it's been spelled out, in writing, with agonizing, litigious heaps of details and nary a "t" not crossed nor an "i" not dotted...
Most Brits would consider all of the foregoing to be utter and complete rubbish...
Quid novi? Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas?
reply
share
13 years ago
[deleted]
eStreetBeat
13 years ago
The military swearing allegiance to a person, to me is unsettling.
Hmm. Another good observation there -- funny, but I never really thought about that before! Maybe because my wife's English, and because I've spent a good deal of time in the UK and know a lot of good people there...
But, when you put it that way... You can't help but think about the more sinister parallels from history. The obvious example is probably the Nazi military, swearing allegiance to Uncle Adolf personally... But, God knows, I could sooner imagine myself growing a third arm than imagine the Brits with a totalitarian system of
any kind...
Ever...
Here's the current UK oath sworn by a wide variety of public servants, military and police people and even by naturalized citizens: "I,___________, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."
Since it includes the words "according to law," then, if there are hard and fast laws that specifically constrain the sovereign, there's no chance of what I was talking about ever happening. I just don't know of any... Really, though: even if there aren't any, the Brits have done fine with their unwritten constitution and common laws for a lot longer than we've been around, right? So who are we to criticize?
Still... I do agree with you that it somehow feels safer to have things spelled out in writing somewhere. Maybe it's just
an American thing?
Quid novi? Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas?
reply
share
BoultersCanary
13 years ago
The military swearing allegiance to a person, to me is unsettling.
Not as unsettling as schoolkids making the pledge of allegiance every school day is to we Brits. That smacks of excessive patriotic zeal to us. (See Kipling's 'Stalky' story 'The Flag of Their Country' for a - not entirely spurious - look at the difference between 'flag flapping' and real love of country. Or, at least, Kipling's view)
Here's the current UK oath sworn by a wide variety of public servants, military and police people and even by naturalized citizens:
That is the basic version. In fact, there are different versions for each function it is used for. Here, for example, is the military one (The Royal Navy doesn't swear an oath, btw, as it is not maintained by Act of Parliament): -
I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God.
Others can be found here: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_%28United_Kingdom%29
I could sooner imagine myself growing a third arm than imagine the Brits with a totalitarian system of any kind... Ever...
Some might say we came close, under a certain female Prime Minister........
The church may shout but Darwin roars
reply
share
dressage1445
12 years ago
I hear what you are saying about our schoolchildren reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, but as an American who attended public school I can tell you very few of my schoolmates actually cared about saying the Pledge, and it was certainly not recited with anything like patriotic zeal. We said it at the very beginning of the day, when no one (at least in high school, which started earlier in the day than elementary school) was thrilled to be awake and in school, simply because is was a habit we were accustomed to do. In fact, in elementary school I think we could have gotten in trouble for refusing, but that was more to prevent students from thinking they could get away with refusing to respect the teacher or participate in class. In high school most teachers tolerated students who chose to sit through it, as long as they were quiet.
reply
share
joyfarrah
12 years ago
Traditionally, English monarchs have ruled "according to law" and even in times when hte monarch had much more power, have generally followed hte laws and customs of the people, not ruled arbitrarily. When Charles I tried to rule without Parliament, he was opposed and eventually excecuted. James II was driven into exile when he tried to impose his own relgion on the English polity. THe queen rules according to law.. which means that she accepts the advice of the Prime Minister.
reply
share