uk - Why don't British kings and queens veto laws? - Politics Stack Exchange Why don't British kings and queens veto laws? up vote 35 down vote favorite 4 I've learned from Wikipedia that the British king or queen has the right to veto laws, but they don't use the right. Why is that? Is it because of tradition, respect for democracy, some regulations or perhaps something else? I'm asking because the presidents of my country (who are however elected by the people) have an analogous right, and they use the right quite often. up vote 25 down vote accepted The monarch of the United Kingdom is, as are most contemporary monarchies, a historical artefact, with little (if any) political power, their role is largely ceremonial. Refusal of royal assent is rarely exercised any more, and the main reason is, as you suspected, respect for democracy. Conversely, the last time royal assent was refused in the UK was in 1708, when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill . Elected officials, on the other hand, are not going against democratic structures if they exercise their veto powers.

3 kinda untrue, they DO use their right to veto : theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bil‌​ls – Ninja Noel Mar 12 '14 at 16:53 @NinjaNoel That's not necessarily correct: according to a palace spokesman, "The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers." - i.e. they maintain that the elected government was really behind withholding consent, and ascribing the veto to the Queen would be like claiming the Queen is actually ordering the military around (i.e. technically, but not really). Also, consent is different in details from conventional veto; veto happens after a law is passed (overturning an actual act), while consent is needed to even discuss it. – cpast Jun 13 '14 at 0:22 up vote 17 down vote Because to do so would cause a constitutional crisis.

As the Wikipedia article on the subject lists, previous such crises have more typically been caused by the head of state acting against the advice of the government on matters such as dissolving Parliament, or dismissing or appointing Prime Ministers. However, the underlying issue is the same: in countries and states which have this system of government, where the head of state is expected to exercise what limited powers he or she has only on the advice of the government, when he or she doesn't, it can result in any of: fierce debate, governmental paralysis, fresh elections, a change in the constitution, the removal of the head of state (or the head of the head of state ), or civil war. In the UK and other constitutional monarchies, as well as in a number of Commonwealth countries and their constituent states, constitutional convention dictates that the Queen (or equivalent in other countries and states) is required to assent to bills presented to him or her after they have been agreed to by the legislature. Although this power appears ceremonial, and in the vast majority of cases the Queen (or equivalent) does indeed grant assent when requested to do so, the power is real. This is demonstrated on the rare occasion when assent has been refused .

To give one such example relating to King Baudouin of Belgium : In 1990, when a law ... liberalising Belgium's abortion laws, was approved by Parliament, he refused to give Royal Assent to the bill. This was unprecedented; although Baudoin was nominally Belgium's chief executive, Royal Assent has long been a formality (as is the case in most constitutional and popular monarchies). However, due to his religious convictions, Baudouin asked the Government to declare him temporarily unable to reign so that he could avoid signing the measure into law. The Government ... complied with his request on 4 April 1990. According to the provisions of the Belgian Constitution, in the event the King is temporarily unable to reign, the Government as a whole fulfils the role of Head of State. All members of the Government signed the bill, and the next day (5 April 1990) the Government declared that Baudouin was capable of reigning again.

UPDATE 24 Jan '13: The Queen and Price of Wales (the heir to the throne) also have to give their consent to bills which relate "to royal powers and the interests of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall", and this must be done during the bill's passage through Parliament. As with Royal Assent, this is largely a formality. However, recently revealed documents show that the Queen did in fact refuse consent on a Private Members Bill in 1999, as well as on a few other instances prior to that . While this may look like the Queen vetoing bills she didn't like, it appears that it was actually the government using a rarely-used power to prevent inconvenient bills from being discussed in Parliament. up vote 11 down vote Because there are more effective ways for Her Majesty to change or veto laws. The Queen can indeed veto a law after it has passed the Houses of Parliament, but it would be ill-advised. Instead, she can use her considerable "soft power" to warn the Prime Minister of her disagreement with the law before it is voted upon. Such warnings are secret, but are documented, and sometimes released.

In the case of the Queen of Australia, concerning a move by a 1979 NSW Government to terminate appeals to the Privy Council, constitutional expert Anne Twomey remarks: What is most remarkable about this story is not that the Queen, supported by the British government, was prepared to override the will of the New South Wales Parliament as late as 1979, but that this entire incident was hushed up so that the public never knew of it until at least 2006. It illustrates the immense “soft power” of the Queen. She does not have to refuse assent. It is enough to indicate that she might do so and in almost all circumstances a government will yield. This system is supported by the procedure for receiving advice from the realms. Informal advice must first be sent and it is only once the Queen’s private secretary indicates approval of the informal advice that the formal advice may be given. Hence, any objections by the Queen are raised and resolved at the informal advice stage so that the Queen never rejects formal advice. up vote 0 down vote The Monarch of the UK (and the Commonwealth Realms ) is a ceremonial position and so she cannot, in reality, exercise this power.

The only power I can imagine her exercising (beyond normal day-to-day duties such as awarding charters, awards etc.) is dismissal of government as that just means that another general election would be called. The problem being would be the vacuum for the interim government and the lack of time for campaigning. Refusal of royal assent (vetoing laws) would cause massive uproar and would show little respect for democracy and therefore the people's choice. The likelihood is that the people of the United Kingdom would call for reform and to get rid of the monarchy but this would cause countless problems: The monarchy generates massive revenue for the economy (through tourism etc.) and royal celebrations quite often bring in mass tourism and people of the realms (especially the British) spend money for souvenirs etc. It would also cause a massive problem and would cost billions to dispose of the monarchy. Thousands of jobs would be lost, many organisations such as the Royal Mint, Royal Mail etc. would require name, structural and governance changes. The military governance & naming would change which would require renaming of almost all naval vessels and aircraft.

C City status balloting would need to be revised and the house of lords would fall into disarray as all awards and titles such as MBEs, OBEs, Knighthoods, baronships, earlships etc. are awarded by the Crown. You also need to bear in mind that she is head of state for the Commonwealth realms also, not just the UK. So essentially the UK would be leaving the Commonwealth realms to dispose of her. This would create massive problems for other countries. New systems would need to be established with regards to the appointing of governments, the final signing of bills. This would mean the many problems created by the dissolution of the Crown could not be rectified. The amount of problems caused and the amount of money that would need spending to fix it would be too significant to even contemplate. To return to the original point, I doubt the monarchy would ever use a veto as this would cause dissolution of the monarchy which would end very very badly. up vote 0 down vote one simple way to perspectivize it: The French revolution was particularly violent, being driven by the outrage of the people against the monarchy's acts against the will of the nation (its people).

Most other European monarchies were exposed to the same thing around the same time. Everyone in the now-European countries had become fed-up with their will not be properly represented. Most of the EU countries allowed their royal families to stay, provided that there was no opposition to the democratic process and power. Some of the EU countries forbade their royal families from staying: Greece, Italy, etc. up vote -2 down vote The Queen and prince Charles have the soft power to stop progression of a bill in early stages before it goes to the house of commons and lords. the prime minister have private meetings with the queen weekly and no one is allowed to know what they discuss and spying of the PM leaking information is a very strongly punished crime. they also talk to the government and misters in private meetings. Also because the queen is not only the head of politics but also the head of religion because there is no separation of church and state, 26 bishops including the archbishop of Canterbury have a seat in the upper-house of parliament who are the last stage before an act of parliament reaches the stage where they need royal assent to pass it. they therefore influence laws at a more private and in early levels.

they Royals have served the nation and those who know them realize they always act in good faith for example the prince of wales didn't stop the bill that forced him to pay higher taxes because of the land he owned and his property of Cornwall instead he agreed but that money was money he used for his Charity that has done immense good for the nation. also the prime minister can advise that the queen veto a bill which will be public and is a tool that protects the prime ministers power and will not cause controversy because she is acting on the advise of her ministers and the prime minister wanted to stop a bill that was passed against his will due to the opposition party and corruption in government. Queen Anne Stuart of England Queen Anne of England Anne Stuart was an unlikely person to become queen of England. She was born on February 6, 1665 to the Duke and Duchess of York and was their second daughter out of three children. Shortly before her birth, her uncle, King Charles II, had married and seemed destined to have a large family after fathering several illegitimate children. But he had no more children. As Anne grew older she would be plagued by numerous health problems, but she survived to adulthood.

She only received a limited education, yet Anne would reign during a critically important period in her nation's history. During her reign she would oversee two major events in English history, one domestic and one foreign. The first being the Act of Union that united England and Scotland. The second was a major international war, the War of Spanish Succession. Best remembered as the last of the Stuart dynasty Anne had no heirs. The events of her reign would pave the way for Britain to become an international world power. Although born into royalty, her education was similar to that of other aristocratic girls: languages and music. Her knowledge of history was limited and she received no instruction in civil law or military matters that most male monarchs were expected to have. She was also a sickly child, and may have suffered from the blood disease porphyria, as well as having poor vision and a serious case of smallpox at the age of twelve. Poor health would plague Anne her entire life, probably contributing to her many miscarriages. Anne grew up in an atmosphere of controversy. Her father James, the Duke of York, and both her mother and later her stepmother were Roman Catholic.

They would have preferred to raise Anne and Mary (their only children to survive early childhood) as Roman Catholics. Nevertheless, prominent Protestants, such as Henry Compton, later bishop of London, interceded and ensured the girls would not only be required to attend Protestant services but that they also receive Protestant religious instruction. Anne's life dramatically changed when the Lord Treasurer and Earl of Danby, in an attempt to strengthen his influence with King Charles II, arranged the marriage of Anne's sister, Mary, to William of Orange. Their father, the Duke of York, had wanted to wed Mary to the heir to the French throne, a Roman Catholic. Danby persuaded by the King to allow the marriage to William, a Dutch Protestant and an enemy of France, thus straining the close relationship between Anne and Mary. Anne married Prince George of Denmark. This was an arrangement Anne's father negotiated in secret with sponsorship by King Louis XIV of France, who hoped for a Anglo-Danish alliance against William of Orange and the Dutch. No such alliance would ever materialize. Her husband did not affect Anne's position as he remained politically weak and inactive, suffering from a drinking problem. Prince George's influence in matters of state would remain small throughout their marriage.

The relationship he had with Anne was a close one and she loved him deeply, however, their marriage was saddened by Anne's twelve miscarriages and the fact that none of their other five children reached adulthood. When King Charles II died in 1686, Anne's father became King James II. His Roman Catholicism and his desire to rule without Parliament's input caused Parliament to call on William of Orange and Mary to take the throne, in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This revolution created a constitutional, limited monarchy in England, where elected representatives, not a dynastic monarch, truly ruled. Interestingly, later Queen Anne became the last British monarch to veto an act of Parliament. Anne supported the revolution and opposed her father. Mary allowed her husband to rule, and neither got along with Anne during their reign. But since they never had children, after Mary died, followed by William, in 1702, the throne then passed to Anne. The Settlement Act of 1701 paved the way for Anne's reign. It stated that if Anne died without children the throne would pass to the German Hanoverians. The only challenge was her half brother James, a Roman Catholic living in exile in France.

Thus Anne ascended as the last Stuart monarch, and was the first married queen to rule England. Anne's reign would be characterized by the attempts of others to manipulate her. Most significantly among these individuals was Sarah Churchill. A friend of Anne's since childhood, Anne leaned heavily on her for companionship. After Anne's marriage she named Sarah to the prestigious position of Lady of the Bedchamber. After Anne became queen, she named Sarah to other prominent posts including Keeper of the Privy Purse, Mistress of the Robes and Groom of the Stole. Their relationship for many years was a close one with Anne showering Sarah with large allowances and gifts, such as the huge and extravagant Blenheim estate. The estate was given to the Churchill's as a reward for John Churchill's important military victory in the War of Spanish Succession. Anne often seemed dependent on Sarah, at least for emotional support. Anne would constantly write to Sarah when Sarah was away from the court attending to her family. Anne's letters made it seem like she could not get along without Sarah. They would use playful pseudonyms when writing to each other: Anne being Mrs. Morley and Sarah Mrs. Freeman.

Their relationship would eventually deteriorate due to Sarah's nagging and their many petty arguments. Sarah would fall out of favor and would be replaced as Anne's favorite by a distant cousin, Abigail Masham. The end of Anne's friendship with Sarah signaled a change in political influences as well. Although Anne had always been a strong Tory throughout her reign she had vigorously supported the War of Spanish Succession, a Whig war. Sarah Churchill was a Whig and her husband John, though a Tory, was the leading English general in the conflict. Because of the Churchill's influence, Anne had always been inclined to support the war which was the most important event in foreign affairs during Anne's reign. However, when Abigail Masham a Tory replaced Sarah as Anne's close friend it signaled a shift in politics. Some historians believe Anne manipulated her ministers to enact the policies she wanted while others see her as a monarch manipulated by her ministers. Whatever the case, when the Tories came into power they negotiated an end to the war. The Settlement Act of 1701 had angered Scotland where the Stuart dynasty had originated. The Scots threatened to bring back James, Anne's Roman Catholic half-brother and pretender to the throne, to rule.

To head off a revolt and unite support for the crown, Anne pushed for the Act of Union which would unite England and Scotland. The Act of Union was finally accepted in 1707. In the last couple years of her life Anne became very ill. She was often bedridden and attended to by doctors. These doctors used many techniques to try to cure Anne including bleeding her and applying hot irons. These crude medicinal techniques probably did more harm than good, and Anne died on July 31st 1714. Annotated Bibliography Ashley, Maurice. The Stuarts in Love. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964. This book is intended to deal with the personal lives and loves of the members of the Stuart dynasty. It begins in the first section by discussing love and marriages of each class of English society in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It then goes on to discuss each of the Stuart monarchs, dedicating two chapters to each one. The two chapters dedicated to Queen Anne are entitled "The extravagant passions of Queen Anne." These chapters briefly discuss Anne's early life and love life. The main focus concern Anne's friendships, particularly with Sarah Churchill, and how these relationships intertwined with politics.

These chapters go farther than Anne's personal life and talk extensively about her reign and the major events of that period. These chapters are brief biographies that go beyond Anne's personal life. Finally, this author concludes that Anne was not someone bullied by those vying for her affection, but rather a monarch who had a firm policy and pursued it in the manner she saw fit. This book provides a good list of footnotes at the end of each chapter. Overall though, the information contained in it can be found in other sources. Bucholz, Robert O. " 'Nothing but Ceremony': Queen Anne." Journal of British Studies. 30 (1991): 288-323. This is an interesting article in which the author sets out to write about an aspect of Queen Anne's reign he says has been neglected; her use of royal ritual to unite Britain. Bucholz states Anne uses royal ritual and ceremony in a couple of different ways. She uses ritual to make political statements and to demonstrate the monarchy was above the squabbling of partisan politics. He discusses Anne's use of parallels between herself and Queen Elizabeth and the use of the analogy of Anne being the mother to the people of England.

He also discusses Anne's use of ceremony during special occasions to rally support for the monarchy. Bucholz concludes Anne's use of royal ritual was ultimately a failure because of her inability to unite the various political factions. These politicians were important subjects who were not dependent on the monarchy for their status in society. Though Anne reached back in history to reestablish Bucholz says she inadvertently brought about a future in which the main role of the monarchy was ceremonial, to represent the state. The monarchy was then limited and not able to rally people as effectively. This is an interesting article on a unique topic which is extensively footnoted and has a good bibliography. Clark, Sir George. The Later Stuarts 1660-1714 . 2nd Ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961. This book was written as part of a fourteen volume series of the history of England. This book covers English history from the time of the restoration until the death of Queen Anne. The book begins by discussing Anne's reign with the War of Spanish Succession followed by Whigs and Tories. Clark sees Anne as a weak and bullied monarch, sometimes not more than a figurehead.

He sees are as appointing and dismissing ministers in accordance with her emotions rather than sound judgment. The only area that she ruled significantly in , he says, is in her religious appointments where her influence was great. He dedicates more time to events of social and political trends during her reign than to Anne herself. He does mention Queen Anne's Bounty, the money that she annually gave to the poor. Near the end of the book, he takes a topical approach and addresses economics, the criminal code, overseas colonies, arts and literature and other aspects of Anne's reign not found in other sources. This book has an annotated bibliography organized by topic, charts of the Stuart family, many maps and an appendix listing the important government ministers. This book is an excellent source for events and topics of Queen Anne's reign not covered elsewhere. Nevertheless, there is little personal biographical information about Anne herself. Curtis, Gila. The Life and Times of Queen Anne. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicolson Limited, 1972. An easy read, this book is written for a non-scholarly general audience. It is packed with a large number of illustrations of people, places, and events prominent during Queen Anne's life.

It has no footnotes and only a brief bibliography, although it does contain many excerpts from primary source material.The book is divided into eight sections, each covering a different time period of Anne's life. Although not as detailed as some of the more scholarly works, this is a complete biography covering all aspects and major events of Anne's life and reign.It is particularly good in showing Anne's relationship and eventual falling out with Sarah Churchill. Also, it competently explains the political struggle of Whigs and Tories during Queen Anne's reign. Gregg, Edward. Queen Anne. London: Routledge & Kegan, Paul, 1980. R.O. Bucholz, Assistant Professor of History at Loyola University, in his article says that this book is the definitive biography of Queen Anne. This is a well written and thorough biography with frequent quotations from primary source material which is extensively footnoted and documented. The author cites many items previously unavailable from the archives in Britain and overseas as well as his use of works of other contemporary scholars as the unique characteristics of his work. His book tries to refute the claims of Sarah Churchill and others who have followed her interpretation of Queen Anne.

These interpretations often painted Anne as weak, indecisive, dominated by others and as a monarch who let policy be affected by petty personal squabbles.Gregg sees Queen Anne as more important and attempts to give a balanced portrayal of her public and private life. Gregg believes that Queen Anne was a strong, careful and calculating monarch, was driven by ambition and resolve, and who asserted her authority without trampling on parliamentary authority. He also portrays Anne pursuing a course of political moderation. She is not someone dominated by changes in the strengths of different political parties. Rather, a monarch not controlled by either party who had ministers from both parties and changed them in order to pursue policies of which she approved. This extensive work and its bold interpretation of Queen Anne make this book an extremely useful source. Green, David. Queen Anne. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970. In this work, the author presents a work more complex than most. He sees her not as a great monarch and not one who was weak and ineffective. He sees her as a courageous queen who did her best despite many personal and political obstacles that would have been difficult for any monarch.

Even though obstacles proved too difficult for her, she always did her best to carry out her duties. He also makes the point that Anne was a transitional monarch. She was not a powerful Divine Right monarch but one who was moving toward a constitutional monarchy in which Parliament had the power, although that form of government hadn't fully emerged. This is a good source with frequent quoting from primary sources and contains an extensive bibliography. The author's appendix on the health of Queen Anne is a unique feature of this book. Harris, Frances. "Accounts of the Conduct of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, 1704-1742" British Library Journal (1982): 7-35. This article focuses on the writings of Queen Anne's close friend and confidant Sarah Churchill. It provides some insight on Sarah's and Anne's turbulent relationship. Mainly, it addresses what Sarah wrote and when she wrote it. It provides some context by discussing Sarah's motivations when she wrote something as well as events surrounding that time. It also discusses who assisted Sarah with her writings and precisely what role they had in writing and compiling her papers. Finally, it discusses the organization of Sarah Churchill's papers.

This is an excellent resource for those interested in serious research of the papers of Sarah Churchill. Although Sarah's papers undoubtedly contain a wealth of information on Queen Anne this article has only limited information on the topic. Kishlansky, Mark. A Monarchy Transformed. Allen Lane: The Penguin Press, 1996. This is the sixth volume in a nine volume Penguin History of Britain and covers the entire reign of the Stuart dynasty. As the title suggests, the author sees the Stuart dynasty as a time when the monarch and England itself were greatly changed. The monarchy evolved into a constitutional monarchy from a more absolute one. The nation itself also became more unified and grew to include a large overseas empire. Many of these changes occurred during Queen Anne's reign. Mentioned sporadically elsewhere, the last chapter focuses on Anne and her reign. It focuses a lot on the politics of her reign. Also included in the chapter is information relating to the War of Spanish Succession. This chapter is of some, but not great usefulness in studying Queen Anne. The book does include a section entitled 'For Further Reading,' which is organized by monarch and is helpful on finding other sources of information about Queen Anne. Trevelyan, George Macauly.

England Under the Stuarts. History of England, vol. V. London: Methuen Co., LTD., reprinted 1961. This is a book by the author who wrote the ground-breaking and most important work on Queen Anne: the three volume work England Under Queen Anne. Trevelyan writes about the Stuart dynasty as his contribution to an eight volume history of England. The final chapter of the book is dedicated to the reign of Queen Anne. This chapter gives extensive treatment to the events of Anne's reign. The Queen herself is not the major focus although she is often mentioned and her friendship with Sarah Churchill and Abigal Masham are discussed. The politics of the Whigs and Tories and the War of Spanish Succession are extensively discussed. Trevelyan also pays more attention than most authors to the class structure as it related to political party makeup. His use of marginal headings are useful guides to topics of particular paragraphs. Also, he makes extensive use of maps; a Trevelyan trademark. Footnotes are located at the bottom of each page and are well done, as is the extensive bibliography. This is an excellent user-friendly source for the events of Anne's reign.

WEBSITES "Monarchs of England ANNE (1702-14AD)". < > (November 9, 2004). This article provides only superficial background information on Queen Anne's life. It focuses mainly on her reign. It gives particular attention to those vying for influence over Anne especially Sarah Churchill and Abigal Hill. This is a useful source for background information on this aspect of Queen Anne's life. Royal Household. "Anne." The official website of the British monarchy. n.d. < > (November 9, 2004). This article comes from . This article provides only brief background information about Anne's life and gives almost no attention to her friendship with the Churchills. Its main focus is on the role government and politics played in Queen Anne's reign. It is a good resource for basic information about politics during the reign of Queen Anne. "Sir William Wallace of Elerslie - Queen Anne and the 1707 Act of Union". < >. This article focuses on the Act of Union of 1707 and Queen Anne's role in advocating for it.

It makes the ironic point that Queen Anne was the last Stuart monarch, which was originally a Scottish dynasty, and the last monarch to rule and independent Scotland. Yet Anne pushed for an act that effectively ended Scottish independence. The article tries to make the connection with Sir William Wallace who fought in the 1200's for Scottish independence. Ironically this article claims it was a "Scottish" monarch who ended Scotland's independence. This article is somewhat biased and minimizes Anne's accomplishments. Surprisingly, this article provides good background information on her early life. This was the most unique website article found about Queen Anne. Copied from this website?< > (5 January 2004). < >. Britannia: Monarchs of Britain Anne (1702-14 AD) ................................................................ Anne, born in 1665, was the second daughter of James II and Anne Hyde. She played no part in her father's reign, but sided with her sister and brother-in-law (Mary II and William III) during the Glorious Revolution. She married George, Prince of Denmark, but the pair failed to produce a surviving heir.

She died at 49 years of age, after a lifelong battle with the blood disease porphyria. The untimely death of William III nullified, in effect, the Settlement Act of 1701: Anne was James' daughter through his Protestant marriage, and therefore, presented no conflict with the act. Anne refrained from politically antagonizing Parliament, but was compelled to attend most Cabinet meetings to keep her half-brother, James the Old Pretender, under heel. Anne was the last sovereign to veto an act of Parliament, as well as the final Stuart monarch. The most significant constitutional act in her reign was the Act of Union in 1707, which created Great Britain by finally fully uniting England and Scotland (Ireland joined the Union in 1801). The Stuart trait of relying on favorites was as pronounced in Anne's reign as it had been in James I's reign. Anne's closest confidant was Sarah Churchill, who exerted great influence over the king. Sarah's husband was the Duke of Marlborough, who masterly led the English to several victories in the War of Spanish Succession.

Anne and Sarah were virtually inseparable: no king's mistress had ever wielded the power granted to the duchess, but Sarah became too confident in her position. She developed an overbearing demeanor towards Anne, and berated the Queen in public. In the meantime, Tory leaders had planted one Abigail Hill in the royal household to capture Anne's need for sympathy and affection. As Anne increasingly turned to Abigail, the question of succession rose again, pitting the Queen and the Marlborough against each other in a heated debate. The relationship of Anne and the Churchill's fell asunder. Marlborough, despite his war record, was dismissed from public service and Sarah was shunned in favor of Abigail. Many of the internal conflicts in English society were simply the birth pains of the two-party system of government. The Whig and Tory Parties, fully enfranchised by the last years of Anne's reign, fought for control of Parliament and influence over the Queen. Anne was torn personally as well as politically by the succession question: her Stuart upbringing compelled her to choose as heir her half-brother, the Old Pretender and favorite of the Tories, but she had already elected to side with Whigs when supporting Mary and William over James II.

In the end, Anne abided by the Act of Settlement, and the Whigs paved the way for the succession of their candidate, George of Hanover. Anne's reign may be considered successful, but somewhat lackluster in comparison to the rest of the Stuart line. 1066 and All That, describes her with its usual tongue-in-cheek manner: "Finally the Orange... was succeeded by the memorable dead queen, Anne. Queen Anne was considered rather a remarkable woman and hence was usually referred to as Great Anna, or Annus Mirabilis. The Queen had many favourites (all women), the most memorable of whom were Sarah Jenkins and Mrs Smashems, who were the first wig and the first Tory... the Whigs being the first to realize that the Queen had been dead all the time chose George I as King." The British Monarch vs. the American President and the power to veto parliamentary/congressional legislation The British Monarch vs.

the American President and the power to veto parliamentary/congressional legislation The future Charles III and William V The English/Scottish Monarch and the Royal Assent While the ruling sovereign in pre-United Kingdom England and Scotland at first were absolute monarchs, but later ceded legislative powers to the English and Scottish parliaments. Nevertheless, all parliamentary bills in both Scotland and England had to be approved by the ruling king (or queen), in what was called the royal assent. After England and Scotland in the 17th Century shared the same monarch but retained separate parliaments, the royal assent was still required for parliamentary acts to become law. Of course, the English Civil War of 1641-1649 and the Glorious Revolution of 1689 in England were still the result of fighting over royal and parliamentary authority. These events limited the authority of the English ruler. The United States Constitution and the powers of the President and Congress The so-called Founding Fathers who won independence for the United States of America and later wrote the American Constitution vested the legislative powers in an elected Congress composed of a House of Representatives and a Senate, and executive powers in an elected President.

It can be assumed the bicameral structure of Congress was patterned after the bicameral structure of the British Parliament (composed of it's elected House of Commons and aristocratic House of Lords). The American Founding fathers gave the American President the power to refuse to sign bills passed by congress (called the veto). The presidential power to veto congressional legislation was probably patterned after the power of the British monarch to refuse the royal assent to parliamentary bills. The first US President to veto a congressional bill was Thomas Jefferson in 1802, that involved a proposed federal law involving bankruptcies. Another notable presidential veto of congressional legislation took place in 1832, when Andrew Jackson vetoed a bill rechartering the Bank of the United States The foundation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the decline of royal power The United Kingdom, commonly called Great Britain or simply Britain, was founded in 1707 by the merger of England and Scotland into a single kingdom with a common parliament. Queen Anne, the last ruler of pre-UK England and Scotland and the first sovereign of the United Kingdom, in 1708 vetoed the Scottish Militia Act.

That was the only time the ruler withheld the royal assent for any parliamentary bill after the formation of the United Kingdom, although virtually all the rulers of the UK had the THEORETICAL power to veto parliamentary acts. During the 18th Century, the kings of the UK usually deferred to the Parliament in the selection of prime ministers and other members of the cabinet, and generally deferred to the wishes of Parliament by signing virtually ALL bills passed by the two parliamentary houses. A large part of the reason could be that the first four Kings George and William IV was not only the rulers of the UK, but also monarchs of the German state of Hanover. After all, it was a tremendous burden to manage the affairs of both the United Kingdom and the kingdom of Hanover. This lasted from 1714 to 1837. In the case of Queen Victoria, who ruled the UK (but not Hanover) from 1837 until her death in 1901, the reason why Victoria never vetoed a parliamentary bill by withholding the royal assent was the fact that she remained a largely depressed woman and sovereign after the death of her husband in 1861.

She thereafter was mostly a private figure, and therefore deferred to the wishes of Parliament, the Prime Minister, and the cabinet. There were certain potential exceptions: George III and Goerge IV threatented to veto bills regarding the emancipation of British Catholics and the closer regulation of the East India Tea Company. George III's threats to withhold the royal assent forced the members of Parliament to drop the Catholic emancipation and tea company bills, though George IV did reluctantly sign a bill passed by Parliament giving civil rights to Roman Catholics. The 20th Century By the 20th Century, it was established custom in the United States that the President would at least occasionally veto legislation passed by Congress while in Great Britain the ruling monarch always signed parliamentary legislation into law. The last time a UK sovereign SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED vetoing a bill passed by the UK Parliament was George V in 1914, when he considered withholding the royal assent from a bill granting more self-government to Ireland. Goerge eventually signed the bill. Yet, during this century, there were potential trends that could eventually cause a ruler of the United Kingdom to veto legislation by withholding the royal assent.

Towards a unicameral, Commons-only UK Parliament The House of Lords had by the 20th Century assumed a dwindling authority to check the increasingly powerful House of Commons. The Parliamentary Acts of 1911 and 1949 prevented the Lords from seriously blocking money bills passed by the Commons and also stipulated that any non-money bill passed by the Commons but rejected by the Lords two years in a row could DIRECTLY be sent to the sovereign for royal assent. Moreover, in 2009 was established the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, totally stripping away the judicial powers of the House of Lords. Furthermore, the British Labor Party leaders (whose party has largely replaced the Liberals/Whigs as leading rivals to the Tories/Conservatives) have at times advocated the TOTAL ABOLITION of the House of Lords. If Britain gained a single-house, Commons-only Parliament, it must be assumed that unlike the United States, the United Kingdom lacks a written constitution. The only real check on the powers of a Commons-only Parliament would be the power of the ruler to withhold the royal assent. The only question is if Queen Elizabeth II or a future UK monarch would actually sign a bill completely abolishing the House of Lords.

If the royal assent WAS granted to a bill establishing a Commons-only Parliament, that means the potential to veto parliamentary bills by withholding the royal assent would far more likely to become reality. Toward devolution/Independence in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland Not only does Britain have the central UK Parliament, but there are also elected, regional parliaments in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Therefore, these three regions, while part of the UK, also have a degree of regional autonomy. Like the UK Parliament, bills passed by these three regional parliaments are required to receive the royal assent of the UK sovereign, although royal assent is routinely granted. In the case of Northern Ireland, thanks to a 1998 political settlement, there is virtually no chance of Northern Ireland becoming independent of the United Kingdom (and therefore as a result become part of the Republic of Ireland). In Scotland and Wales, the chances of becoming independent of the UK is greater, thanks to the parties of Scottish and Welsh nationalists. The Scottish and Welsh parliaments, unlike the UK parliament, are unicameral, single-house bodies.

There is a question whether an independent Scotland and Wales would ever have written constitutions to restrict the authority of their current regional, potentially national-independent legislatures. What's most likely in such a scenario with an independent Scotland and Wales (and a truncated UK reduced to England and Northern Ireland) is the UK sovereign as monarch of independent Wales, independent Scotland, and a smaller United Kingdom and the ability to grant (or withhold) royal assent to the bills passed by the elected legislatures of all three nations. There is also the question of whether Queen Elizabeth II or a future UK ruler would sign any bill passed by the UK parliament granting independence to Wales or Scotland. The future Charles III and William V What about Prince Charles, son of Elizabeth II? How would he react when his mother dies and he assumes the throne as King Charles III, with the issues of a Commons-only Parliament or Scottish and Welsh independence? Would he sign bills passed by the United Kingdom Parliament abolishing the House of Lords or establishing Scotland and Wales as independent nations (albiet with him still as Scottish and Welsh king and the ability to grant or withhold assent to bills passed by the parliaments of an independent Scotland and Wales)?

In my opinion, King Charles would veto any bill abolishing the House of Lords, but would still sign bills granting independence to Scotland and Wales. The current Prince Charles son Prince William, when HE assumes the UK throne (if not the throne of an independent Scotland and Wales), since as William V is not that much of a traditionalist, likely would sign bills passed by the UK Parliament granting independence to Scotland and Wales and establishing a Commons-only Parliament for a United Kingdom reduced to England and Northern Ireland. Therefore, as a result, Britain will now be composed of three independent nations (Scotland, Wales, and a truncated UK) with separate elected legislatures but a common monarchy. However, since these three nations would lack written constitutions, they would still rely on their sovereign's royal assent power to prevent the excesses of professional politicians. Finally, there might be a British monarch with the same willingness to veto legislation like a President of the United States of America.

Vetoes, Parliaments and Pardons: The Royal Prerogative - Legal Knowledge Base National State Local ‎ > ‎ Vetoes, Parliaments and Pardons: The Royal Prerogative Elizabeth II is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and fifteen other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. These countries are constitutional monarchies, meaning that they operate under an essentially democratic constitution, the Queen's principal role being to represent the state. Very often, she is viewed as a symbolic and apolitical personage with no real power. But is this entirely true? Does the Queen really possess purely nominal authority, or can she in fact exercise her will in any public action? This is not an easy question to answer. I will attempt to do so by focusing mainly on one of her most important theoretical prerogatives: the right to grant or deny royal assent to laws passed by Parliament. A difficulty in judging the extent of the authority presently held by the monarchy lies in the fact that the British constitution has not been codified into one single document and much of it remains unwritten.

The extensive power that the monarch once indisputably possessed, including the right to administer justice, dissolve Parliament or pardon crimes, was largely a matter of common law and not statute. What laws were codified (the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 standing among the most important) served more to restrict the Monarch's power than to entrench it. Thus, the residual powers still reserved to the Queen continue to be more a matter of constitutional convention than of written rules. Formally, no Act of the British Parliament becomes a proper law until it is given assent by the Queen. Yet in practice, Elizabeth II assents to all bills, irrespective of her opinion on them. The last time a British monarch rejected a law was in 1708, when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill, and even then, she did so at the request of her ministers. Since then, the right of royal assent has fallen into disuse, leading some constitutional theorists to claim that a new convention obligating the monarch to assent to all bills has arisen.

This view was famously stressed by Walter Bagehot in his 1867 volume "The English Constitution": "...the Queen has no such veto. She must sign her own death-warrant if the two Houses unanimously send it up to her. It is a fiction of the past to ascribe to her legislative power. She has long ceased to have any." In earlier generations, such a bold assertion of the monarch's supposed lack of power would have been unpardonable. Even I see some flaws in this theory. For one thing, the only evidence on which it stands (besides Bagehot's claim) is custom. Even if all the monarchs since Queen Anne have assented to all bills presented to them, there is no formal change in any official policy that would indicate that the practice will be followed for the next bill. Additionally, if the Queen decided to withhold assent to a bill, what legal mechanism could force her to do otherwise? It would seem to me that in such an event, the veto could only be effectively circumvented by some kind of revolutionary act - as a minimum, by the Government refusing to respect the veto, which would undoubtedly lead to a constitutional crisis.

The situation is more clear-cut in Canada, which, unlike the United Kingdom, has a constitution that is largely written. The Constitution Act, 1867 clearly delineates the powers of the Crown. According to Section 55 of the Act, when the Governor General (the Queen's representative in Canada) is presented with a bill that has been passed by Parliament, he may declare that he assents to it in the Queen's name, that he withholds his assent, or that he reserves the bill for the "signification of the Queen's pleasure" (letting the Queen decide the matter; according to Section 57, she may do so within two years after the Governor General receives the bill). Furthermore, as per Section 56, the "Queen in Council" (the Queen acting on the advice of her Privy Council) may disallow a law assented to by the Governor General within two years after receiving a copy of the law. Therefore, the Queen, together with the Governor General, does have the formal authority to veto a law passed by the Canadian Parliament.

Nevertheless, no Governor General has done this since Confederation in 1867, although some provincial Lieutenant Governors have vetoed provincial laws or reserved them to the pleasure of the Governor General (under the authority of Section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867). This happened most recently in 1963 when Saskatchewan's Lieutenant Governor Frank Bastedo reserved a bill. On top of that, there are instances in recent Commonwealth history of other royal prerogatives being directly exercised by the Crown against a government's wishes. Depending on the country, the crown may have extensive official powers, including the appointment of ministers, granting of pardons for eliminating criminal records, or calling an early election, and some of these have been exercised in person, especially during unclear political situations. A classic example is Governor General Byng's 1926 refusal to call a very early election at the request of Canadian Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who wished to remain in power despite the stronger footing of the Conservative party in Parliament. Byng refused to do so; King was incensed by this supposed infringement on democracy, but Byng stood his ground.

Another famous example was the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Australian Governor General John Kerr during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Whitlam's controversial government did not have control of both houses of Parliament and he petitioned Kerr to call a half-senate election. Instead, Kerr dismissed him and appointed Malcolm Fraser, the leader of the Opposition, in his place. The fact that the royal prerogative is rarely exercised, if at all, by the Queen and her representatives, appears to be more the product of a conventional good will on their part than an actual legal requirement. I hope Bagehot would pardon me if I surmised that he overdid it when he claimed that the Queen "must sign her own death-warrant"; what he was speaking about was more a matter of everyday practice as he saw it than a real summary of the standing law. After all, the monarchy seeks to stay popular and in today's age of democracy, its very existence depends on public approval. Hope this information is useful for you. Everything you need to know about National State Local or Search this site at the top.

Question: Which queen was the last British monarch to veto an Act of Parliament?
Answer: Queen Anne