“God save the queen.” Our British friends across the pond utter those words as often as we proclaim “God bless America.”
To us here in the colonies, the queen of England is the little old lady with the colored hats who travels around waving at her loyal subjects. We seem to have a fascination with the British royals in America. Many Americans woke up early to watch live coverage of Prince William’s marriage to Kate Middleton or Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee, for example.
But what do we really know about the British monarchy? Sometimes it is funny how intrigued we are because, after all, we fought a bloody revolution to kick it out of our affairs.
Most of us tend to believe that today the Queen of England has no real power; her role is ceremonial and nothing more.
Though largely true, what few people may realize is that the Queen technically has retained certain ancient monarchical powers.
In 2003, the Commons public administration committee (PAC) of Great Britain, published the previously unknown-to-the-public powers of the monarch.
Known collectively as the “Royal Prerogative,” these powers, though not exercised directly by the Queen, are exercised through Parliament’s ministers.
This basically means that the Queen can tell the Prime Minister of Great Britain to do one of these things, and he or she will work through Parliament to do it.
In fact, the Queen meets weekly with the Prime Minister. These meetings are secret and nothing is ever revealed about them.
So what are some of the powers of the “Royal Prerogative?” According to the PAC document, some of the Queen’s more significant powers include the ability to appoint or dismiss the Prime Minister, dissolve Parliament, command the military, control the Church of England, issue passports, make treaties, declare war and receive diplomats.
Also, the monarch must technically provide royal assent or approval to any bill Parliament passes in order for it to become law.
Now you might recall from civics class that the President of the United States has some of these powers. But remember also that while the President is elected, the British monarch assumes the throne for life due to his or her royal blood. Furthermore, he or she is rarely held accountable because all of his or her political activities are held secret.
For example, in 60 years of rule, Queen Elizabeth II has not once participated in an interview with the press. Not once!
Has she actually used her power? It is difficult to confirm because of the secrecy surrounding the monarchy.
Realistically, however, although she can technically direct Parliament to dissolve or declare war, doing so would break convention and create an extremely sticky situation in Britain.
Such a blatant exercise of power could not easily be hidden and her popularity with her people would likely tank. This is not to say that she has not subtly influenced the government in the past. She almost certainly has.
For example, she opposed racial segregation in South Africa, undermining then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s relative indifference to it (New York Times).
But again, there exists a fine line between influence and direct action. The Queen would never be foolish enough to break tradition by utilizing her full power.
Her main purpose is to represent stability and unity in Great Britain. There must be something comforting for the British people about the monarchy’s eternal presence.
Just looking at Queen Elizabeth I’s reign alone, in her 60 year rule the British government has changed countless times. Politics have changed, issues have changed, indeed the world has changed—but the Queen has remained.
We Americans may not entirely understand how an entire nation can unite under one person, but then again, we are not British. After all, we have our own unifying forces like the stars and stripes.
So, although some may argue that the Queen is outdated, I say to each nation their own. I have no use for Prince Charles, however.
Tony Bara
Editor in Chief