This is the kind of content I've been missing: minimal editing, no borrowed assets, just a semi-sentient camera and a highly intelligent, charismatic, broom-wielding presenter. Banger of a video.
One of the few situations where I could see a modern British monarch using the veto power is if Parliament decides to pass a bill that is so wildly unpopular with the public that withholding Royal Assent is the only way to prevent lynchings or other serious problems (they might also call for new elections right after). There was an article about either George V or George VI that mentioned 'a disaster in the offing' being the only way he'd have been willing to withhold Royal Assent from a bill.
I can see that as a valid reason. Basically the law would be so bad that, no matter your political views, it would still be a bad idea on all fronts. Which is unlikely, but that's what basically happened in Canada, so not impossible.
The queen vetoed the law on inheritance tax until they amended it to exclude the royals. She has used the power 160 times to get amendments to laws that would have cost "the firm" money. Its bollocks that the Queen/Kings power is only symbolic.
@@harsimaja9517 Well, it requires a bunch of politicians to be amazingly stupid all at once, so maybe I'm more cynical than you are (and even I don't think it's likely, just plausible).
I used to think that another could be if the government wanted to use the army against citizens -- authoritarianism. IIRC officers swear allegiance to the crown, not the government.
There was an incidence when the Queen asked for changes on a Scottish bill recently, it was to do with power cables going through private land. The Queen didn't want the power cables crossing her land and held off assent until a new route was proposed, it added considerable cost to the project.
@@heycidskyja4668 well, not necessarily fair enough. I get not wanting stuff to happen on your land, but no other person has the ability to demand that they in particular are excluded from development on their land and stop a bill from passing until they're not inconvenienced.
yeah, according to the Guardian's investigations she quietly forced changes to many bills that affected her property or other assets. video that summarizes it is: "How the crown has more power than you think:
@@wrongwayscout so in that case it was a case of trying to avoid legal issues. If the Crown was subject to it, it could later create a legal and constitutional quagmire. Instead as with many things the monarch agrees to follow the law voluntarily to avoid the weird area of Crown Law getting mixed in. It's like how the monarch does not pay taxes but makes a contribution equal to the amount of tax they would have paid to the tresury.
I’m American but I think I found a new favorite content creator. You’re so intelligent and focused, and your delivery and theatrics are amusing but never overstay their welcome. Thank you for all the interesting tales and tidbits on British history!
Strongly agreeing with OP; J. Draper's enthusiasm is sublimely infectious, and combined with razor sharp wit and writing, as an American I'm so thankful for The Algorithm highly recommending her
I like the idea that some British traditions are truly spur of the moment type things. King couldn’t speak English so he had a minister who acted on his behalf. Boom, the Prime Minister is born. Makes the correct British Government truly come off as organic as opposed to institutional which I have always found interesting.
@@benhancock6253 of course the UK has a constitution, what do you think the Supreme Court does? When Boris Johnson tried to prorogue parliament the Supreme Court found that to be unconstitutional and parliament had to come back and pretend it had never been prorogued at all. What the UK lacks is a codified constitution, there is no single official "Basic Law" document where everything is written down. Bits of it are written down into law, bits are custom and practise. But it definitely exists.
Fun (Slighty related) Fact. The king of belgium has roughly the same power to not sign laws into existence. In 1990 he did not like a new abbortion related law. So he stepped down for 1 day, and the law could go effect, without him having to actually sign it .
@@TheDeadmanTT The Government simply claimed that the popular King Baudoin was "temporarily absent", as if he had a cold. He didn't abdicate like his unpopular father. The Sovereign of the UK could do something similar if a bill passed by Parliament offended his or her conscience...just make a brief visit to somewhere like France, appoint the usual Counsellors of State, and the two "wettest" Counsellors would sign the warrant giving the Royal Assent.
@@baraxor True that Balduin didn't abdicate but it's not just sn act of ministers either. Ministers or Counsellors cannot give Royal assent. Hence, Balduin did see to the appointment of his brother as regent. That doesn't happen just because a monarch is outside of the country - laws can wait for his return - but for things like medical or mental incapacity.
This explains a lot, THANK YOU. We have the Monarchy as Head of State but most Jamaicans do not know what that really means. Having power and not using it, is not the same as not having power.
Yes, it could be argued that it is a very important additional safety valve. However, it is probably only a one-time use mechanism as it would either likely be stripped by a truly tyrannical government or would be unpopular with the people and again it would be overridden and removed.
@@mirfjc The government are usually also 90% of the Privy Council, who can claim the monarch is unfit, declare a regent (one of their own), and carry on ...
Good to keep in mind that most political powers are in the same elite club as the monarchs. Within this month January 2024, queen maxima of the Netherlands gave a speech at the World Economic forum in davos
@@mirfjc It's the nuclear option, and would only ever be deployed when the monarch is 100% convinced that their government was acting against the interests of the people and that the overwhelming majority of the people backed them. Say the government decided that women shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore, or that people who didn't own a property were no longer to be able to vote. The monarch would refuse to sign the bill into law, and probably dissolve Parliament. The resulting election would probably wipe out the governing party and elevate the monarch even higher in the publics affection.
This power has apparently been used twice by two Dutch queens: first Wilhelmina declined to sign a bill involving the death penalty for convicted war criminals and collaborators after WWII, because she thought it didn't go far enough. A few decades later her daughter, queen Juliana, refused again because of her moral opposition to capital punishment. Queen Wilhelmina was always very fond of the idea of absolute monarchy, she never liked her cabinets, especially the war time ones. She thought them all a bunch of weaklings. In 1945 Erik Hazelhoff Roelfsema, a very famous 'hero' from WWII and close friend to the Queen, apparently started planning a coup d'état to bring Wilhelmina to absolute power. I'd love for a big production company to take on the life of Wilhelmina and turn it into a Crown-like tv show, because she was quite the character.
Ah, Wilhelmina. As Churchchil said: the only man in the Dutch government. Also, she apparently thought it was a good idea to ally with the central powers during the First World War. Not in 1914, mind you, when such might have made a difference. No, in 1917, when the USA joined the war and seized 88 Dutch merchant vessels. Though belligerent powers seizing neutral vessels in their territory during time of war was apparently legal, Wilhelmina was so incensed she demanded the Dutch cabinet rescind its declaration of neutrality, and declare war on the allied powers. The cabinet declined on basis of not being idiots.
Interesting video! Fun fact: the Governor-General of Australia accidentally signed a bill in the 1970s despite it not having passed both chambers because of a clerical error where they sent him a bill that coincidentally had the same name as another bill that had passed. He gave assent, then withdrew it when he discovered the error. Also fascinating: the Queen's power (and now the King) doesn't just extend to refusing to give assent to bills in Australia, but also undoing them within one year of the Governor-General giving it royal assent (section 59 of the Australian constitution) - but this power has never been used federally in Australia. I believe it had been used in some of our states in the mid 1800s pre-federation, but I couldn't find any specifics so can't expand on that.
And somehow the power of the Governor General, as representative of the crown, includes discarding a democratically elected government and installing one of their choosing. Another thing that occurred in Australia in the 1970s.
@@RictusHolloweye Controversial, yes, but technically the discretion of the Governor General to appoint the Prime Minister and dissolve Parliament. Admittedly also Kerr acted on external advice, when he should have listened to Whitlam, and that external advice involved a Canadian constitutional scholar who didn't know about Australian half-senate elections so was not the best advice to get. Still, he was allowed to do it because there's no actual defined limits of this power. When no party has a majority this is a less controversial power (Australia didn't have a single party hold a majority federally until 1910 - so the Governor General had to appoint multiple Prime Ministers from different parties within a single term).
keep in mind the context. Whitlam if he was being responsible should have resigned and asked for an election rather than play chicken with the country. Sir John Kerr (the GG) when he dismissed Whitlam appointed Fraser prime minister only on the condition an election was immediately called. And despite the apparent outrage at Whitlam’s dismissal his party proceeded to lose that election by the largest margin in Australian history. The whole complicated farce reflected poorly on everyone involved and yet tragically everyone of the main actors sincerely believed they were acting in The best interests of our country. But The end result is our democratic impulse has ended up being reenforced since the GG’s (thanks to Kerr’s example) are deeply reluctant to act in anyway independent of ministerial advice.
@@tropicalgardenvlogs - Let's also keep in mind that Whitlam was on his way to call upon the GG for a double dissolution. He was kept out of the premises until such time as Kerr could issue the Dismissal. An election was exactly what Whitlam stated he was seeking, but he was specifically prevented from triggering it. This was all in the midst of an entirely manufactured crisis. After all, the "crisis" was that senators from the opposing party were blocking supply. That's it. That's what the crisis was. A double dissolution was the exact remedy our constitution prescribes for such situations. Not Dismissal. Regarding the election that was held afterward, I can't fault the process despite condemning the how it came about. I can, however, point out that Rupert Murdoch sent a memo to the editors of all of his media outlets in the country commanding them to "Kill Whitlam". Perhaps the election was held fairly, but the subsequent campaign was weighted heavily against Labor by the most powerful media empire in the country. This is not supposed to be the role of the media, but it is how Rupert Murdoch used it.
It is a brilliant, if quirky evolved constitution. Any check on rashness or power is good. Having the ability to say, not just yet, please reconsider these points is wonderful safety. As was King George V prodding an uncooperative House of Lords. Stalling is one thing but having a person with a very long view is peerless. Imagine the continuous wisdom available to Queen Elizabeth's 15 Prime Minister's at the Wednesday consultation. And that the Commonwealth also had this reference source. A deep bench indeed.
And she met every US President from Truman to Trump apart from Johnson. She was a very influential and well connected diplomat working on behalf of her elected government and her country British Ambassadors would always have a Private Interview (meeting) with her before taking up a post abroad. Many said they got more useful nuggets of information from her than they did from the Foreign Office they worked for. This was particularly the case with Commonwealth countries.
This possibility was explored a few years back in Charles III, a play (later made into a BBC film) where Charles ascends the throne and causes a constitutional crisis by refusing to sign a bill he doesn’t like. It’s written in the style of a Shakespearean history play, and muses about the nature of political and cultural authority of a modern-day monarch.
Important to note that the bill proposed was unconstitutional, or about as close as you can get in the UK. A bill to allow the government to effectively control the media. In the play/film, Charles was right. However the film portrays him as two sided and kind of undermines the credibility of his character. He is portrayed as both power-hungry and the defender of British institutions. Also falls inline with what Draper was saying... The monarch picked a side and was suddenly enemies with everyone, including others who also opposed the bill.
This happened in Belgium in the early 90's when then King Boudewijn was pressured by his catholic spanish wife not to sign an abortion law. The government had him declared "unfit" for a single day (with his cooperation) and signed the law themselves, then reinstated him.
At this point that power is merely ceremonial. I didn’t even know Belgium had a king still. I knew they *did* but I only knew of that one king who was a little bit of a genocidal maniac. I also didn’t know the Netherlands had a king either
@@therealspeedwagon1451 the power is split more evenly now, but its still a very important title in the way that king/queen is the biggest representer of the nation and the way they walk talk and act influence all citizens and is seen by all of them.
@@pipsapossu1699 believe me, the king and queen aren't important at all. They hold no power meanwhile they get a huge amount of the citizens' tax money for basically doing nothing
This is a very good video explaining the matter in plain language. I'm glad you understand that technically, there is no actual "must" in (at the time the Queen's now the King's) role in giving Royal Assent. Unlike what Bagehot claimed (stating borderline preposterously that the Queen must sign her own death warrant if both houses of Parliament send it up to her), the Sovereign still technically retains the power to veto laws. They just prefer to avoid that route, to minimize the chances that they will become unpopular and be ousted / asked to lay down the throne. But even if this is so, as you said with the example of the meetings with the PM, the Sovereign surely still has a lot of soft power, and I wouldn't dismiss the office as that of a mere figurehead.
But also, the Queen had this power from living a long life in the corridors of power and keeping her wits about her at all times. There are civil servants in other countries that fulfil the same role, they serve presidents or prime ministers without regard to political affiliation. They are not as public as a royal head of state, but that just makes them more powerful. In theory, they can lose their position (and in 2017 in the US many of them did) but in most cases, their experience and networks are worth having them around regardless of what political party or parties are currently in charge of a nation.
I didn't see any reference to "Monarch's Consent", which is distinct from "Royal Assent". Monarch's Consent allows the monarch to amend or block bills BEFORE they get to the appropriate parliament. That's where the real power lies, and has been used from time-to-time recently. Look it up.
Powers left unused evaporate over time. There is actually no one who can legitimately ask the monarch to "lay down the throne". To do so would be high treason.
@@str.77 It's almost certainly the case that actually using (or probably even trying to use) any of the unused but theoretical powers retained by the monarch (declaring war, dissolving Parliament, giving Royal Assent to Bills, etc) would result in their forced abdication, if not the outright abolition of the monarchy.
@@johnpotts8308 Not using them ever (as your reasoning demands) already constitutes a factual abdication. Then better be rid of it all and not be forced to implement evil.
Slight correction: 3:15 Actually the Act of settlement settled upon George I’s mother Sophia of Hanover. But she died at the age of 84 a mere two months before Queen Anne. Hence George inherited her claim to the throne.
And it’s worth remembering that neither Sophia nor George I were strangers to Queen Anne, but cousins. They’re all descendants of James I & VI of England and Scotland, of Mary, Queen of Scots, of Edward VII Tudor, of William the Conqueror. Even before William they go, because the Conqueror based his claim on familial inheritance rights from Edward the Confessor. They’re all cousins.
@@ericoberlies7537 Well they were “strangers” in a way. Many of them never met each other. In Sophia of Hanovers case, she never visited England(to my knowledge). Her mother Elizabeth Stuart, who only lived in England for 10 years before moving to Germany.
@@TheLordRichard True, but the same extended family has reigned over England for over 1000 years, and they married into the Scots monarchy over 500 years ago.
@@Ggdivhjkjl James II & VII fled the country and was declared to have vacated the throne by Parliament, ending his lawful claim. Absolutism in the Isles was dead.
I'm truly in love with her, just found out her channel yesterday and I'm amazed by her knowledge and ability to share and convey it, she's such a good historical entertainer
Just a slight correction , Queen Elizabeth attended Margaret thatchers funeral in 2013. Also just for some context, the last time a monarch vetoed a bill by their own choice was in 1696 by King William III, the bill would have limited the british army to 7,000 troops.
Just because the Queen did not actually veto a bill, does not mean she was not using her power. As you said, she could merely threaten to veto a bill to change it. About the roly polies, I think Boris Johnson would have done it without the Queen forcing him to do it.
Interestingly, she did use a particular power twice, both early in her reign: The right to pick a PM of her choice. The Tories used to have this stupid system where, rather than elect a leader (and a deputy leader) the party leader would "emerge"-basically the senior members of the party would decide through some sort of informal process who the party leader should be, but in 1957 and 1963, nobody clearly "emerged" She consulted with senior Tories, but in 1957 is was ultimately her choice to call for MacMillan over Butler, and in 1963 for Douglas-Home over several others. Probably one of the best things Douglas-Home did was to arrange it so that the Tories would elect leaders, rather than sort of an ambiguous "Yes, it should probably be Michael" system. It could, in theory still happen, but it's a lot less likely for all the stars to align.
@@TheSwedishHistorian I’m sorry good sir, but… are you being totally serious? I find that suggestion quite preposterous. (Are my fancy fake dinner manners good?)
The monarch may sometimes secretly lobby for changes before a bill is passed, but no, he can't threaten to withhold consent, he'd be ignored and laughed at by the government.
I just discovered you and I've already binge watched a ton of your videos. You fill this very specific need I have to be taught super interesting/random facts and to be taught it from someone in a British accent. Perfection. Love it. Chef's kiss.
@@christianellegaard7120 I wonder what triggered RUclips to start promoting this channel. I'm glad it did. The closest channel to this that I like is Mark Lewis and that's not very close other than they are both funny.
I was just reading the Federalist Papers and they referenced the tradition of not using this power. And I knew that Elizabeth II avoided it, maybe even never used it (I was not completely sure). So, I was just wondering when the last usage was. It turned out to be much earlier than I expected! The Federalist Papers made it seem like it was rare even at that time, but I was expecting the streak to get broken between then and now.
She used this power in 1999, she didn’t give royal consent. Thankfully she didn’t! It authorized parliament to call for missile strikes on Iraq without consulting the queen. Which is fully in her right as head of state, to know when her country is at war.
@@Zadir09The PM can declare war anytime they want, without reference to the Monarch or Parliament ... She used no power, if the missile strikes didn't happen, the Queen want even told about it ...
@ZzZadok as the video points out, it hasn't been used since 1708. Even that was on the advice of ministers, a monarch using it on a whim might not have happened for centuries.
@@davidhoward4715 You could argue it'd be an improvement, since electing someone to govern isn't a guarantee they'd be competent. If anything you could argue hereditary monarchs have more of an incentive to improve the country as its tied to their own success, rather than an elected temporary caretaker. Who more often than not, see their position as means to improve their wealth and power for the short time they have access to it. To put it simply, if you own a house you'll pass to your children and so on, you'll have more reason to improve and take better care of it, rather than a house you're renting for a few years before leaving. Maybe if the ones in charge can't just fill their pockets and run after every election cycle there might be an improvement.
And what about when the person doesn't give a damn, then a country is stuck with them for a couple decades, or their version of keeping the house clean is fourty years behind the times since they'd only leave at death or abdication
@@arandomalien7790 Then they end up like the Romanovs, Charles I or Louis XVI. Because unlike elected leaders, they can't just fill their pockets after 4 years and run off scott free leaving the country in ruins saying "its not my problem I'm not in charge". When the only way out is death or abdication you have to take the responsibility a lot more seriously or you'll end up losing your throne, or worse your head. What incentive is there for an elected leader to benefit the country when they can just get as much money as possible and ditch after their term is up?
@@arandomalien7790 Yes, the advantage of democracy is the same as its disadvantages: once established it returns presistant mediocrity. Which is good, in that you don't (usually!) get Worse results, and bad in that it makes better results just as rare. (the other downside is that if a more absolute monarchy goes down the tubes you can usually do something about it by getting rid of a few of the individuals at the top. Once a democracy starts going wrong, which will tend to happen far less often of course, it is VERY difficult to bring it back into line without major trauma of one sort or another.)
A citizen of the uproarious colonies over the pond, I enjoy the history lesson. Humorously, I am gratified by the scepter and headdress. The background is also well placed. That last bit is pure wisdom. (Not the bit about the patreons. That's definitely important, though.)
I absolutely love it when someone British calls us ungrateful colonists or something like that. It's like the perfect friendly jab that has just the right amount of sting to it
@@wbfaulk Yep, because "Britain Rules The Waves" and tridents have nautical connotations. Sometimes you'll see depictions with a spear instead, but they're older and quite rare. Very few US citizens even know who Columbia is outside of a movie company logo - or the character from Rocky Horror.
The dismissal letters were released recently. Basically the governor general sent letters demanding she order him to sack Whitlam. She kept rebuffing him. Eventually he did it without orders by reasoning that do so would protect the queen from any backlash and therefore was in royal interests. The queen then sent a letter thanking him for his imaginative interpretation of acting on the queens behalf.
@@davidliddelow5704 it would never have happened in the UK but it was simply Australia. The British monarchy belongs in one place Britain. Australia will still retain cultural , economic and military ties to the UK, NZ and Canada but its time to leave Britian and it should have happened in 1975 after Whitlam was fired.
As mentioned the letters written between Buckingham Palace and the The Governor General are freely available on an internet search these days. On the 17 November 1975 (6 days following Kerrs decision) the palace actually wrote these very words to the Governor General. "As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the crown in the hands of the Governor General as the representative of the Queen of Australia, The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime minister is the Governor General, and the queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor General must take in accordance with the constitution , It would not be proper to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor General by the Constitution Act"
@@whatdoiputhere1694 She still had the constutional right to rescind it but the only way to not hurt her reputation, or that of the monarchy in Australia, was to simply keep out of it. If it had of been in her family's best in to stop it she would have. She would never have done this to a British PM.
She never attended a PM’s funeral? Eh? She attended Margaret Thatcher’s funeral in 2013. Technically she could withhold assent but there was a law passed some time in the early 20th century which basically said that if the PM “advised” her to do something (like sign a bill into law), she is constitutionally obliged to follow that “advice”. Her royal prerogative to have discretion runs out once she is “advised” by the PM.
The use of Royal Assent in CA is really fascinating. The Alberta example is only the most recent, but it has been used multiple times to prevent radicalism in Canadian politics that could have torn the country apart when it was still in its infancy. There is another timeline in which Cascadia (Washington & BC) became first an independent country, then part of the US ala Texas. But instead CA represented a viable alternative for BC so they joined the north rather than the south, leading to the second most important economic hub of the country (Vancouver) existing.
The last time the Canadian Governor General attempted do anything it launched a series of events that lead to basically Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa gaining almost entire independence from the UK. The King-Byng Affair basically resulted in the Statute of Westminster 1931.
The opinion I've seen most commonly held by barristers is that the Crown could deny assent to a bill... once. And then the power would be swiftly removed, and if it was important the same bill would then be passed. In the end, all that would come of it would be a lessening of the power of the Crown, for no real gain.
Parliament would need to pass a bill that would remove the power of the monarch to refuse royal assent. The monarch would need to assent to the bill removing their own power, thus they could just refuse to assent to that bill as well.
@cigmorfil4101 To expand on that, during the Civil War and Commonwealth, the English parliament passed ordinances. Acts of parliament require royal assent, ordinances did not. They were considered to have force of law when and where Parliament was in charge, but were discarded at the Restoration. I don't know what the Scottish parliament was doing at the same time - presumably the same as they had been doing for the previous 40 years when the king was mostly absent south of the border.
That seems pointless to me. The monarchy having the power of veto but is unable to exercise it.. In that case what is the point of having that power ....?
Thank you for another fascinating video! I had no idea the first Prime Minister was a result of a language barrier! I was shocked that the last monarch veto was so long ago, too! And I am very pleased you are giving tours!
There's a "Politics Unboringed" video called "Who Governs Britain" that makes a joke about the first prime minister, with the King asking, in German: "What country am I king of?" and "Where are my slippers?" Funny video about the power of the Monarch, without the details in this video about how the monarch has a potentially important access to the PM.
the monarch can veto, but if they ever do they run the risk of everyone realizing they still exist, and wondering why the fuck they are still there. basically you can veto, but you probably gonna end the monarchy and its a really really cushy gig.
A kind of related event in the 1920’s was the King-Byng affair in Canada, basically, the Governor General blocked a party from forming government in favour of another (neither could form majorities but the first had more seats). Naturally this angered people quite a bit and made it impossible for the second party to pass legislation and triggering another election a few months later. I know it doesn’t seem like a huge deal, but it was the last time royal power actually interfered with Canadian politics (at least officially), and was a big deal for Canadian democracy.
@@evilemuempire9550 There was also the time in the 2000s when the PM asked the GG to prorogue parliament for a period (basically go on holiday for a period), and the GG initially declined.
@@abj136 Haven’t heard of that one, but I can see why it might cause an upset, though weirdly I guess it’s more because the GG wanted parliament to do their jobs rather than usurp them
Wonderful video! I studied constitutional law at university and this filled in the gaps as we didn’t really talk about royal assent in this much detail.
I didn’t do constitutional law but I read Dicey. I even bought the book. I assume it mostly covered how the constitution works for us now and perhaps how it developed rather than looking at unlikely events. They should cover it from this year though because the Tories are so abominable I wouldn’t be surprised if old Charlie might look at this option.
George I's mother Sofia was actually the chosen heir to Queen Anne but she died shortly before Anne did, hence George. Princess Sofia is also the furthest back relation allowed in order to become Sovereign in Britain.
Actually the Queen _has_ used this power once. In 1999 she refused to giver her consent to a bill labelled "Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill". Unusually, this bill actually required the Queens Consent _before_ it was even discussed in Parliament, rather than just before it becomes law, as it directly affected the Royal Perogative (which is the general title for the combined powers of the Monarchy) - namely that it is the _Monarch_ who declares war and _not_ the Parliament. The bill, if passed, would remove this power from the Queen/Monarch and hand it over entirely to the Government and current sitting Prime Minister from then onwards. They could declare war on any country, for any reason, and wouldn't even have to ask for the Queen's permission or blessing. Since this is one of - if not _the_ most important roles the Monarchy has, the Queen absolutely refused to allow the bill to even be brought up and discussed in Parliament, let alone actually written down and voted upon. It's one of the few times Queen Elizabeth 2nd ever used _any_ of her actual powers (which are far more vast than people realise) in her entire 70 year reign. And I'm personally glad she did, otherwise one of the few remaining reasons to even still have a Monarchy in the first place would have been forever removed, leaving the door open for a genuine (and reasonably logical) push to abolish the UK Monarchy once and for all, and for us to end up with a President instead of a Prime Minister.
An interesting point and an astute point about the precedent of relinquishing those powers. I think it should be pointed out as well that she was so advised (To withhold her consent) by Her Majesty's government. So her withholding of consent was not an overruling of the government but like many of the uses, so giving assent as well as withholding it, it was in line with the wishes of the sitting government. I think you do have to go a long long way back to see an official/open snubbing of the government by the monarch.
You say it like having a President is something so unimaginable and going to ruin your country. LOL. Presidents do the same things constitutional monarchs do. That is nothing.
I understand the importance of the power to declare war. Some nations have placed this power in the legislative body, so not even in the hands of the head of state. Perhaps someone can tell me if war was declared on Argentina during the Falkland Islands. . . . .unpleasantness.
@@RobertJarecki It does not matter in the Falkland Islands case. The UK does not have to declare war, if another nation attacks them, like Argentina did. It only has to decide to respond with military force, or not. It does not have to declare to the world its intentions.
It seems if the monarchy wanted to quash a law they would pull some strings much earlier in the process. The monarchy actually needing to officially refuse a bill would be a total failure and sure sign that the monarch is losing their grip on power.
Depends. I could see the monarch grabbing power back by using the veto power on any bill that has skipped steps like in Australia. Then using that case to keep using it every now and then.
iirc Victoria ruled as a near-true Queen by ensuring loyalists up and down the Government and civil-service. Also as Empress of India she had near-universal support in England, Scotland, and Wales. (Of course Ireland remained a problem)
You are always so delightful, entertaining and educational! Thank you for the effort you put into making and sharing your content! You have a happy subscriber in TX. 😊
The monarchy not using its veto has two very interesting repercussions. 1. It means that they know they can't use it without causing a constitutional crisis that would make more people question their necessity. So they merely coerce PMs through their clandestine meetings, to not put forward legislation they don't want, or else demand an exemption from those laws. 2. If they can't use those powers - then what do we actually need a monarchy for? Surely the only positive use for a monarch using their veto would be an attempt by a Government to bypass parliamentary procedures and pass laws without due scrutiny... Yet the monarchy doesn't do that. In fact this very scenario happened only a few years ago when Boris Johnson had Elizabeth illegally prorogue parliament, the Queen could have exercised her powers to refuse, but didn't. This makes them functionally pointless.
Minor correction - there hasn't been a monarch of England since Queen Anne and the Act of Union (1707); it's like how you wouldn't call someone 'President of Louisiana' or 'Emperor of Hokkaido'
Thank you, the goddess Athena. I didn't know you were on RUclips. I look forward to more content by a goddess. Also I've been really stuck in this RTS I've been playing, do you play? The genre seems right up your alley.
Not Athena, but one of her descendants who goes by the name Britannia. You can tell because she wields a -broom- trident instead of a spear. And if the camera were to pull back it _should_ reveal the shield emblazoned with the Union Jack.
Athena's likeness has been the basis for many national personifications throughout the years. There is Brittania (U.K) who is depicted here, but there also is Columbia for the U.S.A, Helvetia for Switzerland, and Roma for Rome.
The end of 'Johnny English' features a fantasy of a monarchial re-assumption of mediaevil powers... and one episode of 'The Windsors' features an attempted constitutional coup by Charles & Camilla after they find a bogus 'magna carta 2' which justifies absolute monarchy! :) Well summarized JD!
Excellent video, very well researched. Thank you for including the fact that the monarch's power extends beyond the shores of the UK. As a Canadian, I love it when someone mentions my country.
Great video! I've been binging your content - thank you! Small correction - at 0:46 you say our laws "come from the Houses of Parliament who are (mostly) elected." In fact between the Commons and the Lords it's mostly unelected, with 650 elected MPs in the Commons and knocking on 800 unelected Lords in the House of Lords.
While true, the Lords does not have the power to overrule a bill from the Commons since the reform of 1911. It can delay bills for a limited period and it does provide advice, but it is misleading (whether disingenuously or through ignorance) to suggest that laws in the UK are created by an unelected body.
@mirfjc my comment wasn't in regards to the procedures relating to legislation, rather the "(mostly) elected" part. Had the narrative been, "Our laws come from the elected lower house, and a larger, unelected, chamber advises etc." Then I'd have not bothered commenting.
The real power of the monarch lies not in Royal Assent which looks at law after passing through our parlimentary process but in Queen's (now King's) Consent which inspects draft law before it is even seen by parliament. Through this little known process our late Queen made many many changes to the laws that would later be debated in parliament - usually to protect her financial or tax status.
The monarchs of Belgium also have to sanction and promulgate the laws. King Baudouin refused to do that for the law depenalizing abortion in Belgium. As a result, lawmakers activated an existing constitutional way around his dissent. They declared him "incapable to reign" for the time it took to publish the law under the Prime Minister's seal alone (one day and a half). This is, to this day, the only Belgian law that did not receive the royal sanction. This article of our constitution was probably inspired by the fate of King George III, which was still a very recent event when Belgium was created. It was only used twice in Belgian history: in 1940 when King Leopold III was taken prisoner by the enemy, and in 1990 as detailed above. This second time, a consensus between the King, who did not want to go against his conscience, and the government, was reached to make that decision.
I"m not surprised either as there was a bill that the government passed where banks couldn't seize land in Liu of payment for loans. And considering most private land were also homesteads, this was before they struck oil in Alberta by over a decade, you wouldn't be tossing an owner out, you'd have a very large homeless population on your hands. The bill was struck down for constitutional reasons, but that was after WWII started, and maybe even after they strike oil in 1949.
Elizabeth II did find a way around it... there was a particular bill that was being debated, and she "conveniently" attended parliament at the same time. She said nothing the entire time, but the message was clear: "pass this bill if you want, but I will likely block it". The bill was not passed, despite evidence before the attendance that it might, and thus she never had to block it. Quite a few critics pointed out she had interfered, but as it was not "official interference" then the argument fell flat.
Have you seen the play King Charles III by Mike Bartlett? It's about Prince Charles becoming King and doing exactly this. It's in the style of Shakespeare so it's like a future history play.
I want to see the play where Prince Harry brings back beheading in a big way like in The Simpsons. He's supposed to be like Hitler on the future episode timelines.
@@richardarriaga6271 Given what's punished nowadays and what goes unpunished, the UK needs no dystopian visions. Least of all from a cartoon series that has long outstayed its welcome.
Didn't know about the 2001 recusal of assent in Australia....but I think the 1970s 'Dismissal' in Australia is a bit more seared into our collective historic memory.
Strictly speaking we don't know whether or not the Monarch can force through laws they want to see... because as members of the public we are not privy (yes I know) to the conversations held in Privy council. We do however know that the monarch and their heir have what is called Royal permission and some annecdotal evidence that the monarch does indeed control laws being passed. Royal Permission means that permission has to be sought by the PM from the monarch and their immediate heir in order to discuss any law that may affect them... that includes laws relating to tenancy rights, how much we pay them, agricultural law, forestry law, employment law, policing, public events, etc. etc. What this means is that the monarch can prevent laws from even being discussed - the most egregious use of which is a ban on even discussing the removal of the monarchy. We also have annecdotes from former Cabinet members who have changed policies because of opinions expressed by the monarch or their heir. The great lie of the UK monarchy is that they are A-political - however that isn't true... They are absloutely political - they hold the political position of presumed - unchallengable autocracy. The political position of Aristocracy above democracy. Let's consign them to history and start an era future historians will really want to talk about.
As a young author currently really obsessed with stories about monarchs and other royals, I really love your work. I like just scrolling through your videos to find some inspo for short stories and things and I always learn something new and have the best ten or so minutes of my life!! Thank you for feeding our hunger for history like this
Our Governor General of Australia many never had vetoed a bill, but he has on one occasion sacked a Prime Minister due to said Prime Minister Gough Whitlam losing majority in the Senate and having the opposition blocking his annual budget. The country essentially stopped functioning as it couldn't spend any money, so he removed the Minister and placed the opposition leader Malcom Fraser as Prime Minister. This is now known as the Whitlam dismissal or the constitutional crisis. technically not relevant to the topic, but a fascinating story in the worst case of Prime Minister - Governor General relations in Australian history
This was one of the videos where there are no fillers all information is crucial, all observations are pertinent and your facial expressions are on point and deliver the arguments. CHEFS KISS
One cool thing I learned about Crown Estates. The revenue that it generates goes to the UK government for administrative costs. In return the government gives the royal family the stipend they currently get which is dramatically lower that the net revenue of the Crown Estates.
And people act like the Sovereign Grant (the portion of the profits from the Crown Estates that the royals get) goes directly into the pockets of the royal family. It does not. The numbers from 2021 showed that just 2% of the Sovereign Grant actually went to the royals themselves, as payment for being working royals. All the rest goes on upkeep for the royal palaces, paying staff, and administrative costs for the Queen’s (now king’s) position as head of state.
@@jonathangems Billion, not trillion, don’t be ridiculous. And Heathcote Williams, a life-long Republican who among other things graffitied Buckingham palace and wrote multiple books lambasting the monarchy is hardly the most impartial source
@@jonathangems Does anyone even need to call out how bogus that statement is when you bring out a number like 13.4 trillion. Even the most ridiculous conspiracy theory about putin only claims he has 200 billion, which is already twice the richest person on Earth. But yeah, the supposed claims of a radical anti-monarchist is to be believed.
I am from Alberta. I kinda like the idea of having a person at the end who can say "no, this is stupid, we're not doing this". Of course, the number of people who could do this job well is very small as they would have to be someone who couldn't be bribed or threatened, and they would need to be of very high moral character. This is pretty much impossible in politics today as people win off of their ability to lie, name call, and blame others for their mistakes. I don't like any of them, even notley just couldn't help herself and started bashing other people. How pathetic.
We need a different form of government. One where the people have the final say not someone who was selected because they checked the most boxes for the woke crowd.
@@rhysfirth3506 - The weird thing about that is the Australian economy had been on the rise, and we even avoided recession during the Oil Shock which knocked numerous larger economies for a six. As far as I can tell the Whitlam government was undemocratically removed for giving the forks to our US masters.
@@RictusHolloweye the issue was a deadlocked upper and lower house. Vetoing supply bills. Common in America these days, causing government shutdowns, but not in the Commonwealth.
10 minutes of my life most definitely *not* wasted! A concise story of how the British constitutional monarchy works, and why it works - a pretty dry subject - made entertaining by your stylish and slightly mischievous delivery, every word crisply enunciated with superb clarity of diction, emulating the late HMQE even more satisfyingly than Claire Foy. Well done!
As an observer from this side of the pond I understand that running for president is an expensive business. As such, I would be inclined to suspect any such vetoes were used against bills which were against the interests of those who contributed a large amount to the president's election campaign fund.
@@cigmorfil4101Usually it has to do with partisan politics-for example, if the president is a Republican but the majority of seats in both chambers of Congress are held by Democrats, then Congress could pass a bill that's popular with Democrats but not with Republicans and the Republican president could veto it. Congress can override a presidential veto though if a 2/3 majority in both chambers vote in favor of a bill (instead of the usual simple majority).
4:52 Technically the Queen/King doesn't/didn't get taxpayer money. At least in terms of the yearly allowance as agreed by the government in the form of the Sovereign Grant, as this is made up from a fraction of the profits from the Queen/King's Crown Estate, the rest of which are surrendered over to the Treasury to be used for whatever the government sees fit. If I were to hand over all of the profits from my business to the government, for them to give some of it back, that would not be taxpayer money, it'd be mine as it was mine to begin with.
@@gabbybarnsy2830 you didn't read my comment. The Queen (now King) has a Royal consent and a Royal ASSENT. The consent has been used to stop bills and to adjust bills that affects the rights of the Monarch and or Prince of Wales. The royal ASSENT is needed to make a bill law.
Didn't Robert Peel refused Victoria's invitation to be Prime Minister after she refused to replace her Whig lady-in-waitings with those from the Conservative party?
As a historical scholar in the United States, I very much love your channel. For obvious reasons, UK history is not my area of expertise, but I've always found the way the UK monarchy endures fascinating. As the US takes significant cultural and political cues from the UK, I find it fascinating to see how our nations diverged and evolved separately. My area of expertise is the Great Power rivalries between 1880 and 1950 with a focus on the interplay between industrialization, technical advancement, and their effect on the balance of power. Particularly naval power. That's not to say I dislike other history. I'm just specialized. I suppose, what I'm trying to say is thank you for sharing.
Royal Assent sounds very similar to the Presidential veto in the United States. It doesn't happen often, largely due to the politics being sorted out before a bill is sent to the President.
Ah, fond memories of sitting in twelfth grade history class and having the teacher roll in a tv so we could watch the news cover the Governor General deciding whether or not the Prime Minister could prorogue parliament to avoid a vote of non-confidence. (She allowed it. I'm still mad about it.)
People often forget that the British monarch rules more than just the UK. QEII was also the queen of Australia, and her representative here, sometimes sends bills back to parliaments with amendments (although no governor general has actually ever completely vetoed a bill in Australia's history). The governor-general also dismissed the prime minister of Australia in 1975 and dissolved both houses of parliament, called a double dissolution. In fact, there have been seven double dissolutions by the governor-general in Australia since 1914. So the monarch is actually way more active in Australian lawmaking than they are in UK lawmaking.
The fact that she made a somewhat realistic Greek helmet out of cardboard is extremely impressive.
Wait 'til you figure out she's sat inside her duvet cover too 😂 😍
It's a great helmet
I spent the entire first minute just staring at it because I was so impressed by it.
A woman of many talents
That's a pretty good Athena helmet and worn as Athena wears it. I'm just wondering why a broom?
This is the kind of content I've been missing: minimal editing, no borrowed assets, just a semi-sentient camera and a highly intelligent, charismatic, broom-wielding presenter. Banger of a video.
Who doesn’t love a good broom-wielder?
It’s the simple things, isn’t it?
Looks like it's not just the camera with a Semi?
She swept me right off my feet with this fun, witty, and extremely well-wielded broom.
@@Nyet-Zdyes
Made me feel so clean 🥰
One of the few situations where I could see a modern British monarch using the veto power is if Parliament decides to pass a bill that is so wildly unpopular with the public that withholding Royal Assent is the only way to prevent lynchings or other serious problems (they might also call for new elections right after). There was an article about either George V or George VI that mentioned 'a disaster in the offing' being the only way he'd have been willing to withhold Royal Assent from a bill.
I can see that as a valid reason. Basically the law would be so bad that, no matter your political views, it would still be a bad idea on all fronts. Which is unlikely, but that's what basically happened in Canada, so not impossible.
The queen vetoed the law on inheritance tax until they amended it to exclude the royals. She has used the power 160 times to get amendments to laws that would have cost "the firm" money. Its bollocks that the Queen/Kings power is only symbolic.
I don't think I can see a situation where that could happen, though
@@harsimaja9517 Well, it requires a bunch of politicians to be amazingly stupid all at once, so maybe I'm more cynical than you are (and even I don't think it's likely, just plausible).
I used to think that another could be if the government wanted to use the army against citizens -- authoritarianism.
IIRC officers swear allegiance to the crown, not the government.
There was an incidence when the Queen asked for changes on a Scottish bill recently, it was to do with power cables going through private land. The Queen didn't want the power cables crossing her land and held off assent until a new route was proposed, it added considerable cost to the project.
Fair enough.
@@heycidskyja4668 well, not necessarily fair enough. I get not wanting stuff to happen on your land, but no other person has the ability to demand that they in particular are excluded from development on their land and stop a bill from passing until they're not inconvenienced.
yeah, according to the Guardian's investigations she quietly forced changes to many bills that affected her property or other assets. video that summarizes it is: "How the crown has more power than you think:
@@wrongwayscout so in that case it was a case of trying to avoid legal issues. If the Crown was subject to it, it could later create a legal and constitutional quagmire. Instead as with many things the monarch agrees to follow the law voluntarily to avoid the weird area of Crown Law getting mixed in. It's like how the monarch does not pay taxes but makes a contribution equal to the amount of tax they would have paid to the tresury.
It's hilarious if you think the monarchy actually makes any money for Britain. They are parasites@@carus6280
I’m American but I think I found a new favorite content creator. You’re so intelligent and focused, and your delivery and theatrics are amusing but never overstay their welcome. Thank you for all the interesting tales and tidbits on British history!
If someone in America tried that, we'd specifically write a law to see their secret finances...unless it's Trump, lol...
Yeah. And as an American I’d toss her tea into the harbor, too. If you know what I mean.
titbits.
😊
@@williamyoung9401 Fr
Strongly agreeing with OP; J. Draper's enthusiasm is sublimely infectious, and combined with razor sharp wit and writing, as an American I'm so thankful for The Algorithm highly recommending her
The broom is a work of genius
Indeed, however would we sweep without them
I really want that helmet
I'd wager she doesn't have her loicense to own a spear.
Or, a potato peeler...
Rule, Broom-tannia!
Well Britannia is female
I like the idea that some British traditions are truly spur of the moment type things. King couldn’t speak English so he had a minister who acted on his behalf. Boom, the Prime Minister is born. Makes the correct British Government truly come off as organic as opposed to institutional which I have always found interesting.
We don't even have a Constitution lol
@@benhancock6253 of course the UK has a constitution, what do you think the Supreme Court does? When Boris Johnson tried to prorogue parliament the Supreme Court found that to be unconstitutional and parliament had to come back and pretend it had never been prorogued at all. What the UK lacks is a codified constitution, there is no single official "Basic Law" document where everything is written down. Bits of it are written down into law, bits are custom and practise. But it definitely exists.
It wasn't spur of the moment. We fought the rather nasty Civil War over the exercise of royal power.
@@AlunParsons I didn't know that, thanks for the correction - wouldn't want to make that same mistake in a more serious environment!
@@AlunParsons Codified
Fun (Slighty related) Fact. The king of belgium has roughly the same power to not sign laws into existence. In 1990 he did not like a new abbortion related law. So he stepped down for 1 day, and the law could go effect, without him having to actually sign it .
Why did they let him back on the throne? What’s he gonna do about it?
@@TheDeadmanTT The Government simply claimed that the popular King Baudoin was "temporarily absent", as if he had a cold. He didn't abdicate like his unpopular father.
The Sovereign of the UK could do something similar if a bill passed by Parliament offended his or her conscience...just make a brief visit to somewhere like France, appoint the usual Counsellors of State, and the two "wettest" Counsellors would sign the warrant giving the Royal Assent.
I respect Balduin for doing something rather than going along (which English Liz universally did) but he still was complicit in an act of injustice.
@@baraxor True that Balduin didn't abdicate but it's not just sn act of ministers either. Ministers or Counsellors cannot give Royal assent. Hence, Balduin did see to the appointment of his brother as regent. That doesn't happen just because a monarch is outside of the country - laws can wait for his return - but for things like medical or mental incapacity.
Sounds like a useless king
I love how goofy, yet well made your costumes are, your presentation style makes it all work so well together.
This explains a lot, THANK YOU. We have the Monarchy as Head of State but most Jamaicans do not know what that really means. Having power and not using it, is not the same as not having power.
Yes, it could be argued that it is a very important additional safety valve. However, it is probably only a one-time use mechanism as it would either likely be stripped by a truly tyrannical government or would be unpopular with the people and again it would be overridden and removed.
@@mirfjc The government are usually also 90% of the Privy Council, who can claim the monarch is unfit, declare a regent (one of their own), and carry on ...
Good to keep in mind that most political powers are in the same elite club as the monarchs.
Within this month January 2024, queen maxima of the Netherlands
gave a speech at the World Economic forum in davos
@@mirfjc It's the nuclear option, and would only ever be deployed when the monarch is 100% convinced that their government was acting against the interests of the people and that the overwhelming majority of the people backed them. Say the government decided that women shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore, or that people who didn't own a property were no longer to be able to vote. The monarch would refuse to sign the bill into law, and probably dissolve Parliament. The resulting election would probably wipe out the governing party and elevate the monarch even higher in the publics affection.
This power has apparently been used twice by two Dutch queens: first Wilhelmina declined to sign a bill involving the death penalty for convicted war criminals and collaborators after WWII, because she thought it didn't go far enough.
A few decades later her daughter, queen Juliana, refused again because of her moral opposition to capital punishment.
Queen Wilhelmina was always very fond of the idea of absolute monarchy, she never liked her cabinets, especially the war time ones. She thought them all a bunch of weaklings. In 1945 Erik Hazelhoff Roelfsema, a very famous 'hero' from WWII and close friend to the Queen, apparently started planning a coup d'état to bring Wilhelmina to absolute power.
I'd love for a big production company to take on the life of Wilhelmina and turn it into a Crown-like tv show, because she was quite the character.
It sounds like it! I’d love to see that!
Ah, Wilhelmina.
As Churchchil said: the only man in the Dutch government.
Also, she apparently thought it was a good idea to ally with the central powers during the First World War.
Not in 1914, mind you, when such might have made a difference. No, in 1917, when the USA joined the war and seized 88 Dutch merchant vessels. Though belligerent powers seizing neutral vessels in their territory during time of war was apparently legal, Wilhelmina was so incensed she demanded the Dutch cabinet rescind its declaration of neutrality, and declare war on the allied powers. The cabinet declined on basis of not being idiots.
Given she had to flee and govern in exile, while her people suffered occupation, you can understand her frustration.
There’s a reason Churchill called her “the only man in the Dutch government”
Queen Juliana was a real one.
Interesting video! Fun fact: the Governor-General of Australia accidentally signed a bill in the 1970s despite it not having passed both chambers because of a clerical error where they sent him a bill that coincidentally had the same name as another bill that had passed. He gave assent, then withdrew it when he discovered the error. Also fascinating: the Queen's power (and now the King) doesn't just extend to refusing to give assent to bills in Australia, but also undoing them within one year of the Governor-General giving it royal assent (section 59 of the Australian constitution) - but this power has never been used federally in Australia. I believe it had been used in some of our states in the mid 1800s pre-federation, but I couldn't find any specifics so can't expand on that.
And somehow the power of the Governor General, as representative of the crown, includes discarding a democratically elected government and installing one of their choosing. Another thing that occurred in Australia in the 1970s.
@@RictusHolloweye Controversial, yes, but technically the discretion of the Governor General to appoint the Prime Minister and dissolve Parliament. Admittedly also Kerr acted on external advice, when he should have listened to Whitlam, and that external advice involved a Canadian constitutional scholar who didn't know about Australian half-senate elections so was not the best advice to get. Still, he was allowed to do it because there's no actual defined limits of this power. When no party has a majority this is a less controversial power (Australia didn't have a single party hold a majority federally until 1910 - so the Governor General had to appoint multiple Prime Ministers from different parties within a single term).
@@AuspolExplained - Indeed it was entirely legal. Just goes to show how illusory our democracy truly is.
keep in mind the context. Whitlam if he was being responsible should have resigned and asked for an election rather than play chicken with the country. Sir John Kerr (the GG) when he dismissed Whitlam appointed Fraser prime minister only on the condition an election was immediately called. And despite the apparent outrage at Whitlam’s dismissal his party proceeded to lose that election by the largest margin in Australian history. The whole complicated farce reflected poorly on everyone involved and yet tragically everyone of the main actors sincerely believed they were acting in The best interests of our country. But The end result is our democratic impulse has ended up being reenforced since the GG’s (thanks to Kerr’s example) are deeply reluctant to act in anyway independent of ministerial advice.
@@tropicalgardenvlogs - Let's also keep in mind that Whitlam was on his way to call upon the GG for a double dissolution. He was kept out of the premises until such time as Kerr could issue the Dismissal. An election was exactly what Whitlam stated he was seeking, but he was specifically prevented from triggering it.
This was all in the midst of an entirely manufactured crisis. After all, the "crisis" was that senators from the opposing party were blocking supply. That's it. That's what the crisis was. A double dissolution was the exact remedy our constitution prescribes for such situations. Not Dismissal.
Regarding the election that was held afterward, I can't fault the process despite condemning the how it came about. I can, however, point out that Rupert Murdoch sent a memo to the editors of all of his media outlets in the country commanding them to "Kill Whitlam". Perhaps the election was held fairly, but the subsequent campaign was weighted heavily against Labor by the most powerful media empire in the country. This is not supposed to be the role of the media, but it is how Rupert Murdoch used it.
I'm not from the UK, but looking at the British monarchy from this angle is fascinating.
It is a brilliant, if quirky evolved constitution.
Any check on rashness or power is good.
Having the ability to say, not just yet, please reconsider these points is wonderful safety.
As was King George V prodding an uncooperative House of Lords.
Stalling is one thing but having a person with a very long view is peerless.
Imagine the continuous wisdom available to Queen Elizabeth's 15 Prime Minister's at the Wednesday consultation.
And that the Commonwealth also had this reference source. A deep bench indeed.
And she met every US President from Truman to Trump apart from Johnson.
She was a very influential and well connected diplomat working on behalf of her elected government and her country
British Ambassadors would always have a Private Interview (meeting) with her before taking up a post abroad. Many said they got more useful nuggets of information from her than they did from the Foreign Office they worked for. This was particularly the case with Commonwealth countries.
The audience, with someone as knowledgeable as the Queen was, was a great help to PMs. the cabinet are after your job, the opposition after your party
This possibility was explored a few years back in Charles III, a play (later made into a BBC film) where Charles ascends the throne and causes a constitutional crisis by refusing to sign a bill he doesn’t like. It’s written in the style of a Shakespearean history play, and muses about the nature of political and cultural authority of a modern-day monarch.
Given that we currently have Charles 3rd and he's already voiced his opinions on political matters this may become somewhat prophetic.
I loved that play. In it Harry dates a black woman.
The one where he channels his inner Charles I and enters the House of Commons to dissolve Parliament?
@@thesmithersy That's the one! Great scene :D
Important to note that the bill proposed was unconstitutional, or about as close as you can get in the UK.
A bill to allow the government to effectively control the media.
In the play/film, Charles was right.
However the film portrays him as two sided and kind of undermines the credibility of his character. He is portrayed as both power-hungry and the defender of British institutions.
Also falls inline with what Draper was saying... The monarch picked a side and was suddenly enemies with everyone, including others who also opposed the bill.
This happened in Belgium in the early 90's when then King Boudewijn was pressured by his catholic spanish wife not to sign an abortion law. The government had him declared "unfit" for a single day (with his cooperation) and signed the law themselves, then reinstated him.
At this point that power is merely ceremonial. I didn’t even know Belgium had a king still. I knew they *did* but I only knew of that one king who was a little bit of a genocidal maniac. I also didn’t know the Netherlands had a king either
@@therealspeedwagon1451 the power is split more evenly now, but its still a very important title in the way that king/queen is the biggest representer of the nation and the way they walk talk and act influence all citizens and is seen by all of them.
@@pipsapossu1699 believe me, the king and queen aren't important at all. They hold no power meanwhile they get a huge amount of the citizens' tax money for basically doing nothing
@@maxim0953 you got dyslexia or sum cos i said the same thing?
@@hoppingrabbit9849 Says the guy with an NFT as a pfp 💀
This is a very good video explaining the matter in plain language. I'm glad you understand that technically, there is no actual "must" in (at the time the Queen's now the King's) role in giving Royal Assent. Unlike what Bagehot claimed (stating borderline preposterously that the Queen must sign her own death warrant if both houses of Parliament send it up to her), the Sovereign still technically retains the power to veto laws. They just prefer to avoid that route, to minimize the chances that they will become unpopular and be ousted / asked to lay down the throne. But even if this is so, as you said with the example of the meetings with the PM, the Sovereign surely still has a lot of soft power, and I wouldn't dismiss the office as that of a mere figurehead.
But also, the Queen had this power from living a long life in the corridors of power and keeping her wits about her at all times.
There are civil servants in other countries that fulfil the same role, they serve presidents or prime ministers without regard to political affiliation. They are not as public as a royal head of state, but that just makes them more powerful. In theory, they can lose their position (and in 2017 in the US many of them did) but in most cases, their experience and networks are worth having them around regardless of what political party or parties are currently in charge of a nation.
I didn't see any reference to "Monarch's Consent", which is distinct from "Royal Assent". Monarch's Consent allows the monarch to amend or block bills BEFORE they get to the appropriate parliament. That's where the real power lies, and has been used from time-to-time recently. Look it up.
Powers left unused evaporate over time.
There is actually no one who can legitimately ask the monarch to "lay down the throne". To do so would be high treason.
@@str.77 It's almost certainly the case that actually using (or probably even trying to use) any of the unused but theoretical powers retained by the monarch (declaring war, dissolving Parliament, giving Royal Assent to Bills, etc) would result in their forced abdication, if not the outright abolition of the monarchy.
@@johnpotts8308 Not using them ever (as your reasoning demands) already constitutes a factual abdication. Then better be rid of it all and not be forced to implement evil.
Slight correction: 3:15
Actually the Act of settlement settled upon George I’s mother Sophia of Hanover.
But she died at the age of 84 a mere two months before Queen Anne.
Hence George inherited her claim to the throne.
And it’s worth remembering that neither Sophia nor George I were strangers to Queen Anne, but cousins. They’re all descendants of James I & VI of England and Scotland, of Mary, Queen of Scots, of Edward VII Tudor, of William the Conqueror. Even before William they go, because the Conqueror based his claim on familial inheritance rights from Edward the Confessor. They’re all cousins.
@@ericoberlies7537 Well they were “strangers” in a way. Many of them never met each other.
In Sophia of Hanovers case, she never visited England(to my knowledge). Her mother Elizabeth Stuart, who only lived in England for 10 years before moving to Germany.
@@TheLordRichard True, but the same extended family has reigned over England for over 1000 years, and they married into the Scots monarchy over 500 years ago.
The son of King James II & VII was still alive when his sister died and remained the rightful lawful king after his father.
@@Ggdivhjkjl James II & VII fled the country and was declared to have vacated the throne by Parliament, ending his lawful claim. Absolutism in the Isles was dead.
I'm truly in love with her, just found out her channel yesterday and I'm amazed by her knowledge and ability to share and convey it, she's such a good historical entertainer
Just a slight correction , Queen Elizabeth attended Margaret thatchers funeral in 2013.
Also just for some context, the last time a monarch vetoed a bill by their own choice was in 1696 by King William III, the bill would have limited the british army to 7,000 troops.
Just because the Queen did not actually veto a bill, does not mean she was not using her power. As you said, she could merely threaten to veto a bill to change it. About the roly polies, I think Boris Johnson would have done it without the Queen forcing him to do it.
test
Interestingly, she did use a particular power twice, both early in her reign: The right to pick a PM of her choice.
The Tories used to have this stupid system where, rather than elect a leader (and a deputy leader) the party leader would "emerge"-basically the senior members of the party would decide through some sort of informal process who the party leader should be, but in 1957 and 1963, nobody clearly "emerged" She consulted with senior Tories, but in 1957 is was ultimately her choice to call for MacMillan over Butler, and in 1963 for Douglas-Home over several others.
Probably one of the best things Douglas-Home did was to arrange it so that the Tories would elect leaders, rather than sort of an ambiguous "Yes, it should probably be Michael" system. It could, in theory still happen, but it's a lot less likely for all the stars to align.
@@almostfm thats a lot better than a election
@@TheSwedishHistorian I’m sorry good sir, but… are you being totally serious? I find that suggestion quite preposterous. (Are my fancy fake dinner manners good?)
The monarch may sometimes secretly lobby for changes before a bill is passed, but no, he can't threaten to withhold consent, he'd be ignored and laughed at by the government.
I just discovered you and I've already binge watched a ton of your videos. You fill this very specific need I have to be taught super interesting/random facts and to be taught it from someone in a British accent. Perfection. Love it. Chef's kiss.
Female Lindybeige, or considering the channel is listed as created in 2008, Lindybeige might be a male J. Draper
Not just a British accent, but a very articulate and well enunciated one at that.
@@christianellegaard7120 I wonder what triggered RUclips to start promoting this channel. I'm glad it did. The closest channel to this that I like is Mark Lewis and that's not very close other than they are both funny.
Super interesting and random facts from a person with a British accent you say? Have you heard of THE fact boi Simon Whistler?
@@Lieutenxnt_Dxn It seems that our boy Simon is going more for quantity over quality these days.
I love her head placement and posture in general! Very royal with an air of condescension, definitely catches your attention!! Great video
very nicely presented, and it's so refreshing to have your simple filming style with minimal use of effects or camera changes
I was just reading the Federalist Papers and they referenced the tradition of not using this power. And I knew that Elizabeth II avoided it, maybe even never used it (I was not completely sure). So, I was just wondering when the last usage was. It turned out to be much earlier than I expected! The Federalist Papers made it seem like it was rare even at that time, but I was expecting the streak to get broken between then and now.
She used this power in 1999, she didn’t give royal consent. Thankfully she didn’t! It authorized parliament to call for missile strikes on Iraq without consulting the queen. Which is fully in her right as head of state, to know when her country is at war.
@@Zadir09The PM can declare war anytime they want, without reference to the Monarch or Parliament ... She used no power, if the missile strikes didn't happen, the Queen want even told about it ...
@ZzZadok as the video points out, it hasn't been used since 1708. Even that was on the advice of ministers, a monarch using it on a whim might not have happened for centuries.
I love the fact that the Queen sacked a government. They were so dysfunctional that the country came to a standstill.
Yes, because being ruled absolutely by hereditary monarchs would be such an improvement.
@@davidhoward4715 You could argue it'd be an improvement, since electing someone to govern isn't a guarantee they'd be competent.
If anything you could argue hereditary monarchs have more of an incentive to improve the country as its tied to their own success, rather than an elected temporary caretaker. Who more often than not, see their position as means to improve their wealth and power for the short time they have access to it.
To put it simply, if you own a house you'll pass to your children and so on, you'll have more reason to improve and take better care of it, rather than a house you're renting for a few years before leaving.
Maybe if the ones in charge can't just fill their pockets and run after every election cycle there might be an improvement.
And what about when the person doesn't give a damn, then a country is stuck with them for a couple decades, or their version of keeping the house clean is fourty years behind the times since they'd only leave at death or abdication
@@arandomalien7790 Then they end up like the Romanovs, Charles I or Louis XVI.
Because unlike elected leaders, they can't just fill their pockets after 4 years and run off scott free leaving the country in ruins saying "its not my problem I'm not in charge".
When the only way out is death or abdication you have to take the responsibility a lot more seriously or you'll end up losing your throne, or worse your head.
What incentive is there for an elected leader to benefit the country when they can just get as much money as possible and ditch after their term is up?
@@arandomalien7790 Yes, the advantage of democracy is the same as its disadvantages: once established it returns presistant mediocrity. Which is good, in that you don't (usually!) get Worse results, and bad in that it makes better results just as rare. (the other downside is that if a more absolute monarchy goes down the tubes you can usually do something about it by getting rid of a few of the individuals at the top. Once a democracy starts going wrong, which will tend to happen far less often of course, it is VERY difficult to bring it back into line without major trauma of one sort or another.)
A citizen of the uproarious colonies over the pond, I enjoy the history lesson.
Humorously, I am gratified by the scepter and headdress. The background is also well placed.
That last bit is pure wisdom. (Not the bit about the patreons. That's definitely important, though.)
I absolutely love it when someone British calls us ungrateful colonists or something like that. It's like the perfect friendly jab that has just the right amount of sting to it
Colonialism? Healthcare?
That would be a trident, not a sceptre. J has become Britannia.
@@wbfaulk Yep, because "Britain Rules The Waves" and tridents have nautical connotations. Sometimes you'll see depictions with a spear instead, but they're older and quite rare.
Very few US citizens even know who Columbia is outside of a movie company logo - or the character from Rocky Horror.
Damn you colonies, you'll be back eventually /ref /j
What about the time the Governor-General of Australia fired the Prime Minister when federal budget negotiations cane to a stalemate?
The dismissal letters were released recently. Basically the governor general sent letters demanding she order him to sack Whitlam. She kept rebuffing him. Eventually he did it without orders by reasoning that do so would protect the queen from any backlash and therefore was in royal interests. The queen then sent a letter thanking him for his imaginative interpretation of acting on the queens behalf.
@@davidliddelow5704 it would never have happened in the UK but it was simply Australia. The British monarchy belongs in one place Britain. Australia will still retain cultural , economic and military ties to the UK, NZ and Canada but its time to leave Britian and it should have happened in 1975 after Whitlam was fired.
As mentioned the letters written between Buckingham Palace and the The Governor General are freely available on an internet search these days. On the 17 November 1975 (6 days following Kerrs decision) the palace actually wrote these very words to the Governor General.
"As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the crown in the hands of the Governor General as the representative of the Queen of Australia, The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime minister is the Governor General, and the queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor General must take in accordance with the constitution , It would not be proper to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor General by the Constitution Act"
There was an election soon after and the caretaker government was elected.
@@whatdoiputhere1694 She still had the constutional right to rescind it but the only way to not hurt her reputation, or that of the monarchy in Australia, was to simply keep out of it. If it had of been in her family's best in to stop it she would have. She would never have done this to a British PM.
If 1708 was the last time, and it hardly counts because Parliament asked her to, what was the real last time??
She never attended a PM’s funeral? Eh? She attended Margaret Thatcher’s funeral in 2013.
Technically she could withhold assent but there was a law passed some time in the early 20th century which basically said that if the PM “advised” her to do something (like sign a bill into law), she is constitutionally obliged to follow that “advice”. Her royal prerogative to have discretion runs out once she is “advised” by the PM.
Your presentations are always just as fascinating as their content. Well done!
The use of Royal Assent in CA is really fascinating. The Alberta example is only the most recent, but it has been used multiple times to prevent radicalism in Canadian politics that could have torn the country apart when it was still in its infancy. There is another timeline in which Cascadia (Washington & BC) became first an independent country, then part of the US ala Texas. But instead CA represented a viable alternative for BC so they joined the north rather than the south, leading to the second most important economic hub of the country (Vancouver) existing.
Too bad that’s not working anymore.
1. Toronto 2. Montreal
3. Vancouver
The last time the Canadian Governor General attempted do anything it launched a series of events that lead to basically Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa gaining almost entire independence from the UK. The King-Byng Affair basically resulted in the Statute of Westminster 1931.
Did you type that all our but shorten Canada to CA?
Preventing radicalism is usually a bad thing though?
The opinion I've seen most commonly held by barristers is that the Crown could deny assent to a bill... once. And then the power would be swiftly removed, and if it was important the same bill would then be passed. In the end, all that would come of it would be a lessening of the power of the Crown, for no real gain.
The Privy Council have some interesting powers ... if they approve they would do nothing, if they disapprove ...
Parliament would need to pass a bill that would remove the power of the monarch to refuse royal assent. The monarch would need to assent to the bill removing their own power, thus they could just refuse to assent to that bill as well.
@@JamesVCTH
At which point we're back in the early to mid 1600s...
@cigmorfil4101 To expand on that, during the Civil War and Commonwealth, the English parliament passed ordinances. Acts of parliament require royal assent, ordinances did not. They were considered to have force of law when and where Parliament was in charge, but were discarded at the Restoration.
I don't know what the Scottish parliament was doing at the same time - presumably the same as they had been doing for the previous 40 years when the king was mostly absent south of the border.
That seems pointless to me.
The monarchy having the power of veto but is unable to exercise it..
In that case what is the point of having that power ....?
First time watching one of your videos and I have to say that you're a really natural orator and I can imagine you'd be a fantastic tour guide!
As an American, this video is massively educational! And I love your humour!
You have an elected monarch ... with the powers George III had .. and more ... Learn
@@davidioanhedges that’s what they wanted.
Thank you for another fascinating video! I had no idea the first Prime Minister was a result of a language barrier! I was shocked that the last monarch veto was so long ago, too! And I am very pleased you are giving tours!
There's a "Politics Unboringed" video called "Who Governs Britain" that makes a joke about the first prime minister, with the King asking, in German: "What country am I king of?" and "Where are my slippers?" Funny video about the power of the Monarch, without the details in this video about how the monarch has a potentially important access to the PM.
the monarch can veto, but if they ever do they run the risk of everyone realizing they still exist, and wondering why the fuck they are still there. basically you can veto, but you probably gonna end the monarchy and its a really really cushy gig.
A kind of related event in the 1920’s was the King-Byng affair in Canada, basically, the Governor General blocked a party from forming government in favour of another (neither could form majorities but the first had more seats). Naturally this angered people quite a bit and made it impossible for the second party to pass legislation and triggering another election a few months later. I know it doesn’t seem like a huge deal, but it was the last time royal power actually interfered with Canadian politics (at least officially), and was a big deal for Canadian democracy.
@@evilemuempire9550 There was also the time in the 2000s when the PM asked the GG to prorogue parliament for a period (basically go on holiday for a period), and the GG initially declined.
@@abj136 Haven’t heard of that one, but I can see why it might cause an upset, though weirdly I guess it’s more because the GG wanted parliament to do their jobs rather than usurp them
Wonderful video! I studied constitutional law at university and this filled in the gaps as we didn’t really talk about royal assent in this much detail.
I hope they filled that 10 minutes they saved with really useful stuff! 🤣🤣
You were taught for years and they couldn’t spare less than 10 minutes for this small thing?
I didn’t do constitutional law but I read Dicey. I even bought the book. I assume it mostly covered how the constitution works for us now and perhaps how it developed rather than looking at unlikely events. They should cover it from this year though because the Tories are so abominable I wouldn’t be surprised if old Charlie might look at this option.
George I's mother Sofia was actually the chosen heir to Queen Anne but she died shortly before Anne did, hence George. Princess Sofia is also the furthest back relation allowed in order to become Sovereign in Britain.
King Boudewijn/ Baudouin of Belgium was declared unfit to rule for a day in the 1990s to pass an abortion law as he refused to sign it 😅
in Canada and Australia there are also instances of the Governors General dissolving Parliament and forcing a re-election.
Or not when it should have happened. Pirouging? Parliament re - Harper.
Actually the Queen _has_ used this power once. In 1999 she refused to giver her consent to a bill labelled "Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill". Unusually, this bill actually required the Queens Consent _before_ it was even discussed in Parliament, rather than just before it becomes law, as it directly affected the Royal Perogative (which is the general title for the combined powers of the Monarchy) - namely that it is the _Monarch_ who declares war and _not_ the Parliament. The bill, if passed, would remove this power from the Queen/Monarch and hand it over entirely to the Government and current sitting Prime Minister from then onwards. They could declare war on any country, for any reason, and wouldn't even have to ask for the Queen's permission or blessing. Since this is one of - if not _the_ most important roles the Monarchy has, the Queen absolutely refused to allow the bill to even be brought up and discussed in Parliament, let alone actually written down and voted upon. It's one of the few times Queen Elizabeth 2nd ever used _any_ of her actual powers (which are far more vast than people realise) in her entire 70 year reign. And I'm personally glad she did, otherwise one of the few remaining reasons to even still have a Monarchy in the first place would have been forever removed, leaving the door open for a genuine (and reasonably logical) push to abolish the UK Monarchy once and for all, and for us to end up with a President instead of a Prime Minister.
An interesting point and an astute point about the precedent of relinquishing those powers.
I think it should be pointed out as well that she was so advised (To withhold her consent) by Her Majesty's government. So her withholding of consent was not an overruling of the government but like many of the uses, so giving assent as well as withholding it, it was in line with the wishes of the sitting government. I think you do have to go a long long way back to see an official/open snubbing of the government by the monarch.
You say it like having a President is something so unimaginable and going to ruin your country. LOL. Presidents do the same things constitutional monarchs do. That is nothing.
I understand the importance of the power to declare war. Some nations have placed this power in the legislative body, so not even in the hands of the head of state.
Perhaps someone can tell me if war was declared on Argentina during the Falkland Islands. . . . .unpleasantness.
@@RobertJarecki It does not matter in the Falkland Islands case.
The UK does not have to declare war, if another nation attacks them, like Argentina did.
It only has to decide to respond with military force, or not. It does not have to declare to the world its intentions.
It seems if the monarchy wanted to quash a law they would pull some strings much earlier in the process. The monarchy actually needing to officially refuse a bill would be a total failure and sure sign that the monarch is losing their grip on power.
Depends. I could see the monarch grabbing power back by using the veto power on any bill that has skipped steps like in Australia. Then using that case to keep using it every now and then.
iirc Victoria ruled as a near-true Queen by ensuring loyalists up and down the Government and civil-service. Also as Empress of India she had near-universal support in England, Scotland, and Wales. (Of course Ireland remained a problem)
This is a fantastic channel, you are a natural story teller !
You are always so delightful, entertaining and educational! Thank you for the effort you put into making and sharing your content! You have a happy subscriber in TX. 😊
The monarchy not using its veto has two very interesting repercussions.
1. It means that they know they can't use it without causing a constitutional crisis that would make more people question their necessity. So they merely coerce PMs through their clandestine meetings, to not put forward legislation they don't want, or else demand an exemption from those laws.
2. If they can't use those powers - then what do we actually need a monarchy for? Surely the only positive use for a monarch using their veto would be an attempt by a Government to bypass parliamentary procedures and pass laws without due scrutiny... Yet the monarchy doesn't do that. In fact this very scenario happened only a few years ago when Boris Johnson had Elizabeth illegally prorogue parliament, the Queen could have exercised her powers to refuse, but didn't. This makes them functionally pointless.
Very well done , a very clear explanation . A lot of research and hard work must have gone into this . Thank you for posting !
You had me with "Roly polies." Liked & subscribed. It is wonderful to learn history from someone with a sense of humor.
Very well done :). As an American this is pretty foreign to me so really appreciate the clear explanation and done in an entertaining way!
Minor correction - there hasn't been a monarch of England since Queen Anne and the Act of Union (1707); it's like how you wouldn't call someone 'President of Louisiana' or 'Emperor of Hokkaido'
Queen Elizabeth actually attended Margaret Thatchers funeral in 2013. The only other funeral of a PM she attended was Winston Churchill in 1965.
Thank you, the goddess Athena. I didn't know you were on RUclips. I look forward to more content by a goddess.
Also I've been really stuck in this RTS I've been playing, do you play? The genre seems right up your alley.
Not Athena, but one of her descendants who goes by the name Britannia. You can tell because she wields a -broom- trident instead of a spear. And if the camera were to pull back it _should_ reveal the shield emblazoned with the Union Jack.
Athena's likeness has been the basis for many national personifications throughout the years. There is Brittania (U.K) who is depicted here, but there also is Columbia for the U.S.A, Helvetia for Switzerland, and Roma for Rome.
The end of 'Johnny English' features a fantasy of a monarchial re-assumption of mediaevil powers... and one episode of 'The Windsors' features an attempted constitutional coup by Charles & Camilla after they find a bogus 'magna carta 2' which justifies absolute monarchy! :) Well summarized JD!
@@eagleowl833 I'm quite sure Johnny Lackland wanted absolute power after being forced to sign the Great Charter
Might as well do a story about Arthur waking up from his nap and reclaiming the throne. Just as realistic. :)
@@richmcgee434 Hey, "King Ralph" not enough for you?
(actually a not-bad movie)
Excellent video, very well researched. Thank you for including the fact that the monarch's power extends beyond the shores of the UK. As a Canadian, I love it when someone mentions my country.
I think I could listen to you all day.
Great video! I've been binging your content - thank you!
Small correction - at 0:46 you say our laws "come from the Houses of Parliament who are (mostly) elected." In fact between the Commons and the Lords it's mostly unelected, with 650 elected MPs in the Commons and knocking on 800 unelected Lords in the House of Lords.
While true, the Lords does not have the power to overrule a bill from the Commons since the reform of 1911. It can delay bills for a limited period and it does provide advice, but it is misleading (whether disingenuously or through ignorance) to suggest that laws in the UK are created by an unelected body.
@mirfjc my comment wasn't in regards to the procedures relating to legislation, rather the "(mostly) elected" part. Had the narrative been, "Our laws come from the elected lower house, and a larger, unelected, chamber advises etc." Then I'd have not bothered commenting.
A ironic comment
The real power of the monarch lies not in Royal Assent which looks at law after passing through our parlimentary process but in Queen's (now King's) Consent which inspects draft law before it is even seen by parliament. Through this little known process our late Queen made many many changes to the laws that would later be debated in parliament - usually to protect her financial or tax status.
i love how your style of delivery makes it sound like everything is so profound. like the fate of the world hinges on this one fact.
It was so interesting, thank you ! It was like we were with you all along and you told us a story. A great video 😊
The monarchs of Belgium also have to sanction and promulgate the laws. King Baudouin refused to do that for the law depenalizing abortion in Belgium. As a result, lawmakers activated an existing constitutional way around his dissent. They declared him "incapable to reign" for the time it took to publish the law under the Prime Minister's seal alone (one day and a half). This is, to this day, the only Belgian law that did not receive the royal sanction.
This article of our constitution was probably inspired by the fate of King George III, which was still a very recent event when Belgium was created. It was only used twice in Belgian history: in 1940 when King Leopold III was taken prisoner by the enemy, and in 1990 as detailed above. This second time, a consensus between the King, who did not want to go against his conscience, and the government, was reached to make that decision.
How did I not know about your channel before? I love your style of presentation. Intelligent but witty. Detailed but very, very clear to understand.
Poor Queen Anne. It must have been heartbreaking to suffer all those miscarriages.
Not all miscarriages. Some were born healthy, but none survived to adulthood.
I love how she replaced Britannia's trident with a broom, imaginative and comedic.
I haven't researched the Alberta one but having lived here I thought "ya I believe that"
No rats in the province because the politicians scared them away lol
I"m not surprised either as there was a bill that the government passed where banks couldn't seize land in Liu of payment for loans.
And considering most private land were also homesteads, this was before they struck oil in Alberta by over a decade, you wouldn't be tossing an owner out, you'd have a very large homeless population on your hands.
The bill was struck down for constitutional reasons, but that was after WWII started, and maybe even after they strike oil in 1949.
Elizabeth II did find a way around it... there was a particular bill that was being debated, and she "conveniently" attended parliament at the same time. She said nothing the entire time, but the message was clear: "pass this bill if you want, but I will likely block it".
The bill was not passed, despite evidence before the attendance that it might, and thus she never had to block it. Quite a few critics pointed out she had interfered, but as it was not "official interference" then the argument fell flat.
wow! that was utterly impressive. I’m speechless by your eloquency.
If Extra History has taught me anything, it's that it's always Walpole.
Pretty sure half of the world's contemporary geopolitical issue can be traced back to Walpole.
I'd say that Napoleon has him beat in terms of the "shaping all modern geopolitics."
Have you seen the play King Charles III by Mike Bartlett? It's about Prince Charles becoming King and doing exactly this. It's in the style of Shakespeare so it's like a future history play.
Yeah its interesting but I hate it because it's got a pro-monarchistic message.
I want to see the play where Prince Harry brings back beheading in a big way like in The Simpsons. He's supposed to be like Hitler on the future episode timelines.
@@richardarriaga6271 So beheading is like Hitler? Someone skipped history classes.
@@str.77 Hey, take it with Lisa and her kid. They think Prince Harry is that bad. Homer just said beheading was back "in a big way".
@@richardarriaga6271 Given what's punished nowadays and what goes unpunished, the UK needs no dystopian visions. Least of all from a cartoon series that has long outstayed its welcome.
Didn't know about the 2001 recusal of assent in Australia....but I think the 1970s 'Dismissal' in Australia is a bit more seared into our collective historic memory.
As far as I know, that wasn't so much using Veto powers as the GG pressing reset on the federal government because they were in a deadlock.
Strictly speaking we don't know whether or not the Monarch can force through laws they want to see... because as members of the public we are not privy (yes I know) to the conversations held in Privy council. We do however know that the monarch and their heir have what is called Royal permission and some annecdotal evidence that the monarch does indeed control laws being passed.
Royal Permission means that permission has to be sought by the PM from the monarch and their immediate heir in order to discuss any law that may affect them... that includes laws relating to tenancy rights, how much we pay them, agricultural law, forestry law, employment law, policing, public events, etc. etc. What this means is that the monarch can prevent laws from even being discussed - the most egregious use of which is a ban on even discussing the removal of the monarchy.
We also have annecdotes from former Cabinet members who have changed policies because of opinions expressed by the monarch or their heir.
The great lie of the UK monarchy is that they are A-political - however that isn't true... They are absloutely political - they hold the political position of presumed - unchallengable autocracy. The political position of Aristocracy above democracy.
Let's consign them to history and start an era future historians will really want to talk about.
I really like how this video had this kind of theatrical play vibe, very nicely done!
As a young author currently really obsessed with stories about monarchs and other royals, I really love your work.
I like just scrolling through your videos to find some inspo for short stories and things and I always learn something new and have the best ten or so minutes of my life!!
Thank you for feeding our hunger for history like this
Our Governor General of Australia many never had vetoed a bill, but he has on one occasion sacked a Prime Minister due to said Prime Minister Gough Whitlam losing majority in the Senate and having the opposition blocking his annual budget. The country essentially stopped functioning as it couldn't spend any money, so he removed the Minister and placed the opposition leader Malcom Fraser as Prime Minister. This is now known as the Whitlam dismissal or the constitutional crisis.
technically not relevant to the topic, but a fascinating story in the worst case of Prime Minister - Governor General relations in Australian history
I thought I read Queen Victoria refused to sign the bill that would have outlawed Lesbianism, as she didn’t believe women would behave that way
This was one of the videos where there are no fillers all information is crucial, all observations are pertinent and your facial expressions are on point and deliver the arguments. CHEFS KISS
last time that happened in Belgium, they kinda just temporarily declared the king unfit to rule, and had his son do approve it instead.
Most of parliament is actually appointed, not elected. There are more lords than commons.
One cool thing I learned about Crown Estates. The revenue that it generates goes to the UK government for administrative costs. In return the government gives the royal family the stipend they currently get which is dramatically lower that the net revenue of the Crown Estates.
And people act like the Sovereign Grant (the portion of the profits from the Crown Estates that the royals get) goes directly into the pockets of the royal family. It does not. The numbers from 2021 showed that just 2% of the Sovereign Grant actually went to the royals themselves, as payment for being working royals. All the rest goes on upkeep for the royal palaces, paying staff, and administrative costs for the Queen’s (now king’s) position as head of state.
Research done by Heathcote Williams in the 1980's revealed that, at that time, the queen owned assets adding up to over $13.4 trillion.
@@jonathangems Billion, not trillion, don’t be ridiculous. And Heathcote Williams, a life-long Republican who among other things graffitied Buckingham palace and wrote multiple books lambasting the monarchy is hardly the most impartial source
@@jonathangems Does anyone even need to call out how bogus that statement is when you bring out a number like 13.4 trillion. Even the most ridiculous conspiracy theory about putin only claims he has 200 billion, which is already twice the richest person on Earth. But yeah, the supposed claims of a radical anti-monarchist is to be believed.
I am from Alberta. I kinda like the idea of having a person at the end who can say "no, this is stupid, we're not doing this". Of course, the number of people who could do this job well is very small as they would have to be someone who couldn't be bribed or threatened, and they would need to be of very high moral character. This is pretty much impossible in politics today as people win off of their ability to lie, name call, and blame others for their mistakes. I don't like any of them, even notley just couldn't help herself and started bashing other people. How pathetic.
Australia actually had parliament dissolved in the 70's.
Just told they weren't doing a good enough job, "you're all fired".
We need a different form of government. One where the people have the final say not someone who was selected because they checked the most boxes for the woke crowd.
@@rhysfirth3506 - The weird thing about that is the Australian economy had been on the rise, and we even avoided recession during the Oil Shock which knocked numerous larger economies for a six. As far as I can tell the Whitlam government was undemocratically removed for giving the forks to our US masters.
@@RictusHolloweye the issue was a deadlocked upper and lower house. Vetoing supply bills.
Common in America these days, causing government shutdowns, but not in the Commonwealth.
@@rhysfirth3506 - Indeed, it was a manufactured crisis.
10 minutes of my life most definitely *not* wasted! A concise story of how the British constitutional monarchy works, and why it works - a pretty dry subject - made entertaining by your stylish and slightly mischievous delivery, every word crisply enunciated with superb clarity of diction, emulating the late HMQE even more satisfyingly than Claire Foy.
Well done!
That costume was an entire mood. Well done.
This was a very interesting topic and makes me wonder (as an American) what laws our presidents have vetoed over the decades and why
As an observer from this side of the pond I understand that running for president is an expensive business. As such, I would be inclined to suspect any such vetoes were used against bills which were against the interests of those who contributed a large amount to the president's election campaign fund.
@@cigmorfil4101Usually it has to do with partisan politics-for example, if the president is a Republican but the majority of seats in both chambers of Congress are held by Democrats, then Congress could pass a bill that's popular with Democrats but not with Republicans and the Republican president could veto it. Congress can override a presidential veto though if a 2/3 majority in both chambers vote in favor of a bill (instead of the usual simple majority).
I love your channel. Subscribed immediately. Love medieval history, yet I know this is more modern.
A nice history and civics lesson with some good humor! Thanks and love the helmet
What a brilliant presenter. Clear in thought, word and presentation. And funny.
Very thorough and lucid. I'm glad to have revisited this today.
And you are SO pretty!
In France we used to have a king who started vetoing laws at some point, which earned him the nickname _Monsieur Véto_ , and it ended badly for him
4:52
Technically the Queen/King doesn't/didn't get taxpayer money.
At least in terms of the yearly allowance as agreed by the government in the form of the Sovereign Grant, as this is made up from a fraction of the profits from the Queen/King's Crown Estate, the rest of which are surrendered over to the Treasury to be used for whatever the government sees fit.
If I were to hand over all of the profits from my business to the government, for them to give some of it back, that would not be taxpayer money, it'd be mine as it was mine to begin with.
The Queen has withheld her CONSENT several times without the need to withhold her royal ASSENT
Then did they become law without Royal Accent?
@@gabbybarnsy2830 you didn't read my comment. The Queen (now King) has a Royal consent and a Royal ASSENT. The consent has been used to stop bills and to adjust bills that affects the rights of the Monarch and or Prince of Wales. The royal ASSENT is needed to make a bill law.
Oh cool, any juicy ones?
Didn't Robert Peel refused Victoria's invitation to be Prime Minister after she refused to replace her Whig lady-in-waitings with those from the Conservative party?
The title Queen of England hasn't existed since 1707.
As a historical scholar in the United States, I very much love your channel. For obvious reasons, UK history is not my area of expertise, but I've always found the way the UK monarchy endures fascinating. As the US takes significant cultural and political cues from the UK, I find it fascinating to see how our nations diverged and evolved separately.
My area of expertise is the Great Power rivalries between 1880 and 1950 with a focus on the interplay between industrialization, technical advancement, and their effect on the balance of power. Particularly naval power. That's not to say I dislike other history. I'm just specialized. I suppose, what I'm trying to say is thank you for sharing.
Royal Assent sounds very similar to the Presidential veto in the United States. It doesn't happen often, largely due to the politics being sorted out before a bill is sent to the President.
To be fair there is usually a handful of vetoes during any term. It is not a historical novelty though it is interesting when it happens.
But a president isn't politically neutral so their vetoes could be devicive
Bring back absolute monarchies
👏
The confusion is American based, the constitution is sovereign there but in the UK the parliament is sovereign
Your narration on this presentation is just wonderful!
AND you are orating in profile and semi-profile: striking.
Ah, fond memories of sitting in twelfth grade history class and having the teacher roll in a tv so we could watch the news cover the Governor General deciding whether or not the Prime Minister could prorogue parliament to avoid a vote of non-confidence. (She allowed it. I'm still mad about it.)
This reminds me of something my mum said to me when we were little (I'm in Australia).
The Queen has all the power in the world.... once.
Thank you for this wonderfully geeky video! I would actually respect our monarch (Dutch) a lot more if they went around dressed like you ;)
this was very well done and you held my attention. absolutely lovely.
People often forget that the British monarch rules more than just the UK. QEII was also the queen of Australia, and her representative here, sometimes sends bills back to parliaments with amendments (although no governor general has actually ever completely vetoed a bill in Australia's history). The governor-general also dismissed the prime minister of Australia in 1975 and dissolved both houses of parliament, called a double dissolution. In fact, there have been seven double dissolutions by the governor-general in Australia since 1914. So the monarch is actually way more active in Australian lawmaking than they are in UK lawmaking.
Reigns over, not rules. Those days have long, long gone.