zlacker

laws will not take effect without his assent and his permission will be asked for to form future governments

Wait, you mean to tell me the King can veto laws in the UK? I thought you guys figured this loophole out? Who controls the military?

>>jesusc+(OP)
Yes but the last time a monarch vetoed a law was in 1707, and that was only because parliament asked Queen Anne to veto the law.

In reality, if King Charles started vetoing then after a short constitutional crisis, parliament would basically just change the rules of the game to say that the monarch no longer has the power to veto laws.

>>alicha+C4
Wouldn’t the loophole still be if one house of the parliament co-opts King, essentially simulating American democracy where you have a Republican King and Republican Party in power allowing the Republicans to veto laws and stop monarchy reform in parliament?

>>jesusc+(OP)
Small correction: not “you guys” because I’m not British, just an observant American that took a serious interest in the functioning of foreign governments as a lens through which to evaluate our own.

The functions and powers of our Presidency are a much closer derivative of the British monarchy than we tell ourselves in our classrooms. The President signing bills into law is a copy of the requisite assent of the monarchy. Political appointments were a copy of how the King vested power, and as you guessed it, the King is the Head of the British Armed Forces.

Also I think even British folks are undersold on how powerful the late Queen really was. She may not have vetoed any legislation, but her Prime Ministers sought and received her advice regularly, consulting with her and unburdening themselves to her the problems they were faced with or tasked with resolving. Put another way, she was an active participant in how laws were formed and the business of Her Majesty’s governments proceeded even if she did not participate in the drafting of the texts or have any policy objectives per se. That isn’t ceremonial at all, although many of her duties as Queen and Defender of the Faith were ceremonial.

In America we celebrate the separation of powers, telling ourselves a few myths along the way about the co-equality of branches (essentially Nixon era propaganda from when he was facing down the gun barrel of impeachment, but Congress adopted the myth despite being head and shoulders the most powerful branch of Government under the Constitution). The King-in-Parliament—or under the late Queen, the Queen-in-Parliament—is absolute power in the United Kingdom and no one may question their directives because this is King, Lords and Commons speaking as one. Their power as one body is what we separated into the President, Senate, Representatives and Supreme Court. We then limited it further by conceiving of powers as enumerated, although clearly this was insufficient as a power limiter.

>>jesusc+(OP)
The British Armed Forces are also know as "Her Majesty's Armed Forces" (now His Majesty's). The official head of the armed forces is the monarch and that's who they swear their allegiance to. However, there is a long standing constitutional convention that the executive authority is given to the Prime Minister by "royal perogative". So technically the monarch, but in reality it's the Prime Minister.

If the monarch tried to actually do something significant with that power I imagine the law would be changed pretty quickly.

This is why working royals generally have various military titles and positions, because the monarch is the head of the armed forces. It's also why the monarch dresses in military regalia for various military events.