kings, queens and parliament

[jamesreid]

when did British monarchs lose their right to dissolve parliament?

[mycatis]

Er they haven't lost that right have they??

[Lonnie]

Absolutely right mycatis, they still have it,

[waimarie]

Not quite the same thing but in 1975 the Governor-General of Australia dismissed the Prime Minister (Gough Whitlam) from his post and appointed the leader of the opposition in his place.

As the Governor-General is the Queen's representative you could say she exerted that right.

It caused quite a storm at the time as many people thought the post of g-g was purely ceremonial and lacked any authority.

It did however illustrate the strength of democracy in Australia that the rule of law prevailed.

[jake-the-peg]

Although the monach still technically retains the right to interfere with democracy it would probably be the last act of the monarchy if one did!

I don't know who was the last monarch to disolve parliament against it's will - Charles the first did and Cromwell (if you count him) and Queen Anne was the last to use the Royal Veto in 1707.

But British monarchs have always been subject to parliament as opposed to the French absolutist manachy. English and later British monarchs had to come cap in hand when wanting to raise money for wars or the like.

One got quite stroppy about it so we cut his head off which seemed to sort out stroppy kings for a while!

[Johnmof]

As has been mentioned, for some centuries the monarch has only had the power to dissolve Parliament at the request of the Prime Minister. But the monarch does retain one power that so far that they have not yet been called upon to exercise - the right to refuse to dissolve parliament. The monarch's main duty is to ensure the continuance of stable government, and should only consent to a dissolution if if meets that criterion, for example if a government was to lose its majority. The issue raised its head when John Major was in trouble with the Maastricht rebels, and hinted that he would seek a dissolution of Parliament if they persisted, thus putting the rebels in danger of losing their seats. Word allegedly came back from the palace that the Queen would be unlikely to agree to such a move as she saw it as her duty to ensure stable government, not to help a Prime Minister exercise control over an unruly party. Major backed down, which was a pity. It would have been an interesting constitutional stand-off.

[jake-the-peg]

If that's true John, the Queen was playing a rather dangerous game - I hate to think what would have happened if Major held a press announcement and said the Queen had refused a disolution of Parliament!

What's your source for this story?