By the Dark Ages, it was important to know the social order of things. And so they came up with the following order. A king outranks a prince, a prince outranks a duke and a duke outranks someone like a baron. (Emperors outrank all of them. But that's another story.) Some people think Queen Elizabeth II was the queen of England and the United Kingdom. That's actually not correct. She was king. Because king always outranks a queen. Just like king outranks a prince and a prince outranks a duke. Now, the mother of Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, was what you would call a true queen. In other words, a queen consort, or the wife of a king. Actually, though, to be technical, a queen consort is a prince/ss. Or, in other words, just below a king in rank, as I said.
Also, people say the king of England has no real power or authority. He has a lot authority. He is the head of state. And the head of state outranks even the prime minister, who is the head of government. (Whether or not the king of the UK has no powers is debatable too. More on that below.) The head of state represents that country on the world stage. He is their official ambassador. And supposedly has all the real authority. Though in places like the UK, King Charles's powers are now limited. Because they are a constitutional monarchy now. In the United States, the president is both the head of government and the head of state. Which is unusual. We are the only country that does that now. And as for the king of England having no real power. He has a lot of powers. They are called residual powers. He signs bills to become law, much like our president does. He could veto if he wanted. (Though the last British monarch to exercise that power was Queen Anne in the 1700's.) He has the sole power to pardon. Though prime minister usually will recommend who should be pardoned now. He opens and dissolves sessions of parliament. They can't conduct business unless he does. Though he always does, of course. The people of England don't vote in the prime minister. Well, actually they do. But then the king appoints him. The king of England is technically the one who appoints the prime minister there. Just like the electoral college in the United States is technically who votes for the president. But the king of England always respects the will of the people. Of course. The king also knights people who then become members of the House of Lords. The House of Lords is the highest court of appeals there, kind of like our Supreme Court. So like president of the United States appointing members to the US Supreme Court, the king can shape policy for many years to come that way. (Though now the prime minister again is usually the person who recommends who is knighted to serve in the House of Lords.) Also, you know power and authority are not the same thing. The treasurer of the United States has very little power now they say. That position was created in 1777 by the US Continental Congress. But now most of those original duties and responsibilities are covered by the Secretary of the Treasury. The powers of the treasurer are largely symbolic now, they say. But they do still have power. They sign our money. Their signature is first, on the lower left side. And then the Secretary of the Treasury has his signature on the right. Because the treasurer still outranks him to this day.
Do you mean the King of England? Because there hasn’t been one for a very long time. Acts of Union 1707 - Wikipedia The Royal Prerogative The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity attached to the British monarch (or "sovereign"), recognised in the United Kingdom. The monarch is regarded internally as the absolute authority, or "sole prerogative", and the source of many of the executive powers of the British government. Prerogative powers were formerly exercised by the monarch acting on his or her own initiative. Since the 19th century, by convention, the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet—who are then accountable to Parliament for the decision—has been required in order for the prerogative to be exercised. The monarch remains constitutionally empowered to exercise the royal prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but in practice would likely only do so in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question. Today, the royal prerogative is available in the conduct of the government of the United Kingdom, including foreign affairs, defence, and national security. The monarch has a significant constitutional weight in these and other matters, but limited freedom to act, because the exercise of the prerogative is conventionally in the hands of the prime minister and other ministers or other government officials. Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia So in relation to the Iraq war, let us label the deadly boring Queen Elizabeth II as a 'war criminal', along with Tony Blair, without consulting Rosara Joseph, The War Prerogative: History, Reform, and Constitutional Design, Oxford UP, 2013. PDFs: The Report of the Iraq Inquiry HTML: UK Government Web Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_parliamentary_approval_for_military_action The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (initialism: UKSC) is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom for all civil cases, and for criminal cases originating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the United Kingdom's highest appellate court for these matters, it hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population. … As authorised by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Part 3, Section 23(1), the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was formally established on 1 October 2009 and is a non-ministerial government department of the Government of the United Kingdom. … It assumed the judicial functions of the House of Lords, which had been exercised by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (commonly called "Law Lords"), the 12 judges appointed as members of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial business as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia That peculiarly American religion, President-worship. ― Gore Vidal In fact, the American president is not designed by the Constitution to be 'the strongest man (in the world)', he is just a pretty weak man if he can't get support for his projects from other constitutional bodies, as we hsve seen with Trump and Biden. “The Europeans look at the system, and they say: “Well it passes one house, it doesn't pass the other house, sometimes the other house is in the control of a different party, it passes both and then this president who has a veto power vetos it, and they look at this and they say: “Uh, it is gridlock”, and I hear Americans saying this nowadays, they talk about a dysfunctional government because there's disagreement and the framers would have said: “Yes that's exactly the way we set it up.”
I was doing a little research last night. A queen who rules in her own right holds the rank of a king. But her husband can never rise above level of a prince. Because if he were the king, a king always outranks a queen. Even if she's really the king. But the wife of a king does hold rank of a queen. But he still outranks her. And she really doesn't have too many political powers. So I guess a queen of king outranks the prince married to a queen (if that makes sense). There is also royal title, or "style" as it's called. Camilla Parker Bowles can never get the title queen, because she is divorced. But she does hold the rank of a queen (I read last night-unless they were wrong). But her title was created by Queen Elizabeth II. She is the queen consort. (There also is a morganatic marriage which I brought up some years back on another message board. Charles and Camilla don't have that.) Also I read once people thought it was unfair Elizabeth II's husband Prince Phillip could never be king. Because then he'd outrank her (or be equal to her, I guess). So she created a new long title for him. But she was careful to leave out the word king, for that reason.
