A Structural Look at British/Commonwealth Monarchical Government

In the United Kingdom

The Queen rules the UK not by herself but in council, specifically the Privy Council, the oldest government institution in England besides the Crown itself. This is the Executive Branch, the administrative government officers, advisers, and other leaders, who have always been present around the English Monarchy. At the core of the Council are Her Majesty’s current Government Ministers, led by her Prime Minister of the day. Ministers, traditionally servants, have always “had the Sovereign’s ear,” and frequently they’ve had opponents as well, so politics is nothing new here. In fact today the practice is to include opposition political leaders on the Council as well; but through historical evolution the Sovereign has agreed to be primarily advised by those maintaining the confidence of the majority in the House of Commons at any given time. They constitute what is called Her Majesty’s Government. (Hence the word government may have two meanings here, the entire apparatus of state as in American usage, or specifically the Cabinet.)
 

The Privy Council oversees the administrative and civil service apparatus of the UK government, and executes the law of the land. Through “Orders-in-Council” it implements parliamentary legislation and directs the activities of government employees. All Council Orders require the Queen’s signature. The Council is the locus of the power the Prime Minister is said to wield over British government and society - and the Queen is actively, personally involved in its work. Without her, he’s just another Member of Parliament. And it is in the context of the Council that Her Majesty exercises her right “to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn,” especially in her frequent private (hence Privy) meetings with the Prime Minister and other Ministers. Tony Blair is usually called the British Prime Minister, but he is more properly referred to as Queen Elizabeth’s prime minister.
 

(It is also in the context of the Privy Council that the reported consultation would have taken place between the Queen and the then-Archbishop of Canterbury concerning the morality of Thatcher-nomics. We may never know for certain because it was private.)
 

The Queen makes law for the UK not by herself but en parlement or in conversation with her Subjects. This is the origin of the word Parliament. Hence the British Parliament has three components: the Monarch herself, Her Majesty’s Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Her Majesty’s Commons (i.e., non-lords). This, the Legislative Branch, is more commonly said to be made up of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, but as its third component, the Queen’s Royal Assent is required for all legislation, before it can be promulgated as law in her name. This Assent is usually provided in the Queen’s name by commissioners appointed to do so.
 

Today the House of Lords is made up of senior bishops of the Church of England (Anglican), the elected representatives of the land’s Hereditary Nobles, and Life Peers or non-hereditary nobles, who now predominate numerically. The House of Lords is the older House of Parliament; in a way it is the successor of the body of barons who in the 13th century forced the King to issue the Magna Carta, an early royal affirmation of subjects’ inherent rights, which forms the basis of most of the world’s civil and human rights laws today. Nowadays the chamber may attempt to delay or amend legislation from the House of Commons, or theoretically even propose laws; but it has lost its veto power due to 20th-century “reforms.” Nobles are “created” by the Queen on the advice of her ministers and others.
 

The House of Commons is made up of more than 600 elected district representatives from England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. They are commonly called MPs or Members of Parliament. As mentioned above, the majority party or coalition in this chamber controls the Ministry or Cabinet for five years or less between elections. Actually very early on, the tradition developed that the British people could not be taxed without their consent; this is the origin of the American Revolutionary declaration, “Taxation without representation is tyranny.”
 

Fundamentally Parliament has two jobs, to present grievances to the Throne (lawmaking) and to levee taxes for the Throne’s government operations (“supply” or finance) - hence the “parley” between the Queen and her Subjects. In the past the quid pro quo was less subtle than today. But the Queen still summons Parliament, issues writs of election so MPs can be voted on by their constituents, opens Parliament by informing it of her Ministers’ plans for the coming session, recesses Parliament, and dissolves it for immediate new elections.
 

The Queen dispenses justice to the UK not by herself but by judges who carry out their duties in her name in Her Majesty’s Courts. While judges are appointed by the Queen on the advice of her Ministers, Britain’s tradition of judicial independence or their generally apolitical nature may be the strongest on Earth. These are the judges who have given the English-speaking world the Common Law, so that not all law is made by interested politicians or aristocrats. These are also the judges who administer different legal systems in each of England/Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland...who respected Native law (on a good day) in conquered territories...and who have honored the growing independent Common Law systems in the colonies and former colonies, including the United States. The UK’s highest court is a committee of Law Lords who sit as a sort of supreme court; appeals are no longer taken to the Queen herself. The Sovereign issues pardons on the advice of the appropriate minister.

In Canada and Australia

Of the Commonwealth Realms, Canada and Australia are most like the United States in that they are considered federations, Canada since 1867 and Australia since 1901. Australia’s six States are considered to have delegated some of their inherent Sovereignty to the federal or commonwealth government (of Australia), while retaining some, whereas Canada’s ten Provinces are said to be united in a more centralized union wherein they possess some powers granted to them by confederation constitutional law, share some powers with the federal government, while the latter possesses some powers on its own by virtue of the same constitutional law. Both countries also possess more-or-less written Constitutions, unlike the UK.
 

Although they share a Monarch, the Commonwealth Realms (which now number 16 including the UK) became fully independent of each other under International Law in the 1920s and ’30s, when the Parliament and Cabinet in London gave up control of them peacefully. Recall that the Monarch rules “according to law”: the law is now different in Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Belize, etc., and so she rules each according to their law and structures, including the Advice of her Ministers in each country. When she visits one of the 15 Realms, she does so as its Queen and not as Queen of the UK.
 

And so the Queen rules Canada, for example, not by herself, but in her Privy Council for Canada, completely independently of her British council and government. She rules through her Governor General of Canada, who usually performs the same functions in Council in the Queen’s name, as the Queen does in Britain. (The title has grown out of colonial usage.) The Governor General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of her prime minister for Canada, but here again there’s a tradition of functional political independence of what would otherwise turn into a mere patronage post for political hacks or wealthy donors. The Queen makes law for Canada in her Canadian Parliament, whose chambers are the House of Commons of Canada (over 300 elected district representatives/MPs) and the Senate of Canada (105 life appointees representing 8 national regions, appointed by the Governor General for the Queen on ministerial advice). Royal Assent to legislation is usually provided in person by the Governor General or by her deputy. And the Queen dispenses justice to Canada just as in Britain, by judges in her name in her Canadian Courts, except that Canada has a distinct Supreme Court as the highest court in the land, instead of Law Lords.
 

Additionally, the Queen rules, makes law for, and dispenses justice to each Canadian Province by way of similar structures, the Province’s Lieutenant-Governor - a federal office - governing in the Queen’s name.
 

The Queen also rules, makes law for, and dispenses justice to Australia as in Canada, through her Governor General of Australia, and through her Governors (sic) - a State office there - at the State level.  In fact, State Sovereignty in Australia is such that, even if Australians had recently voted-in a republic and abolished the Monarchy federally, the Queen might have remained Sovereign of each of the States of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, and Western Australia...the theory being that each State could decide on its own whether to be a Monarchy or a republic.
 

The Queen is legally a citizen of each of her 16 Realms, just as any naturalized citizen is legally a citizen, fully and equally with any other citizen, born or naturalized, and so it is incorrect to think of Her Majesty as a foreigner in any of them.

Conclusion

If all of this sounds well and good, an American reader may wonder what all the fuss was about in 1776! The reality is that not all of this was in place then, or understood in the same way. “Democratization” in Britain has increased in the last 200 years - though they have never given up the Monarchy as a final check on politicians’ power (sic). And a veritable revolution in attitude has taken place since World War 2, with the final breakup of the British Empire and growth of the Commonwealth of Nations in its place. In fact talk like the above has been obscured by “modern” focus on politicians and parties, to some detriment to public understanding of the Monarchy. The Commonwealth Monarchy is not about to be abolished, at least not in Britain or Canada, but talk that some people in the 15 Realms don’t even know they have a Sovereign can’t be all talk.
 

Obsession with ‘the power behind the Throne,’ as one might call the politicians, distracts from the Throne itself and its very real powers to rein-in political excess and abuse. In the 1970s an Australian Governor General fired the prime minister when he almost caused the kind of “government shutdown” that has become routine in the United States at budget time. Several times in the 20th century representatives of the Sovereign have withheld or delayed Royal Assent to laws they considered overstepping bounds; by contrast U.S. lawmakers frequently pass laws they know are unconstitutional or probably so, requiring years or even decades in court before they can be struck down - if the Court does the right thing, and doesn’t become politically captive itself.
 

No Monarch is perfect. But having one in office who is sincere, apolitical, conscientious, informed, and involved, can curb the worst of political abuses.
 

Tiernan O Faolain, June 7, 2004

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1