Last British Monarch with power?

[VaticanAssassin]

I always thought it was Edward VII but at dinner last night a couple from England said they believe it was George VI. A case could also be made that Victoria was the one that gave up all/most the power of the throne. You could almost argue that it was Richard Cromwell, depending upon your definition of Monarch.

I honestly know shit about these religious, incestuous nut jobs that ruled England when it was relevant. The transfer of power seems to be a long and slow process and an argument can be made for many of the weirdos being the last......So what do you think?

* edit; Should have put *real power* in the title.

 

[KingOrfeo]

From TVTropes:

The modern monarch doesn't really do all that much: his or her powers are purely ceremonial, a result of Parliament taking on more and more of the monarch's remaining powers in the 18th and 19th century, helped by a succession of monarchs who were, in order, unable to speak English (George I and II), mentally ill (George III), a total dilletante (George IV), very old and only king for seven years (William IV), a woman (Victoria) and another dilletante (Edward VII). There were only three periods when monarchs tried to assert themselves in any serious fashion, and they were ended, respectively, by losing a war in America, the death of George IV and the death of Albert. To be honest, the monarchs would barely have been able to prevent the eroding of their remaining power if they'd made the effort.

While the monarch does *technically* have the ability to veto any act of Parliament, to refuse a nominated Prime Minister, to sack the Prime Minister if he messes up, or to mobilise the army, to actually do so would likely cause a massive public outcry as it would be going against the will of the people by virtue of going against their democratically-elected leader. It is also extremely unlikely that the monarch could face-off against the rest of the British political establishment and win (the last monarch to do anything against the will of Parliament was King William IV in the 19th century and even then his action - appointing his own choice of Prime Minister - was extremely controversial).

However, the current Queen is not entirely powerless. As the armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch and not to the Government, should the Prime Minister declare himself a dictatorial leader the queen can directly order them to stand down and, if necessary, turn against Westminster. This would be an awesome ending to a film, if anyone wants to make it. She also holds similar powers over most of the other nations in the Commonwealth via her Governors-General, her official representatives to the Commonwealth nations who swear allegiance to her as their head of state. The entire Australian Parliament was even dismissed by one Governor-General as recently as 1975, mainly because the politicians were arguing too much over money and how it should be spent.

Mostly, however, the monarch drinks tea and acts as a source of advice to the Prime Minister. Several prime ministers have attested that this is typically not just ceremony: the Queen has access to most significant government documents, and apparently, has spent several hours a day every day for the last fifty or so years going through them. There's very little she doesn't know about government policy. The current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, is reportedly a fan of the new series of Doctor Who and plays the Wii. Contrary to popular belief, Barack Obama's gift of an iPod to the Queen was not an ill-informed faux pas; while it is true she already had one, she had previously mentioned that it was out of date and would really appreciate a more up to date one.

 

[Sean]

King John. Runnymede is lovely in the summer.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Funny that a document that mentions God 3 times in the first two sentences was the beginning of the end.....

 

[oggbashan]

James II.

The Act of Rights of 1689 transferred power to Parliament. William and Mary were the first constitutional monarchs.

George III, often blamed for the loss of America, was the titular leader of 'The King's Party' but the real power (and blame) was in Parliament.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

James II.

The Act of Rights of 1689 transferred power to Parliament. William and Mary were the first constitutional monarchs.

George III, often blamed for the loss of America, was the titular leader of 'The King's Party' but the real power (and blame) was in Parliament.

See what I mean? Even you tea drinkers can not agree.

One could also argue it was King Charles I, who got his ass beat by Cromwell, who ruled through Parliament for several years.

 

[torchthebitch]

See what I mean? Even you tea drinkers can not agree.

One could also argue it was King Charles I, who got his ass beat by Cromwell, who ruled through Parliament for several years.

I agree with Ogg.

What pisses me off most about the recent spate of Army reforms is that they effectively disbanded Pontius Pilates bodyguard and the last Cromwellian Regiment.

 

[blobfish]

Definitely Bonnie Prince Charlie.

 

[kotori]

See what I mean? Even you tea drinkers can not agree.

One could also argue it was King Charles I, who got his ass beat by Cromwell, who ruled through Parliament for several years.

More than ass beat. Head handed to him. Literally.

 

[Lancecastor]

"Last British Monarch with Power" presumes the British Monarch has no power or less than in the past.

I disagree with that premise.

Here's why.

1. Until the House of Windsor, the British Monarchy was fairly fragile...a Monarch could die at almost any time for a variety of reasons. The House of Windsor is stable, influential, financially successful and popular.

2. "Power" in the 21st Century is probably measured more accurately in terms of "influence", or the ability to make things happen than the old definition of power as might=right. Influence is the new Power, because influence requires less overhead and infrastructure to maintain. Bill & Hillary Clinton, for example, are enormously powerful people in the new paradigm. So is the Bush Family. And a handful of others, including arguably Queen Elizabeth II...thought not perceived as "powerful" in the USA, she and her office have tangible influence in much of the world.

3. Over time, I'd say the House of Windsor will have less formal Responsibility...but their Influence will not diminish by as much as their Responsibility. This translates to a Power Gain in real terms. Less "power", yet enormously influential and a smoking hot quality of life....living well is in some circles the ultimate in power, I suggest.

Prince William will probably wind up more like Albert of Monaco...rich, bald, influential and fucking well-heeled.

 

[KingOrfeo]

"Last British Monarch with Power" presumes the British Monarch has no power or less than in the past.

I disagree with that premise.

Here's why.

1. Until the House of Windsor, the British Monarchy was fairly fragile...a Monarch could die at almost any time for a variety of reasons. The House of Windsor is stable, influential, financially successful and popular.

2. "Power" in the 21st Century is probably measured more accurately in terms of "influence", or the ability to make things happen than the old definition of power as might=right. Influence is the new Power, because influence requires less overhead and infrastructure to maintain. Bill & Hillary Clinton, for example, are enormously powerful people in the new paradigm. So is the Bush Family. And a handful of others, including arguably Queen Elizabeth II...thought not perceived as "powerful" in the USA, she and her office have tangible influence in much of the world.

3. Over time, I'd say the House of Windsor will have less formal Responsibility...but their Influence will not diminish by as much as their Responsibility. This translates to a Power Gain in real terms. Less "power", yet enormously influential and a smoking hot quality of life....living well is in some circles the ultimate in power, I suggest.

Prince William will probably wind up more like Albert of Monaco...rich, bald, influential and fucking well-heeled.

Hypothetical: PM Thatcher is resolved to go to war over the Falkland Islands. Elizabeth II thinks that's a really bad idea. Can she do anything about it?

 

[Lancecastor]

Hypothetical: PM Thatcher is resolved to go to war over the Falkland Islands. Elizabeth II thinks that's a really bad idea. Can she do anything about it?

"the Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy ... three rights—the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn."

Royal Prerogative - In addition to the Monarch's consultative role (she meets the Prime Minister weekly in private) the Monarch has "Royal Perogatives" which are extensive and parliamentary approval is not formally required for their exercise.

The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements.

So, the consultative role means that the Queen certainly would have the opportunity to talk Thatcher out of invading the Falklands.

(In fact, there are many international espionage reports that the Queen sees first before HER Prime Minister or HER Cabinet Ministers see them.)

Their disagreement on that "military action" meant that it wasn't actually a "war", as the Queen did not declare war on the Faklands...and only the Monarch can declare war.

And technically, the Queen could Dismiss a Prime Minister, though there would obviously have to be "cause" on a national scale in terms of preventing the Country's Parliamentary Democracy from being threatened by a rogue PM or some such thing.

So yes, there were things QEII "did" during the Falklands Crisis, before, during and after in her consulting role....and in addition, she did NOT declare war on Argentina during that crisis, which was her decision and so it was indeed something she "did".

 

[renard_ruse]

I honestly know shit about these religious, incestuous nut jobs

What does their faith have to do with it? Religion is what makes us human and not animals.

 

[KRCummings]

The whole monarch things confuses me. The Queens husband isn't a King, he's a Prince. That's just dumb.
When Charles becomes King then Horseface won't be Queen if I read things right.
Kate will be Queen unless hubby dies then she won't be.

Stupid shit. What happened to the days of poison and siblings locking each other in the Tower and all that fun shit?

 

[JohnnySavage]

The whole monarch things confuses me. The Queens husband isn't a King, he's a Prince. That's just dumb.
When Charles becomes King then Horseface won't be Queen if I read things right.
Kate will be Queen unless hubby dies then she won't be.

Stupid shit. What happened to the days of poison and siblings locking each other in the Tower and all that fun shit?

Charles Big Ears doesn't have the same panache as Edward Long-Shanks.

 

[KRCummings]

Charles Big Ears doesn't have the same panache as Edward Long-Shanks.

You pretty much gotta be badass with a name like Long Shanks.

 

[JohnnySavage]

You pretty much gotta be badass with a name like Long Shanks.

I hated him in Braveheart.

 

[Ishmael]

The whole issue really does come down to what constitutes "real power."

In the broader sweep of history, to my mind anyway, the Monarchy has morphed from being the head of state with ministers/lords being the power behind the throne to that of the Monarchy being the power behind the government. With each Monarch executing their role with a greater or lesser degree of effectiveness.

And I suppose that that 'effectiveness' would be measured in the degree that the monarch was able to convince the lords/government to act in their behalf. And I suppose that can be said of any leader past or present regardless of title. Even Alexander had to retreat when his army became disgruntled.

Ishmael

 

[KRCummings]

I hated him in Braveheart.

Kind of a dick.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Kind of a dick.

He was really, really pissed at Mel:

Following the trial, on 23 August 1305, Wallace was taken from the hall to the Tower of London, then stripped naked and dragged through the city at the heels of a horse to the Elms at Smithfield.[24] He was hanged, drawn and quartered — strangled by hanging but released while he was still alive, castrated, eviscerated and his bowels burnt before him, beheaded, then cut into four parts. His preserved head (dipped in tar) was placed on a pike atop London Bridge. It was later joined by the heads of the brothers, John and Simon Fraser. His limbs were displayed, separately, in Newcastle upon Tyne, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Stirling, and Perth.

 

[KRCummings]

He was really, really pissed at Mel:

Following the trial, on 23 August 1305, Wallace was taken from the hall to the Tower of London, then stripped naked and dragged through the city at the heels of a horse to the Elms at Smithfield.[24] He was hanged, drawn and quartered — strangled by hanging but released while he was still alive, castrated, eviscerated and his bowels burnt before him, beheaded, then cut into four parts. His preserved head (dipped in tar) was placed on a pike atop London Bridge. It was later joined by the heads of the brothers, John and Simon Fraser. His limbs were displayed, separately, in Newcastle upon Tyne, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Stirling, and Perth.

To be fair I think a lot of people would like to do that to Mel these days.

 

[renard_ruse]

As to the question, I'm certainly not an expert so I won't pretend to be, but I always thought power was gradually lost after that German dude took the throne and delegated more and more power to his ministers since he only cared about Germany and didn't even speak English. It gradually shifted completely to Parliament during the reigns of the subsequent Georges. I believe Anne still had quite a bit of power. At any rate, monarchies are dumb.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

What does their faith have to do with it? Religion is what makes us human and not animals.

I have no issues with religious people, if you are thinking in terms of believe in god, try to do and be their best, and do not try to push their religion on others, or think there is no other alternatives. Of course we both know that is rare, even among the clergy.

When it comes the historical British Monarchs religion was mostly a tool of power. Crusade against Muslims in the name of Christianity, Kill the Protestants to secure alliance with the Catholics, kill the Catholics to weaken the Pope, Become a Roman Catholic to secure the Spanish against the Dutch and on and on and on.

And do not even get me started on the ones that were actually religious!

 

[Exquisition]

What does their faith have to do with it? Religion is what makes us human and not animals.

I'd argue that in many cases it's religion that makes us animals and not human.