Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by DoughnutHole 994 days ago
The crown has seldom exercised power in the past 200 years, it's been low since long before Elizabeth. No monarch has refused assent to a parliamentary bill since 1708, or dismissed a prime minister since 1834 (which ultimately failed, that prime minister returned to power in 1835 after the king's meddling failed to produce a new government).

It's true that on paper the king holds a lot of power. But functionally all of that power is invested in parliament. The institutions of the state answer to parliament, and there are no legal grounds for the crown to claw any of those powers back. A serious attempt by the king to make his own independent pronouncements as if they have the force of law is honestly the only situation I could see the UK abandoning the monarchy.
2 comments
mcpackieh 994 days ago
> No monarch has refused assent to a parliamentary bill since 1708

Because the crown exercises it's power in secret behind closed doors, not using the official assent procedure. They don't need to refuse assent to a parliamentary bill because the crown communicates their displeasure with bills before it even gets that far.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-...

link
someotherperson 993 days ago
A fantastic example of these backdoor discussions is here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1501749/Papers-revea...
link
someotherperson 993 days ago
In the 60s the Queen chose and elected her own Prime Minister. In the late 90s the Queen refused Parliament the ability to debate a bill around strikes in Iraq.

The Crown dissolved the Australian government in the 70s. In Canada a few years ago they denied parliament the ability to dissolve itself and go to elections.

The power has been exercised in the last century multiple times.

link