In theory, could Queen Elizabeth dissolve Parliament right now

>>875723
>In theory
Yes.
>What would impede her
Parliament's army.

>>875736
>Parliament's army.
So what could the monarch use to exert force?

>>875723
>could Queen Elizabeth dissolve Parliament right now if she really wanted to?
In theory, I suppose.

>What would impede her if she tried to do so?
The government and the people.

This, children, is the difference between de jure law and de facto law.

>>875740
>So what could the monarch use to exert force?
Suading the government to go to election by indicating that certain bills that fall within the accepted traditional remit (ie: that won't make Parliament D-Notice HRH and go to the papers) such that the Government of the Day finds it impossible to govern and requests that she dissolve the house.

Last time that happened the Government was returned with a greater majority and HRH was slapped and Government appointed the Lords it wanted.

>>875740
The British monarch has no force to exert

>>875775
She can informally indicate that if parliament presented her a bill formally that she would refuse assent.

In reality her and her brood would be shot.

>>875776
>>875775
>>875743
So what are her guards for?

>>875782
Are you fucking kidding me?

>>875776
Thats right, she can ask, but she cant force anything. Her authority extends exactly as far as the civil government lets it

>>875782
Her protection. They are provided by and under the command of parliament.

>>875785
All I know about British monarchs is taxation.
>>875792
Could she hire a private security force or build a royal army if she wanted to? Or would that result in the end of the House of Windsor?

>>875798
It would be the end of the monarchy if she tried

She can ask the government to reform but she cannot dissolve the foundations of the parliament

When a government is voted out of favor the formal act of the sovereign is for her to ask the majority party to reform, her role serves to transfer power from one party to another. in an emergency she can suspend operations but only as an instrument of guaranteeing resumption and cannot replace an other power with the parliament

>>875782
She is Parliament's prisoner.

>Could she hire a private security force
Yes. And she'd be arrested and imprisoned.

>or build a royal army if she wanted to?
Not lawfully. And she'd be arrested and imprisoned.

>Or
False dichotomy. She has the same radical freedom that everyone has.

>>875836
She actually legally possesses heaps and heaps of powers, she just can;t use them without parliament dissolving the monarchy, because she has no means of enforcing them

Interesting little legal historical fact. During the Second World War, the Australian government fretted over the constitutional crisis that might arise if the UK were invaded and the Royal Family were overthrown/captured. Without the ability to gain royal assent, we'd have essentially been legally unable to pass any bills without a referendum - apparently the Prime Minister of the day even considered an emergency clause granting the American president sovereignty (it's a bit indicative of the colonial mindset Australia still had even in the 1940s).

Our Constitution states that references to the Queen and Crown apply to the Queen and her "heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom". There's no mention of 'lawful successors', so amusingly, had the above scenario occurred, Hitler could have briefly been the Sovereign of Australia.

The moment a monarch tries to exercise any sort of political power* is the moment when the monarchy will officially de jure lose any legal notion of power. The monarchy has not been dominant over parliament since the civil war, almost 400 years ago. By the time we got to the 20th century, they had no real power other than being a figurehead head of state, nationalist propaganda piece, and ceremonial role in government.

The last monarch to openly defy parliament and claim their authority superior to it, ended up having their head chopped of. A fact the reigning monarch is reminded of every year during the state opening of parliament, when the monarch is getting ready in the robing room, in front of a large painting of King Charles, the last aforementioned headless monarch.

*(other than the most basic form of lobbying Charles does now for causes like the environment)

What is the point of having a royal figurehead? If the British are so staunchly against monarchy, why not just formally dissolve it? Whats the point of having a bunch of rich people on the government payroll with no real function?

>>876985
Does Australia still have this in their constitution? If so, why?

>>877004
Then why Do Americans obsess with King George?

>>877114
Yes, it's section 2. The intent of the section is just so that any references to The Queen in the original constitution will subsequently apply to her successors. As to why it hasn't been amended? Referendums are incredibly costly, and I'd guess that the prospect of someone illegally usurping the British crown is so remote that no one can be bothered amending it.

File: 29387592375.png (47KB, 1357x628px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1357x628px

>>875775
>what is the unquenchable loyalty of her subjects

>>877139
Australia is very obviously its own country, though. Would it really take that big an effort to formally cut off ties with a far away, irrelevant and powerless monarchy?

>>875723

That's Elizabeth II you pleb.

>>877155
Oh you mean why don't we become a republic? A number of reasons (and as a caveat I'm not taking sides on this issue). The monarchy still remains pretty popular in Australia - I think people see them as a contrast to politicians, which people across the western world tend to have an inherent distrust of. Having her as Queen doesn't make us legally subservient to Britain - Elizabeth is simply the Queen of Britain AND Australia AND Canada etc etc.

You're right though, people in favour of a Republic often question why our head of state isn't an Australian, and state that if it ever came down to it, Elizabeth would surely put the interests of her British subjects ahead of her Australian ones. We had a referendum on becoming a republic last decade, and it was defeated. The political will to try again takes some time.

The biggest issue really though is that there's no united front amongst republicans on what would replace the current system - would we opt for an American style system, with a powerful president? Or would we maintain our current system, where the Prime Minister retains most of the power, and the President is really just a ceremonial role that replaces the current Governor General (the Queen's representative in Australia). Really, what wins out in the end is a bit of a lethargic attitude that's essentially "if it ain't broke, why fix it?"

>>877133
Because the monarch is the embodiment of the British government. Also, I don't think what the guy you're responding to is entirely true - I know attempts at catholic emancipation in the 19th century were frustrated by the Kings views on the subject, so one would think the opinion of the Crown still had some influence in those days.

>>876985
>>877114
I think you'll find that succession is a matter of law, at least according to the High Court, who the army listens to.

>>877139
>British crown
Australian crown mate, Australian crown.

>>877153
>>877155
Ties were formally cut in the Australia Act and when Queensland lost the privy court appeal route. So 1986 was when Australia gained an independent crown.