British Monarchy in World War 1

[zjl56]

From what I have come to understand. Over time Parliament gained more power and the monarchy lost all but its sentimental value. So who had the real power during World War 1? Parliament, or the monarchy?

 

[willemvanoranje]

In the greatest part of English history, the king/queen never had the most power. England is one of the few European monarchies (Sweden is about the only other example) where parliament had a more or less equal strength in relation to the king. Absolutism never appeared in England. So I'd say parliament.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Moderator Action: Moved to History.

 

[zjl56]

Sorry, thought I posted this in history.

 

[Plotinus]

The British monarch had lost all effective power long before WWI. The last monarch to withhold assent from a parliamentary bill was Queen Ann. Thus, the situation in the nineteenth century was effectively what it is today. After one election, Queen Victoria wanted to appoint Disraeli (who she liked, but had lost) as prime minister rather than Gladstone (who she disliked, but had won), and she was effectively told - no, you are not allowed to do that!

Now, given that it's not the monarch who wields the real power, that still leaves open the question whether it's parliament, the government, or the prime minister. Even today there are a number of powers which are part of the "royal prerogative", which means they are in fact wielded by the prime minister, acting as the monarch's agent. These include the power to go to war - so Blair can go to war without the say-so of parliament, for example, although he did win a vote to do so before Iraq. Thus there are calls at the moment for some of the royal prerogatives to be removed and given to parliament, the idea being not to limit the power of the Queen (since she really has none) but to limit the power of the prime minister and prevent what many people see as the more authoritarian and presidential style of governing attributed to Blair.

 

[Nobody]

The Governor General in Australia done something a few years back, which was dodgy constitutional speaking. I think he used his power.

 

[sydhe]

The monarchy came closest to being absolute during the Tudor period and the early Stuarts. Charles I managed to rule without Parliament for a while. He was forced to call Parliament in 1640 to deal with a revolt in Scotland. I believe the reason he couldn't do it by fiat was the Magna Carta. Thus came the Short Parliament, which proved too rebellious for his taste, then the Long Parliament, which challenged him by the British Civil War. There are parallels with the later French Revolution, complete with the beheading of the King and the eventual rise of a military dictator. In 1660, when Cromwell's successor proved unable to rule, the English brought back Charles's son, Charles II, with the understanding that he would regularly summon Parliament. In 1688, the Bill of Rights considerably strengthened Parliament, and that's really when England became a constitutional monarchy, although some of the monarchs, such as George III, had considerable power. George III, for example, selected Lord North and William Pitt the Younger to be Prime Minister. More recently, Elizabeth II in 1963 selected the Earl of Home to be Prime Minister after Harold Macmillan was diagnosed with prostate cancer (although she consulted with Conservative leaders before doing so).

 

[Plotinus]

Well, that was hardly the Queen's decision in 1963. Although I've no doubt that Home was the sort of character she'd have approved of, were it up to her.

 

[sydhe]

My understanding is that the Conservatives gave her a list of candidates to avoid an intraparty fight and she picked Home.

 

[privatehudson]

I believe that is the usual process when crisis occur such as the death or forced resignation of the ruling Prime Minister. When Chamberlin resigned Chamberlin suggested to the King either Lord Halifax or Churchill. Although the decision technically rested with George VI in reality he had to consider Chamberlin's reccomendations, what each man thought and whether the country would accept either. Halifax is supposed to have turned down the position arguing that he felt a Peer should not lead the country at wartime. In reality it's likely that George VI chose Churchill due to the fact that he recognised that to fight the war effectively all party support was needed. The Labour party refused to serve in a Halifax government under any circumstances. So once again we see that the Royalty rule technically but in reality cannot make many decisions which would prove unpopular or unwise.

 

[Kafka2]

It's an anachronism, now that parties have clearly defined deputy leaders.