What Powers Does the Queen of England Actually Have?
A short while ago we wrote about the fact Queen Elizabeth II needs neither a passport nor driving license thanks to a quirk of British law. But what other powers does the Queen of many titles have and what could she theoretically do if she decided to flex the full might of the authority she wields? As it turns out, thanks to the Royal Prerogative, a terrifying amount if she really felt like it, or, at least, assuming parliament went by the letter of the law and they and the people didn’t decide to stage a little revolt.
In reality, the Queen rarely exerts even a fraction of the power she theoretically wields as it’s kept in check by the only person in the UK who can tell her what to do- herself.
This is very much a calculated move on her part in order to stay in the good graces of her subjects (as is voluntarily paying taxes even though she’s technically not obligated to). Not only does she avoid openly flexing her political might, she also tends to keep her opinions outside of the public sphere. As historian Frank Prochaska notes,
The real secret of royal influence is saying nothing. And anything the Queen does say publicly, is pretty anodyne. The minute a monarch, or any of the royals say anything remotely political or opinionated, they alienate people and they lose some power. This silence played a large part in how the British monarchy survived post World War One, when other European royal families didn’t.
In fact, for almost two decades now the monarchy has regularly had polls run and focus groups put together to keep track of how the general public feels about them and their various actions. They also have on payroll individuals whose job it is to ensure the Queen stays in the public eye and in a way that is most likely to endear her to her subjects- as with politicians who rely on the voting public, with each public change she presents, right down to carrying a cell phone or not, carefully calculated in terms of the impact it might have.
While this may seem only self-serving, the Queen has a very lengthy track record as an admirable public servant and is also acutely aware that she is a prominent public face representing her subjects, so is keen on avoiding being viewed in a bad light lest she in turn paint them in a bad light by her actions. As she noted at the tender age of 21 in a speech to the Commonwealth she gave on her birthday,
I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
Surprisingly, for many years the full extent of exactly what powers the Queen handed off to the government, but technically retained, weren’t publicly known. That is, until 2003, when the government released a partial list of the things it can do on the Queen’s behalf.
For the most part, the list confirmed that the government could do things to save the Queen time, such as issue or revoke passports which simply wouldn’t be a feasible thing to be the sole prerogative of the Crown in a modern society. However, many things were quite worrying to some, such as her ability to declare war, which under the rules of Royal Prerogative can be done without consulting parliament.
On top of that, the Queen is totally immune from prosecution and is considered above the law in the UK. And as a head of state, she enjoys diplomatic immunity in any foreign country she happens to visit. As such, she could commit any crime conceivable anywhere on Earth and, at least as the law currently stands, suffer no consequence for doing so. However, as with everything, she’s generally exceptionally careful to ensure she doesn’t break any laws.
Of course, what she does in private is completely her own affair, despite her prominent political position, as she is exempt from Freedom of Information requests.
Moving on- because technically speaking “the people of Britain are not citizens, but subjects of the monarch” she could have anyone she wanted arrested and presumably seize their property or land for the crown.
Speaking of which, the Queen owns all of the sea beds around the UK and can commandeer any ship found in British waters “for service to the realm”. Oddly enough, she also has first dibs on any whales that wash up on shore. The Queen could also administer any manner of punishment to an individual who offended or otherwise displeased her as the crown has “prerogative power to keep the peace within the realm”. And since she’s immune from prosecution, nobody could really do anything if this punishment wasn’t entirely within the scope of the law.
If the government tried to stop her, the Queen could decimate the British political landscape by dissolving parliament and appointing anyone she felt like as prime minister. This is because it’s the Queen’s duty to appoint the prime minister and she could, in theory appoint anyone she wanted to the position, regardless of the way the British public voted in an election.
On top of that, in the event the Queen didn’t like the outcome of an election, for instance if she didn’t like the replacement parliament members voted in, she could just call for another one using Royal Prerogative until she got the parliament she wanted. Not that she’d need to, because she could just bring in the army to keep everyone in line if she so chose.
How? Well, the Queen is also the Commander-in-Chief of the entire British military with every officer, soldier, sailor and pilot swearing allegiance to the Crown and nobody else. They’re not called Her Majesty’s Armed Forces for nothing. Noted as being the “ultimate authority” on all British military matters, the Queen could authorise a nuclear strike on France or make North Korea an ally as she has the power to declare both war and peace with foreign nations.
As for laws, while technically the Queen can’t create new laws, as she can only sign them into law after they’re decided upon by parliament (in fact, her Royal Assent is required to make the law official after being passed by parliament in the first place), she could appoint ministers who’d make any laws she wanted a reality and then just sign them into law that way.
Beyond Royal Assent, there’s also the Queen’s consent, which requires she give her consent before any law that affects the interests of the monarchy can even be discussed at all in parliament. (She actually has used this power before, such as in 1999 when she refused to allow the discussion of a bill that would have given parliament power to authorize military strikes in Iraq, instead of needing her authorization.)
So that’s on the political side- it doesn’t stop here. The Queen technically has a sort of power not only over her subjects’ physical beings, but also their souls. How? She’s the head of the Church of England, including having the power to appoint Archbishops and power over many other such matters concerning the church.
As for most of these powers that technically allow her to rule with an iron fist, as previously mentioned, the Queen is hesitant to ever use them in such a way that would displease her subjects and certainly isn’t about to disregard their representatives in parliament. However, these powers still exist for a variety of reasons including potentially being needed in a time of extreme crisis where an individual ruling unilaterally for the good of her people can potentially be of benefit- one of the few scenarios her subjects might not mind her flexing her political muscles a bit without necessarily consulting parliament, depending on the circumstances.
That said, just because she isn’t in the practice of exercising her powers against the will of the people, it doesn’t mean she isn’t occasionally an active political powerhouse in private. Extremely well respected and known worldwide, with the ability to bend the ear of most heads of state, the influence the Queen wields is difficult to quantify, but, as noted in an article discussing why the BBC named the Queen the most powerful woman in the world in their list of 100 most powerful women,
Her Majesty’s power is more about influence – a discreet nod of the head, a polite word in the ear of a Prime Minister at their weekly meeting, or a strategic patronage of a cause being overlooked by the Government – is how she can indirectly effect our world without us even knowing.
To conclude, the Queen has many powers she could theoretically legally use to her own ends unless her subjects and parliament simply decided to stage a revolt. However, she generally avoids doing anything overt that might upset her subjects, and otherwise simply works in the background more or less in an advisory role when she feels there is need.
If you liked this article, you might also enjoy our new popular podcast, The BrainFood Show (iTunes, Spotify, Google Play Music, Feed), as well as:
- Why Do Presidents Get to Pardon People at the End of Their Terms?
- The Wives of King Henry VIII
- Breaking Into the Queen’s Bedroom
- How the Axis and the Allies in WWII Got Their Names
- Why Does the United States Use the Electoral College Instead of a Simple Vote Count When Deciding the Next President?
- The English Constitution and Other Political Essays
- Duties, Rights And Powers Of H.M. The Queen
- Mystery lifted on Queen’s powers
- Whose hand is on the button?
- What are The Queen’s powers?
- Britain’s monarchy
- Is the Queen the most powerful woman in Britain?
- Walter Bagehot
- Elizabeth II
- Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom
- Weirdest Powers the Queen of England Has
- Royal UK
- Does the Queen of England Have Any Real Power
- Monarchy of the UK
- What Does the Queen Do?
- Monarchy’s Role
- Queen’s Speech
- Queen’s Consent
| Share the Knowledge! |
          |
 |
Sounds like the Brits should get rid of this anachronism. If the skill and value of someone is doing nothing, and holding onto a get out of jail free card in case some future relative needs it, then it’s not worth the cost.
And paying taxes on money given by the people? Offensively stupid.
AS IF Parliament was doing a better job of it? Nonsense…
It’s a vital principle that the power the politicians wield is not owned by them,but borrowed from the Queen,so they don’t act too entitled.Politicians’ reach must exceed their grasp,and the Queen must stay above them.
The queen of england technically owns the whole Britian, you cant take your house from your parents..
True, she does not own the whole of Australia.
The money she pays tax on rent for the land she owns. It’s legit income, only taking a fraction of what she actually could and it all ends up being funneled into the economy, not her coffers…maybe a bit of education is needed before you run on my queen
Very interesting! I agree that it’s quite archaic, but she’s a symbol of grace. As are her offspring (scandal be damned, LOL). Quite an impressive feat, holding absolute power and using none of it. I actually find it quite revolutionary. While the monarchy used to exist to reign supreme above all, now it exists only to the benefit it’s subjects. Let the Brits (and, ahem, Canadians) decide for themselves if it’s arbitrary. We like it, we’re happy, and it’s really no one else’s concern be they not within our borders.
Long live the Queen
I believe the queen has actually used her powers to fire Parliament twice, just not in the UK. I think she fired the Parliament in Australia in about 1975 and has also done the same in Canada.
So ultimately the Queen is responsible for the flow of Islamist terror into England.
Right, I’ve thought about that a lot.
As was revealed in the black spider fiasco, the royal family wields a lot more power behind the scenes than previously thought, able to sink or get modified almost any proposed law, and doing so frequently in secret.
The fixed term parliaments act removes the Queen’s power to dissolve parliament. So no, she doesn’t have that power anymore.
When the Queen used her power to deny the Chagos Islander’s return to their stolen homeland it stunk to high heaven. Years of Court cases and rulings undone by two words from her. BOO!
That’s terrifying that she wields that much power. She could turn the UK into something that would make Nazi Germany beg not to be invaded, yet she doesn’t simply because it she’d lose her popularity if she did. She’s her only leash.
A interesting use of technically. As there are laws which stops what you clam are powers, such as Bill of rights 1688. The great chatter, act of union. And many more.
She can go to war, but can’t use the armed force’s.
Wish the majestic would take the country back from the tyrants acting in her name.And the old laws and law of he land could apply, stop the corruption and life could go on.
Did you know acts passed by parliament should never pass their session?
Did you know that the government took the power from the Lord, who are the direct advisory to the royal house?
Did you know the power and law and rational has been stolen (treason) over many years.
Bring back royal
“technically speaking ‘the people of Britain are not citizens, but subjects of the monarch'”
Wrong! See the British Nationality Act 1948.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationality_Act_1948
Today, you were found out.
Are you sure you’re as clever as you think you are?
The Act today
The only significant provision of the Act to survive today is section 3, which concerns the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the criminal courts over crimes committed by British subjects overseas. Generally, British criminal law does not apply to things done overseas, but there are some exceptions for acts done abroad by British subjects, such as murder. Section 3 restricted the scope of this jurisdiction to CUKCs (except in respect of crimes that would be against UK law even if committed by aliens). This was necessary so that, for example, a Canadian citizen who committed murder in Canada could not be prosecuted for it in a British court instead of in Canada.
As modified by section 51 of the British Nationality Act 1981, section 3 now restricts this jurisdiction to British citizens, British Overseas Territories citizens, British Overseas citizens and British Nationals (Overseas).
(Note, however, that section 3 is subject to any subsequent legislation to different effect, such as section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as amended).)
Also, in spite of the fact that most of this Act has been repealed by the British Nationality Act 1981, the acquisition of new categories of British Nationality created by the British Nationality Act 1981 is often made dependent on one’s nationality status prior to the effective date of the British Nationality Act 1981. This therefore means that many of the original provisions of British Nationality Act 1948 are still relevant today.
I am an American, and believe it or not, we love the Queen and her royal family! However, I am shocked to learn that a plethora of Africans living in the UK and Black Brits acrimoniously hate the royal family. Why is that? Many of us Americans often say, “God please watch over and keep the Queen safe” or sometimes just a simple “God bless the Queen” in addition to praying for our own presidents. However, once I said that in the presence of some Africans and Black Brits, they became so angry at me, cursed me out and called me the worst derogatory names. Thank God I have thick skin and do not give a damn about haters. I am who I am, and I love the Queen! I feel she is our Queen too.
God bless America and bless the Queen of England too!
Not all Monarch’s have been as gracious and attentive to the wants and needs of her subjects as Queen Elizabeth. Not all would do as she has for her people. Her legacy will live on in Princes, Charles, William, and George. None of us will be here after that, so who cares! It works and that’s all there is to say about it, really… I do love reading about the Tudors though, where they wielded their power on a daily basis, at times, just because they could! Off with their heads and all that! lol. (Well, I guess Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard wouldn’t think that was funny)… Poor Anne! Too bad she had such a conniving family! And what of Katherine of Aragon? Sent to rot in her palace prison simply because her husband wanted to marry a younger woman who wasn’t married to his brother even though she said they never consummated the marriage! The nerve of Henry! …oops! not really relevant, I suppose… oh well. tee-hee, lol, and all that sort of dribble!
Muslims pouring into the country.
People getting arrested for “offensive” tweets.
No right to bear arms.
Cant even own a knife.
Must show ID to buy a dozen eggs or a jug of bleach because people throw it on each other.
Socialist.
Twice the violent crime rate of America encompassed in a landmass the size of Michigan.
Id say the queens doing a a pretty damn horrible job. On top of that England has historically been one of the most sinister nations throughout the world and has oppressed countless people. The only good thing the world has to thank England for is its spreading of christendom which in turn spread order and rule of law to 3rd world countries. The colonials took what Britain had and made it better. The founding fathers and George Washington ARE America. Their legacies blow my mind. There’s no comparison between King George III and Washington. Washington was a true king and leader yet he didn’t want to be seen as such. Benjamin Franklin insisted he be called “king” however Washington wanted to be seen as equal to the people therfore he choae to be addressed as “Mr. President”. He rallied men with little food, no military training, little clothes, and frostbitten feet and still prevailed against the British. Amazing. The problem with America today is history is being rewritten by the regressive left and all of the good our nation was founded upon is being trampled under the feet of brainwashed, lawless communists (modern day liberals) who wish to turn us into the cesspool Britain has become along with the rest of the UN. Your queen has failed you and the monarchy is just as big of a political heresy and monumental joke as the papacy.
I think the whole queen thing is beyond ridiculous, leaders should be elected.shes to old , I am 73and would be to old
Power OF the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE, FOR the PEOPLE.
In an evolved nation like the UK, a citizen should be seen as dignified citizen, not the monarch’s bitch at his/her behest. I heard somewhere that Brits believe that it is not leaders that are great, but British PEOPLE that are great. Perhaps that is another Britain. If a lunatic monarch should come to power, and do outlandish things that cause the public and elected government to revolt, and he/she could just take from them and wipe the slate clean and decides to be a tyrannical monarch and a parliament eventually settles that gets on board with her and launches a campaign for world domination…(Lol unlikely but still) Isn’t that something to expect and fear? If it can happen, you should fear that it will…There should be written documentation of power and restrictions on her power. What is with this, “borrow power from the queen” lol. Borrow insists the monarch will have it returned to her. It is permanent borrowing. You mean they’re stealing from the queen, then? They have their respective political powers, so they have the power…because they do. But that’s not important. Like in America, those politicians have their jobs as people, for people, because that’s all that really matters. This is the 21st century, everyone deserves to be their own person. But no? Because everything belongs to the monarch?
I like the queen. I like reading about her, William, Kate, and their little ones! I am an American, but love the properness, the manners, the stately way they carry themselves; no, it is not for us, but for them it apparently works! I, personally admire and respect Queen Elizabeth.