The Monarchy

Learning Objectives

• To describe the institution of the monarchy• To investigate the roles of the monarchy• To evaluate whether the monarchy should remain in

the UK government system

INSTRUCTIONS• For this lesson you will be learning independently.• You will have no help from the teacher and will not

be allowed to ask questions. (Use your initiative!)• Read the power point slides and make appropriate

notes.• Complete research for ASSIGNMENT: Explain the

role and significance of the monarch in relation to executive power in the UK political system. (40 marks) – this can include watching the documentaries.

• Complete written assignment.

Role of the Monarch• The formal way of describing the British government

is to say that the UK has a parliamentary government under a constitutional monarchy.

• Norton (1992) points out that this has resulted in the development of a whole series of institutions whose relationships are governed by convention rather than statue.

• The role of the monarch is often explained as a minor role within the UK political system, as the Queen has no “meaningful” political power.

• However, this does not mean that the Queen has no political power.

Role of the Monarch• As Head of State The Queen has to remain strictly neutral

with respect to political matters, unable to vote or stand for election.

• But The Queen does have important ceremonial and formal roles in relation to the Government of the UK.

• The formal phrase 'Queen in Parliament' is used to describe the British legislature, which consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The Queen's duties include opening each new session of Parliament, dissolving Parliament before a general election, and approving Orders and Proclamations through the Privy Council.

• The Queen also has a special relationship with the Prime Minister, retaining the right to appoint and also meeting with him or her on a regular basis.

Role of the Monarch• Almost all of the Queen's constitutional powers are exercised

on the 'advice' of her government. The advice she receives cannot be ignored: in practice, it is the Queen's ministers who make almost all the decisions.

• Sovereignty resides not in the sovereign but with 'the Queen in parliament'. That means proposals need the approval of the Queen as well as the House of Commons and the House of Lords in order to become law.

• In practice, however, parliament is supreme. Once a bill has been passed by both houses of parliament, the royal assent is always signified.

• The monarchy could not survive any attempt to block legislation. The last monarch to use her veto was Queen Anne, in 1707.

Role of the Monarch• The Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and

Head of the Commonwealth. These positions have symbolic importance. However, it would be wrong to imagine that the monarch is little more than a figurehead.

• The Sovereign has important powers, and may still be called upon to exercise them. Under the British constitution, the monarch:

• decides when to dissolve parliament, and • decides who should be appointed prime minister. • Since the Second World War, we have become used to clear-

cut election results. One party normally has an absolute majority in the House of Commons - sometimes large, sometimes very small. The elected leader of that party is appointed prime minister.

Role of the Monarch• However, the general election of 2010 was different and

we now have a 'hung' parliaments - where no party has an overall majority. As Professor Vernon Bogdanor reminds us, the sovereign's personal prerogatives would then become of real importance.

• It is easy to imagine a situation where the leader of each of the two biggest minority parties - whichever those parties might be - was offering to form a government with the support of a wavering third party.

• The monarch's decision might then be crucial - and in practice there would be no ministers to call upon for advice.

The monarchy and political power• The monarch does have an important political role to play, in

practice, power has been substantially removed from the personal control of the monarch. A formal link remains and is reflected in official titles such as 'Her Majesty's government', but executive power has come to be employed by ministers or their agents. As Norton puts it:

• 'Ministers remain legally responsible to the Queen for their actions, but, by convention, are responsible to Parliament'.

• In addition, membership of the EU has had an impact. Since EU law takes precedence over UK law, it is, therefore, no longer the case that all laws effective in the UK receive Royal Assent.

• There are, however, two areas where there is at least the potential for the monarch personally to exercise power. (Two areas that the monarch might exercise power are - the power to appoint the PM and the power to dissolve Parliament).

Is the monarchy under threat?• There is evidence to suggest that attitudes towards the monarchy

have been changing. • Today, it would be difficult to claim, for example, that members of

the royal family are just as popular or as well-respected as they were in the 1950s.

• In the 1950s, the monarchy appeared to be above criticism. When the broadcaster and journalist Malcolm Muggeridge wrote an article which asked whether Britain really needed a Queen, he was sacked by a Sunday newspaper and by the BBC.

• Not only does this indicate the strength of support for the monarchy at this time, it also suggest how deferential people were towards the royal family.

• Even in the 1980s over 85% of people told opinion pollsters that they supported the monarchy.

Is the monarchy under threat?• By the mid 1990s, however, opinion had shifted significantly. A

survey carried out in 1994, for example, found that 66% of those questioned thought that the monarchy should continue indefinitely and 26% wanted the monarchy to be abolished at some point. The same poll showed that support for the monarchy varied according to age. Among the over 55's 74% were in favour but among the under 35s only 48% were. In a poll taken a few days before the death of Diana in '97, only 48% of all respondents agreed that the country would be worse off without a royal family.

• Following Diana's death however, attitudes towards the monarchy became more ambiguous. Polls indicated that although support for the institution had increased, a large majority wanted the monarchy to be modernised. This trend has continued. In a poll taken in 2000, for example, although 70% of people were in favour of retaining the monarchy in the short term, only a minority of people felt sure that us would exist in 50 or 100 years.

Is the monarchy under threat?• There are two main reasons for the longer-term decline in the

monarchy's popularity, at least in its present form. First, the behaviour of individual members of the royal family has failed to meet the standards expected of prominent public figures. The well published break-up of a number of marriages, including that of the heir to the throne, and other personal scandals and rumours have given the impression that the royal family is in crisis. Second, the cost of supporting the monarchy, and of maintaining a royal family has been criticised.

Arguments for and against the monarchyFOR AGAINST

despite the bad publicity, it is still a public institution the heredity principle is not acceptable in a democratic society - people should gain positions on merit not because they are born into a particular family

the monarchy symbolises national unity and purpose both to people living in Britain (helping to integrate society) and to the outside world

far from uniting the nation, the privileges enjoyed by the extended royal family emphasise to ordinary people just how great a divide there is from top to bottom in British society

through its maintenance of British traditions, the monarchy provides continuity in an otherwise rapidly changing society

the popularity of the monarchy has declined and no longer commands universal respect or support

the cost of sustaining the monarchy is less than the income from tourism and trade with the monarchy generates (it is also a great deal less than supporting a presidency in some countries - for example the USA)

because of the behaviour of individual members of the royal family, the monarchy no longer provides a model of idealised family life

the heredity principle keeps the royal family above party politics (a disassociation from party politics would be essential in the event of a hung Parliament since the monarch would need to make decisions about the formation of a new gov't - any alternative - such as a presidency - would automatically introduce a party political element).

there is no reason why the function of the Head of State could not be performed by an elected president or even by the holder of an existing post (former MP Tony Benn, for example, has suggested that the Speaker of the HoC could be given the power to dissolve Parliament and to choose the PM.

Explain the role and

significance of the monarch in relation to

executive power in the UK political

system. (40 marks)

Power & Glory of the British Monarchy

DocumentaryPart 1/3http://

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzXUP783zuE&feature=player_embedded

Part 2/3http://

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Um9vtkniR48

Part 3/3http://

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp9xnDudw6U&feature=player_embedded

NB: This documentary was made in 1992 while John Major was prime minister. You will have to undertake some independent

research in order to assess whether the role of the monarch has changed during the premierships of Blair, Brown and now Cameron.

The Diamond Queen (BBC)

DocumentaryEpisode 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgweMOYZRZs Episode 2http://

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMBZo1MHqCYEpisode 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jv_PFgfpLI

NB: This documentary is a look back at Elizabeth II’s reign. It covers both personal experiences and family as well as her political role – do not include irrelevant information in your

assignment.

Homework