EXPLAINED: The True Power Of The Queen & Monarchy | Our History

Most people today tend to assume that despite the trappings the political role of the monarchy is wholly symbolic, long since stripped of any real significance. In fact the monarchy continues to have a great impact on the character of British politics and the Queen herself still plays the pivotal role in the political system. Parliament itself has its origins in the court of the English kings of the middle ages and sitting today in the former royal palace of Westminster it is still a fundamentally royal institution. Madam Speaker the Queen requires the attendance of this honourable house immediately in the House of Peers. The symbol of the sovereign's authority the mace rests on the table between her majesty's government and her majesty's opposition and all bills must receive royal assent before they become law. But while the same institutions still exist what has changed since the middle ages is the balance of power. The British Prime Minister is the strongest chief executive anywhere in the western world because he's largely taken the absolute powers of the monarchy unto himself or herself. It's quite wrong to think they shifted to Parliament. The line is always that sovereignty is the Queen in Parliament. Most of the powers that matter stop halfway between the palace and Westminster in number 10 Downing Street either exercised by individual secretaries of state or by the Prime Minister. All the ones that matter peace war recognizing countries unrecognizing countries are royal prerogatives but they're carried out for the Queen by the Prime Minister. So those powers are royal powers but they're put into commission with civilians properly elected civilians I have to say but still the basis of that power is royal. And while the Queen no longer has the absolute powers of her forebears she still plays a central role in the system and retains two of the most important powers in the political life of the country. The power to dissolve Parliament and the power to appoint the Prime Minister. In March this year the Privy Council of Senior Cabinet Ministers assembled at Buckingham Palace following the Prime Minister's decision to call a general election. The Queen's power to dissolve Parliament is the most important surviving power under the prerogative. The Queen of course exercises it on the advice of her ministers and has just agreed to the Prime Minister's request for a dissolution. The proclamation the terms of the proclamation are actually approved in a meeting of the Privy Council and at that meeting the Queen signs the proclamation itself and this is the document which the Queen has just signed. I will take this to the Crown Office in the House of Lords where the great seal is kept where the document will be sealed and that will have the effect forthwith of dissolving Parliament. And while the Queen has never forced a dissolution or refused one it remains an important power. Suppose you had a government which refused to go to the country after its five years were up could the Queen dismiss it? Quite possibly she could. Suppose you had a government which wanted a dissolution at a time of national emergency perhaps at a time when you had a threat to the currency could the Queen refuse a dissolution at that time? Possibly again she could. In emergency circumstances the Sovereign could exercise quite considerable influence. The Queen's other more sensitive prerogative power is that of appointing the Prime Minister. Most of the time this is the formality of appointing the captain of the winning team but when she does have to exercise her powers she risks being drawn into a political controversy. In 1963 Harold Macmillan the Prime Minister had to retire because of ill health. Very graciously the Queen came to the hospital to consult with Mr Macmillan on the appointment of his successor. As the Conservative party didn't hold leadership elections then the Queen had to make the choice herself. Rab Butler was the strongest candidate but on Macmillan's advice the Queen chose an outsider Lord Hume. Lord Hume accepted Her Majesty's invitation he was now on his way to number 10 as Prime Minister an office few people until recently ever thought would be his. Now Alec Douglas Hume was a very controversial choice there were three other candidates including R. A. Butler who many thought should have been chosen. However it wasn't for the Queen to intervene in the internal processes of the Conservative party. It wasn't for her to question the way these processes had worked out. Had she done so that would have been controversial and possibly even unconstitutional. Nevertheless the palace was caused some embarrassment and mercifully for the Queen and I'm sure to her great relief the Conservatives made sure that she was never so embarrassed again because that was the last time they've resorted to for them a novel device called votes to choose their leaders subsequently. But the Queen still faces the risk of involvement in a dangerous political controversy if there is no clear result in a general election. Following the general election in February 1974 although the Tory Prime Minister Ted Heath had fewer MPs than the Labour Party he did not resign and spent four days trying to organise a coalition with the Liberals. And the Queen has been attacked for the role she played. The Queen said to Ted Heath the Conservative Prime Minister if you can form a government I'm prepared to accept it. So despite the fact that that Tory government had been defeated by the people at a general election the Queen was quite prepared to give the Tories another run. It was only because the Liberals couldn't get their act together with the Tories that Harold Wilson then was able to form a minority Labour government. Now that is real power so don't let anybody tell me that the Queen doesn't have political power she does. But this account of Queen's role is disputed. The Queen remained entirely passive in 1974 there was no question of calling anyone to the palace Edward Heath remained Prime Minister and until he resigned there was no vacancy. But the Queen made no decisions herself she allowed the politicians to sort things out and then just registered the decision and that on the whole is how the monarchy works in the modern constitutional system of Britain. But it's clear that situations like this put the Queen in a difficult position. In March this year all the polls pointed to another hung parliament and so procedures for protecting the Queen were put into operation. The files were retrieved from the last time this had happened in February 1974 all the precedents were brought into place and the three party political leaders were called in for little private chats and told how they must conduct themselves. Now essentially this fixing was done by three people none of whom has ever been elected to anything. They're called the Golden Triangle for short and they are the Queen's Principal Private Secretary Sir Robert Fellows, the Prime Minister's Principal Private Secretary Andrew Turnbull and the Cabinet Secretary Sir Robin Butler. So it was all ready to go and I think to their considerable relief however they didn't actually have to try it this time to try and do the fixing because there's always the nagging worry at the back of their minds that it will go wrong because there are so many possible combinations. It only has to go wrong once and the monarchy is seen to be politicised. The Queen's unique position in the constitution places her above the law and gives her the right to influence acts of parliament that may affect her. Every time a piece of legislation is proposed to go through parliament it is looked at by people on behalf of the Queen to make sure that the crown's historic interests are not altered. Queen's staff the household are very zealous in her service. They're very anxious to protect her interests and sometimes they put up a very tough battle with the government department about some provision in a bill which they feel is not appropriate in relation to the Queen. For example while the royal household used to be subject to the laws on racial discrimination it was made exempt under the 1976 race relations act. It would have happened because the palace would have made some objection about being subjected to the procedures laid down by the race relations act industrial tribunals and the activities of the race relations commission and so on. But why is the Queen exempt from the laws that bind everyone else in the country? Well the courts are the Queen's courts and the Queen the sovereign the crown is the source and symbol of justice in our system. Since that is the formal position it seems right that legislation should not be passed which would have the effect as it were of creating a possibility of the crown being taken to court. Action will be taken to combat crime. The monarch's position in Britain's unwritten constitution is further protected by the rule which prevents MPs from examining such matters as royal employment practices or the Queen's finances. And we can't ask questions either on a weekly basis as we do to the prime minister or through a select committee. That was tried and the household said we are not going to answer. There was no way of making them answer on behalf of the crown. If the monarchy can be criticized in the House of Commons, if the personality of the monarch can be attacked then inevitably that would call sooner or later for the monarch to be able to reply to those attacks and one then gets the argy-bargy going on and inevitably sooner or later a spokesman for the monarch saying this and a spokesman for the other side saying that. I don't think that would be at all useful in our constitutional life. Some things work and work well and I see no good reason for changing what has worked extremely successfully.