Background: constitutional monarchy
The United Kingdom (UK) is a democratic constitutional monarchy. What does this description mean? A monarchy is typically a system under which the head of state – the person formally at the summit of public life – inherits their office from their parents, holding it until they die (or perhaps retire), when it passes down to their heir. Generally, monarchs perform a range of important functions, that may include appointing ministers or other holders of important posts, and representing the country on the international stage. Various legal powers can be vested in monarchies, for instance, for approving laws and agreeing to treaties.
Given such a role, historically, monarchs have been powerful figures within political systems. This position has changed in those states that have become more democratic. Democracy means governments being chosen by and being answerable to the people. The head of state holding their office by birth, not by election, and there being no legal means by which the public can clearly hold them to account and potentially remove them, is difficult to reconcile with this principle.
For some countries – for instance, France and the United States – the long process of becoming more democratic partly involved removing the monarchy and becoming a republic. Both today have directly elected heads of state, in the form of presidents.
Other countries have developed democracy while retaining their monarchs. They have achieved this outcome through subjecting these hereditary heads of state to various rules intended to ensure that they act in accordance with democratic principles, rather than governing according to their own wishes. Monarchs who are restrained in this way are known as constitutional monarchs. They operate in various states around the world. In Europe, they include – alongside the UK – the Netherlands, Spain, and Denmark. Outside Europe, there are countries that share the same monarch as the UK, such as Australia and Canada.
This page outlines the history of the UK monarchy, its powers, the constitutional principles surrounding the monarchy, covers debates the future of the UK monarchy and answers some commonly asked questions.
History of the UK monarchy
The UK constitutional monarchy has roots that long predate the UK itself as a state. We can trace its origins in part to the Anglo-Saxon era and the multiple kingdoms that existed prior to the formation (late in the first millennium CE) of England as a single polity. Compared to their contemporary successors, pre-modern rulers had an extensive range of powers. But there were limits on their freedom of action. There was a long-established concept of monarchs consulting with their subjects, a principle out of which Parliament began to develop in the thirteenth century. Furthermore, documents such as Magna Carta (first agreed in 1215) sought to impose constraints upon the monarch. But these restrictions were not as extensive as they later became. In 1603, following the death of Elizabeth I, James VI of Scotland also became King of England, fusing the two crowns. There followed an attempt to introduce a more assertive monarchical absolutism. But the reaction against this tendency led to the establishment of greater constitutional restraints, and a firmer footing for Parliament as the supreme representative institution. During 1649-1660, the British Isles had no monarchy at all, following the civil wars and execution of Charles I. After the ‘Glorious Revolution’ or 1688, Mary and William ruled jointly, and were subject to a newly agreed ‘Bill of Rights.’ In the centuries that followed, active political leadership transferred increasingly to ministers accountable to Parliament, and away from the head of state. The franchise expanded through successive reforms from 1832 onwards. Governments – resting in the confidence of the elected House of Commons – acquired enhanced strength from a democratic legitimacy that Queens and Kings lacked. But though it came to be restrained, the monarchy persisted.
Powers of the UK monarch
The contemporary UK constitutional monarch, at present King Charles III, possesses the ultimate legal responsibility for a variety of functions that are crucial to the operation of the political system. Among them are:
- Appointing and removing the Prime Minister and other ministers;
- Dissolving Parliament, to bring about general elections;
- ‘Proroguing’ Parliament – that is, disbanding it for a set period of time;
- Approving the most important laws (primary legislation) – through granting what is known as ‘Royal Assent’;
- Appointing members of the House of Lords;
- The conduct of diplomacy, and agreeing treaties;
- Acting as head of the Armed Forces, being responsible for their deployment within and outside the UK, including in potential or actual hostile action;
- Being head of the Church of England, the official religion of England; and
- Granting honours.
Constitutional principles
These powers, many of which exist under an ancient legal source known as the ‘Royal Prerogative’, are extensive in their scope. A number of understandings have developed to ensure that they are deployed in accordance with constitutional principles. In the context of contemporary UK democracy, most of these functions are delegated to or exercised on the basis of advice provided by the Prime Minister and other ministers. For instance, in practice, prime ministers, not monarchs, choose who to appoint to ministerial posts; and decisions about entering into armed combat are made by the politicians. Monarchs simply do not have the discretion they might once have possessed about how their legal authority should be used. For instance, it is hard to conceive of a ruler on their own initiative trying to veto the enactment of a law that had passed through Parliament; or seeking to impose their own choice of Prime Minister.
Royal authorities, then, are in practice largely delegated to ministers. Between them, these ministers make up His Majesty’s Government. This entity derives its political authority from possessing the confidence of the House of Commons, the membership of which is determined by the outcomes of elections across the whole of the UK. By this means, the powers technically attached to the monarchy become democratically legitimate: there is a link between voters and those within the executive who are responsible for these functions. Parliament in turn holds ministers to account, on behalf of the public, for the way in which they exercise these powers (though how effective it is at overseeing the use of the Royal Prerogative is debatable).
The courts can also become involved in ensuring the use of the Royal Prerogative is carried out in a way that conforms to established standards. They can decide whether particular powers exist; and scrutinise whether they are being deployed properly. The second Miller case in 2019, for example, showed that a court can rule a particular use of the prerogative, in that instance the attempted prorogation of Parliament by the Boris Johnson government, unlawful.
Because it is ministers who now make most of the real decisions about the use of these powers, monarchs are distanced from party politics. Indeed, there is an important constitutional principle that they should be insulated from involvement in public controversy. For instance, in circumstances where it is not entirely clear who is should become the next Prime Minister, leading politicians of different parties are supposed to resolve this matter between them and avoid drawing the monarch into it.
Monarchs in the UK, however, do retain some scope for influence, though of a limited nature. They are consulted privately on some decisions and policies, particularly those that would have a direct bearing on their interests; and are able to discuss government business at the meeting or ‘audience’ they have with the Prime Minister every week when Parliament is in session. The contents of the discussions that take place remain secret, but it is reasonable to assume that at times rulers might have some – albeit limited – impact upon their first minister. Their role, then, is significantly reduced when compared with their predecessors of earlier eras, but they are perhaps something more than just an ornament.
Debates and the future
Opinion research suggests strong overall support among the UK public for the continuation of the monarchy; and abolition is not on the mainstream political agenda. Nonetheless, the idea of replacing the hereditary head of state with one who is either directly elected, or chosen by Parliament, has advocates. In debates on this subject, some of the main arguments offered in favour of the monarchy are that:
- It provides continuity to the political system – while prime ministers and governments come and go, monarchs remain in place. Even when there is a changeover in ruler, as in 2022, it is instant, unchallenged and smooth;
- The monarch can act as a neutral focal point for the whole country, carrying out key ceremonial functions while maintaining distance from party political controversy;
- Monarchs play an important international relations role, contributing to the ‘soft power’ of the UK in the world; and
- Any replacement for the monarchy could create problems. A directly elected president, for example, could become a dynamic and destabilising personal force.
Possible objections to the monarchy include:
- It is undemocratic – no-one should become the head of state simply by birth, and there should be some means by which the public, either directly or via Parliament, can choose and remove them, and hold them to account;
- It is anachronistic, a relic of an imperial past, and attached to an Established Church that no longer represents the diversity of the contemporary UK;
- At times it might be useful for the head of state to be able to resist improper courses of action favoured by prime ministers and their governments. Hereditary monarchs lack the democratic legitimacy that would enable them to do so; and
- The Royal Prerogative, which has largely come under the control of prime ministers and ministers, can act as a shield behind which they can evade the full democratic accountability to which they could otherwise, and should, be subject.
One might argue that, for the foreseeable future, it is hard to conceive of there being any serious effort to remove the monarchy and that this debate is more theoretical than practical. Such a view is reasonable, although firm predictions of this type can be proved wrong. Moreover, whether or not there is a dramatic change in this area, the issues raised are central to an understanding of the UK constitution. They relate in particular to its nature as an historic entity in which practical reality can differ greatly from official outward appearance.
Common questions
Can the King dissolve Parliament?
In practice, he will only do so on the advice of the Prime Minister; but could – in theory at least – decline to do so if such a request was improper.
Can the King declare war?
The power to declare war exists only under the Royal Prerogative. The UK has not declared war since 1942, however, and potential or actual hostile military operations take place without such a declaration being issued. However, they are also carried out under the scope fo the Royal Prerogative.
Can the King vote?
Members of the royal family are in theory allowed to vote, but they have chosen not to exercise this right, underscoring their political neutrality.
Can the monarch refuse royal assent?
For practical and political reasons, it would be difficult for them to do so; but it remains a theoretical possibility.
Can the monarch enter the house of commons?
There is a longstanding tradition (rather than a legal rule) that the monarch cannot enter the House of Commons, reflecting a principle that the executive should not intimidate representatives of the people.
Can the monarch be arrested?
The King is subject to ‘sovereign immunity’, protecting him from criminal or civil legal proceedings.
Can a queen overrule the government?
Monarchs possess a range of legal powers. However, in most areas, they act on a basis of advice received from the Prime Minister and the ministers who make up their government. To refuse to allow their powers to be used in a certain way, perhaps because they disagreed with it, would be highly controversial from a constitutional perspective, challenging the democratic principle, and perhaps damaging the reputation of the monarchy itself. However, in theory, they could decline to accept advice. If, for instance, a Prime Minister who was about to be removed by their own party tried to prevent this move against them by requesting a General Election, a monarch might ask them to reconsider.
Can a queen be Catholic?
Under UK law, a Roman Catholic cannot become the monarch. Moreover, monarchs must be in communion with the Church of England. This rule dates back to the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, when religion had important foreign policy and security connotations, but remains in place.