The Constitutional Crown
A revision of constitutional monarchy?
The UK’s constitutional monarchy is a widely celebrated institution. The continuity of the monarchy, by contrast to political and societal change, presents a lasting symbol of national unity (Bogdanor, 1996). It provides constitutional stability; the monarch is apolitical yet possesses the capacity to ensure constitutional norms are maintained. Though the monarch possesses, in theory, an array of prerogative powers, the transfer of those powers to the effective exercise of ministers illustrates the gradual evolution of Britain’s uncodified constitution to democracy. The monarchy, in this sense, symbolises the constitution as an accumulation of legislative acts and convention, emerging over time (Bogdanor, 1996).
Yet, the Crown’s constitutional role, as it currently exists, could put the monarchy and British democracy at risk. Operating in the context of an uncodified constitution, it is not inconceivable that the monarch’s prerogative powers, wherever they are exercised, could be used for malign purposes. For example, the key principle of parliamentary sovereignty, with sovereignty derived from the Crown as an integral part of Parliament, means there is supposedly no end to the power of Parliament. In practice, parliamentary power is often wielded by one party with a majority in the House of Commons. Parliamentary sovereignty is often challenged by the dominance of the executive. All this means that the monarch’s prerogative powers could be used, by ministers, to an unconstitutional or even undemocratic end.
An example of this came in 2019 during the Brexit deadlock. To push through the government’s version of Brexit, Boris Johnson attempted to exploit the monarch’s prerogative power to prorogue Parliament, which is usually used for standard constitutional and administrative reasons. Members of the late Queen’s Privy Council advised Her Majesty to suspend Parliament. Constitutional convention directs that the monarch is obliged to accept and act on the advice of ministers, so the Queen approved and prorogued Parliament (BBC, 2019). Inevitably, due to the arbitrary nature of the suspension during key Brexit debates opposition parties prepared legal representations. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that the advice given to the Queen was unlawful, as it prevented Parliament carrying out its legislative functions (BBC, 2019).
By the late 19th century, it became accepted that the monarch usually exercises prerogative powers on the advice of their ministers. So, the 2019 saga was blamed on Boris Johnson and the government. There is, however, a bigger issue at the heart of the matter. The monarch’s prerogative powers are vast, affording ministers a wide array of powers. These are powers for which there is limited legal or constitutional accountability, given that they, at least formally, are within the Sovereign’s gift. The 2019 crisis, however exceptional the circumstances may have been, is an example of how the absence of a codified constitution can cause legal confusion and delay, hindering the work of Parliament and British democracy.
Constitutional reform in Britain has occurred at a gradual pace. In so doing, Britain has managed to avoid violent and disruptive revolution, and developed a polity that has proven stable. However, the prospects for liberal democracy in the 21st century are growing dim. The spread of political corruption, misinformation, electoral fraud, democratic backsliding are all pervasive, even in previously stable democracies like Britain. While the 2019 case may have showcased the Supreme Court’s ability to protect constitutional norms, it doesn’t guarantee that a future government would be prevented from exploiting the lack of clear legal and constitutional parameters. In an era when politicians everywhere are running roughshod over convention and norms, it perhaps makes sense that Britain should consider constitutional reform. The practice of relying on the decency of ministers to conform to convention may have sufficed in a more predictable past; the new era of uncertainty suggests otherwise.
References
BBC (2019) ‘Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule’. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261 (Accessed: 28 January 2024).
Bogdanor, V (1996). The Monarchy and the Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qub/reader.action?docID=3053174 (Accessed: 28 January 2024).
This post was very informative. The author brings up interesting points about the downsides to an uncodified constitution and how the monarch’s powers could be abused if ministers should ever refuse to conform to convention based on general assumption of decency. The information in this post explains the issue clearly and sets readers up with the context needed for proper interpretation, regardless of their preexisting level of expertise. To me, the idea of relying on an assumption of decency in governance is quite alarming and I agree with the author’s point that constitutional reform might be in order. The powers of both the monarch and the constitution have power to affect the nation on a large scale, and as such, may increasingly become the targets of heated party disputes or even malicious actors. While it may seem farfetched to consider the possibility that malicious actors could manipulate these procedural weak spots, it is not unheard of even in recent international politics. For example, late last year a US Senator was charged with acting as a foreign agent of Egypt. While the specific allegations are unproven and do not hold the same weight as the above issue, were it to arise, it is clear that the assumption of decency isn’t always a sound approach to political conventions.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-files-superseding-indictment-against-senator-bob-menendez-2023-10-12/
This post was very well written, providing an excellent overview of the UK’s constitutional monarchy, with plenty of context and examples provided throughout, as well as an intriguing title which aids in drawing in readers. One point which the author could have perhaps commented on is the fact that the Queen theoretically could have ignored the advice of her ministers, as is explained in the ‘Common questions’ section of The Constitution Society’s explanation of the role of the monarchy in UK politics (https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-monarchy/). This could have perhaps been used as a vehicle through which to explore the future of the role of the monarchy in UK politics, and in turn the future of the UK’s constitutional monarchy overall. Overall, however, this was an excellent and enjoyable read.
This post showcases a great knowledge of ministerial code, the uncodified constitution and the power of the monarchy. The author also illustrates the power of the majority in Parliament with the example of the Conservative majority of over eight seats following the 2019 General Election and how this owner can be misused in order to push through legislation without the proper discourse of accountability and scrutiny. The use of the example of Boris Johnson utilising the ability to prorogue Parliament through utilising the Monarchs power to do so is an extremely interesting and concerning one, the exploitation of the constitutional provisions in order to push through legislation that would enforce a Brexit. As the Author suggest this sets a dangerous precedent with the Monarchs abilities being vast and ministers effectively controlling the monarchy’s actions it could lead to , as the author suggests “democratic backsliding”. Although the decision to prorogue Parliament was considered Illegal by the Supreme Court of the UK, so how realistic is it that this or any other future Government would risk the consequences of attempting to exploit the ability of ministers to control the monarchy? Overall the piece presents a great analysis of the Ability of ministers to control the Monarchy at its constitutional powers.
This post provides an excellent overview of the flaws within the UK constitution and how easily, due to the uncodified nature, ministers have the ability to abuse their powers. As this post discusses, a lack of written constitution can leave significant room for ambiguity and interpretation, which can lead to inconsistencies and injustices, which I would argue were very clearly seen throughout the entire BREXIT ordeal. It is crucial for the UK to address these flaws and consider reform to create a more equitable and accountable system for all citizens. The post could perhaps provide examples of constitutional reforms that would help eradicate some of the current issues.
This post provides a good explanation of what the UK constitutional monarchy actually is and how it affects political life in Britain. It is worth noting the undeniable changing nature in a negative manner of this system, just as the author has done. Focusing on malign purposes, in contemporary Britain the Prime Minister is becoming more and more powerful, to the extent that they have been labelled as ‘presidential.’ Utilising the Royal Prerogative powers effectively have enabled PMs to dominate their executive and by extension government. The uncodified nature of the UK constitution means there is a lot of grey area which is being exploited more and more throughout British politics and the powers of the monarchy are suffering. We are definitely in an era of uncertainty that is only being fuelled by a lack of codified constitution. To improve, the author could have suggested how the monarchy is still powerful within modern Britain, particularly through the role of Head of State.
Instantly, my attention was caught by the strong, punchy heading. It was a creative way to promptly engage readers. Additionally, the author has made clever use of images to divide up their work and present a well structured read. Whilst the blog briefly discusses constitutional reform in Britain, personally, I would have liked to see some of those reforms proposed. As some of the major dangers of having a written constitution is that the state is no longer democratic, and the UK is supposed to be a ‘liberal-democratic’ state, so the implementation of a written constitution becomes hard to justify. Moreover, the author could have included a few links describing what a constitution, parliamentary sovereignty and who the executive is, so that readers with no knowledge on the subject would understand. Otherwise, a very strong and successful blog.
The author provides an interesting analysis of the constitutional issues surrounding the monarchy’s prerogative powers, highlighting potential risks to UK democracy and rule of law. I also thought the authors use of the 2019 Brexit prorogation crisis was a relevant example to illustrate how the monarch’s powers can be exploited by politicians and helped put the dangers of an uncodified constitution into context. I thought the conclusion which questions the need for constitutional reform, suggesting that the current system may no longer be sufficient to protect democratic norms and institutions in the face of modern challenges, was extremely relevant.
I thought the author was successful in highlighting how monarchs do not have the same influence as they once possessed, due to the majority of their powers being exercised on their behalf by government ministers. In modern times, monarchs retain a limited scope for influence through private consultation on some decisions and policies, particularly those that would have a direct bearing on their interests. However, the monarch does have the opportunity to discuss government business at a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister when Parliament is in session. The contents of these discussions remain secret, but it may be fair to assume that at times the monarch might have some sort of influence upon the prime minister, and as an extension therefore on government policy. Their role is undeniably reduced when compared with earlier monarchs, but they may have a greater significance than just as a mere figurehead.
Reading this blog post was a highly informative experience as it was thorough in its provision of contextual information of the constitutional monarchy. Starting with the perspective that the monarchy is a celebrated symbol of national unity and then outlining the monarchy’s legislative roles was an insightful opening. This allowed the writer to demonstrate how an uncodified constitution may also have its drawbacks, thus showing a balanced argument within the blog post. Using the example of Borris Johnson in the Brexit deadlock was a highly relevant display of the problems of relying on ministers to conform to convention. Additionally, the use of examples and the balancing of arguments throughout enabled a flowing and stimulating picture of the constitutional crown to be created. The acknowledgement of the constitutional reforms that have happened overtime and the suggestions that there should be further reforms, were confidently backed up by the many observed instances that have impacted the stability of British democracy in recent times. In summary, this blog post demonstrated an impressive overview of the problems of the UK’s constitutional structure as well as explanations of why such a structure still exists.
The author provides a good overview of how the British Monarch’s political powers have declined overtime and how the Monarch is now apolitical as the UK have adapted a constitutional monarchy. The author conveys that, although the Monarch is the Head of State, this is a symbolic role and that since the 19th Century there has been the convention that the ability to make and pass legislation lies with an elected Parliament. It would be beneficial if the author provided links or explanations for key terms such as ‘uncodified constitution’ in order to help readers who may not have much knowledge of British politics understand the situation better.
Moreover, it would be advantageous if more academic sources were utilised in this blog as the blog is heavily based on the assumption that monarch’s prerogative powers ‘could’ be abused by ministers but there is a lack of academic evidence cited to substantiate this, although the unlawful suspension of Parliament in 2019 is referred to and provides an interesting, contemporary example. Employing more literature such as academic journal articles, books and book chapters will support your arguments more effectively and will also provide readers with additional sources if they wish to research further into the topic.
Overall, this is a thought-provoking blog which is well-structured and enjoyable to read.
This blog post effectively discusses the function of the constitutional monarchy in modern governance; nevertheless, it may be expanded by diving into the system’s wider implications for democratic principles and citizen perception. One key factor that deserves additional examination is the monarchy’s dual function as both an embodiment of tradition and an active participant in the democratic process, which may occasionally produce a paradox in public perception.
For example, while the monarchy is supposed to be distinct from disputes over politics, events like the Queen’s speech, which announces the government’s legislative initiative, demonstrate how the Crown may look politically affiliated. Furthermore, the writer could delve deeper into how the monarchy’s ceremonial duties affect national identity and cohesiveness, in particular during times of political or economic hardship.
Another topic that could be discussed is the financial ramifications of keeping a constitutional monarchy, namely how it impacts taxpayers. The monarchy’s public funding, which includes spending for ceremonies, security, and maintaining of royal properties, can be difficult. This financial element could be examined in light of the economic benefits frequently mentioned, such as tourism and worldwide diplomatic goodwill produced by the royal family. Analysing if these benefits exceed the costs could lead to a deeper comprehension of the monarchy’s function as well as longevity in modern Britain. This approach would provide an objective examination of the economic reasons for and against constitutional monarchy, broadening the debate over its significance and purpose in modern society.
This blog provides an excellent commentary of a recent constitutional crisis in the UK and of many of the issues which have been posed by the uncodified nature of the Uk constitution including some which are often forgotten given the symbolic nature of the British Crown. Therefore the blog does well at examining the powers of the royal prerogative and how it can be dangerous that such powers, while not truly held by the royals, can be held by individuals in government with little true and viable form of critique with the mentioned example portraying this. I do however believe that to show the true scale of what the royal prerogative powers allows the government or Prime Minister to do, another example such as the ability to declare war could have been examined or acknowledged with the recent example of May taking military action against Syria in 2018. (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/parliamentary-approval-military-action#:~:text=In%20April%202018%2C%20military%20action,retrospective%20vote%20on%20the%20matter.)
This is a very well-researched and interesting blog post on the issues that surround the monarchy’s constitutional powers. the post aptly discusses the potential problems that the monarchy’s role can have on the future stability of democracy in the UK. The author also provides an extremely relevant example of the exploitation of the monarch powers by Boris Johnson in 2019, this example showcases the dangers of how the monarchical powers can be exploited and used for political leverage. This post does an excellent job of displaying how the lack of a codified constitution in the UK leaves a large area within politics in the region. Furthermore, this piece highlights the decreasing influence the monarchy has in recent times as most of its powers are exercised by the government on their behalf, however, a small note to the huge role that the monarchy still holds within UK politics due to its role as a head of state, etc. would have been beneficial for this post.
Another suggestion to improve this blog post would be the inclusion of more academic references to enhance the argument presented and more use of links to allow readers to educate themselves further on the topic at hand.
Overall, this is an interesting and well-written blog post on the issue of the monarchy’s constitutional powers.
I think this blog post is great as it has a good level of clarity. Throughout, the author explains very clearly all of the information in this post, making it easier for anyone to read regardless of their knowledge level. It provides a clear overview of the monarchy and is informative throughout. I particularly like the mentioning of the point regarding Boris Johnson’s intention to use the monarch’s prerogative powers in order to prorogue parliament. I also agree that this is a feature which is not the most optimal for the nation as it can be used in malicious ways to affect the nation on a huge scale. The only improvement I would give to the author is to provide more academic sources to substantiate their argument but also provide the reader with something to look at, should they be interested. Overall, I think this is well researched and informative.
This post provides a compelling analysis of the potential risks posed by the Crown’s prerogative powers within the UK’s constitutional monarchy, particularly exemplified by the 2019 Brexit crisis. Indeed, the reliance on convention and the assumption of ministerial decency may no longer suffice in an era marked by political upheaval and uncertainty. One aspect that could further enrich this discussion is the evolving role of the monarchy in the context of increasing calls for greater transparency and accountability in governance. While the monarchy has historically served as a stabilising force, its opacity in wielding prerogative powers raises questions about democratic accountability. Moreover, as is pointed out, the absence of a codified constitution exacerbates these concerns by leaving room for legal ambiguity and potential abuse of power. In light of this, perhaps it’s time for Britain to seriously consider constitutional reform that not only clarifies the boundaries of the monarchy’s authority but also strengthens democratic safeguards against its misuse.
The author explains the UK’s constitutional monarchy in a succinct yet detailed manner, and shows a broad understanding of the blog topic. The blog is well manufactured with a particularly interesting analysis on the royal family’s contribution to issues raised during Johnson’s sovereignty. While the blog gives a broad history of the topic, it lacks application. The author could do more to talk about the practical effects of constitutional monarchy on a democratic state, and how this could be remedied.
This blog post offers a compelling examination of the UK’s constitutional monarchy and raises important questions about the potential risks it poses to British democracy. However, in discussing the need for constitutional reform it’s also crucial to consider not only the shortcomings of the current system but also the potential consequences of any proposed changes. One aspect that warrants further exploration is the role of public opinion in shaping constitutional reform efforts. While the monarchy enjoys considerable popularity and support amongst the British public, there is also a growing awareness of the need for greater transparency and accountability in governance. As such, any proposed reforms to the monarchy or the broader constitutional framework must be accompanied by public dialogue to ensure legitimacy and citizen involvement. Moreover, the blog post rightly highlights the importance of codifying constitutional norms and principles to provide clarity in governance. However, the process of codification itself raises questions about the balance of powers, the protection of individual rights, and the preservation of democratic institutions. Careful consideration must be given to how a codified constitution would address these issues while safeguarding the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law. Additionally, it’s worth exploring alternative models of constitutional governance that may offer insights into potential reforms. For example, countries like Canada and Australia, which share a similar constitutional heritage with the UK, have adopted written constitutions that combine elements of parliamentary sovereignty with explicit protections for individual rights and freedoms. Examining the strengths and weaknesses of these models could inform discussions about the future direction of constitutional reform in the UK.
This Post raises critical points about the enduring role and vulnerability’s Britain’s monarchy faces. Providing an in-depth analysis of ministerial code, Brittan’s lack of a codified constitution and the monarchy. The author immediately grabbed by attention with a short yet intriguing title. I found it interesting reading how the monarchy has evolved to now act as figure heads, acting primarily on advice from ministers as well as highlighting how ministerial power can go unchecked with the lack of a codified constitution. However, the author could have discussed the public perception of these issues as well as economic ramifications to taxpayers. Overall, this is a very well researched and informative blogpost, with a high level of clarity throughout, each section is well labelled to ensure an enjoyable and easy read.