I don't know, I'm watching US coverage of the Queen's recent passing. And they keep referring to the reigning monarch as commander in chief. I'm a little confused. It is often said, the monarch reigns but doesn't rule. So why is s/he still commander in chief? I know the reigning monarch of the UK still has some residual powers, as they call it. But I understand much of that is largely ceremonial, with a tendency to codify and limit those powers at that. How much power and authority does he have under that title? If you're British, I should tell you part of my confusion. The President in commander in chief. And he wields a lot of power. Oh, my. In fact, the US congress never declared war in Vietnam, as the story goes. But Kennedy, Johnson and finally Nixon deployed all the troops. So, yeah, it was a war. Can King Charles ever do something like that? Americans chime in too.
No . Thats the role the Prime minister will have under the advice of the war cabinet which will include various top ranking officials of the Armed Forces. The modern role of the monarchy is very much diminished being more symbolic these days rather than functional.
Not quite, there are still some residual powers, one of which is that all Bills have to be signed off by the monarch to become Acts.
Yeah, but the last reigning monarch to exercise that power was Queen Anne in the 1700's. Don't they say there'd be public outrage if s/he started vetoing bills?
You are correct in that . Everything is controlled by the ruling Government really . These residual powers are really just formalities to uphold British tradition . The Government pulls the strings
The monarch still has the power to refuse to sign off government bills, but by doing so it would prompt a constitutional crisis with the possibility of the downfall of the monarchy itself (I say bring it on !!! )
The office of the British king or queen is similar to the Indian president (who is the head of the Indian state and commander-in-chief) in that it is mainly ceremonial and most of the powers are vested in the British and Indian prime minister and their cabinet of ministers. A major difference however is that the office of the British king or queen is hereditary and barred to the non-aristocratic lower classes of Britain. The Indian president however can be elected from any section of Indian society and is distinguished by their excellence in professional and personal lives and leadership skills. An another difference is that the British head of state can hold the office for life while the Indian president's tenure is limited to five years. There is a small aristocratic class in India who are allowed to keep their royal titles and aristocratic properties (subject to taxation) and they enjoy prestige in Indian society though they lack administrative powers or financial support from taxpayers. Many of them engage in charitable and cultural activities and give a good account of themselves in public as cultured and civilized human beings worth emulating. I believe an aristocrat can be of major value in this regard to society as an ideal example or role model in terms of behavior and etiquette.
The last British Monarch to refuse a bill was Queen Anne. This was around 1710+- . Just before the Act of Union, between England & Scotland. Much enjoyed Olivia Coleman's portrayl of Queen Anne in the film: The Favorite. The Favourite (2018) - IMDb
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” Voltaire The monarchy provides the trumpets.
