British Prime Minister vs. the Monarh

Originally posted by elenos I thought it all went back to Oliver Cromwell who executed the royals? The Crown was already in deep mashed potatoes with the Parliament. He took it one step further by declaring the protectorate. But him being such a fundamentalist nerd with a wart on the end of his nose turned the people off and the throne was restored. The popular move to dispose of the royals became the popular move to bring them back again.

Debateable. Whilst Ralph wasn't protector it could have gone any way. It was only General Moncke with his careful politicking that got Charles II back on the throne.

Originally posted by Patch Originally posted by Peteratwar Originally posted by Patch Originally posted by Peteratwar Originally posted by Patch Originally posted by elenos I thought it all went back to Oliver Cromwell who executed the royals? The Crown was already in deep mashed potatoes with the Parliament. He took it one step further by declaring the protectorate. But him being such a fundamentalist nerd with a wart on the end of his nose turned the people off and the throne was restored. The popular move to dispose of the royals became the popular move to bring them back again.     Although the Civil War greatly weakened the monarchy, it was the Glorious Revolution followed by the Act of Settlement, Bill of Rights and Parliment choosing on the Hanovarian succesion that finally established Parlimentary supremecy over the monarch.   Actually not true in legal terms. The Monarch has the power to disolve Parliament.   Clearly doing so would start a Constitutional crisis and the reasons therefor would be crucial.   But Parliment has the power legally to choose who should by monarch.  If when the present Queen dies Parliment wanted e.g. you to be the next king then they make it so, regardless of Charles'  claim.   If you read the Bill of rights you will see that the monarch's de jure as well as de facto powers are  limited.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689   No the line of succession has been set. A new act of Parliament would be needed to change it.   Never said the Monarch's powers aren't limited, but there are still some important ones there as I have said.   Precisely - A New ACT OF PARLIMENT - thus parliment can change the succession.  Parliment changed the succession in 1688, again in 1701 and again 1937.  Parliment decides who will be monarch.

Upto JamesII time Parliament had no say in who the monarch was. It followed line of succession/nearest relative subject to the occasional murder and war!!.

Interesting topic. Its a hard at that too, since Britain did not have a single defining moment in which ended the position of the monarch as in the case of France. Even to this day the House of Lords is only just going to change it ruling on the hereditary status of members.

The baulk of the heavy lifting re this issue was done as a result of the english civil war, and yes although the monarch was restored it seems obvious that this weas the start of a constiutional monarch I would agree with the current consenous on this thread that by the time of George V the government had more power but I feel the complete constitutional monarchy is a relativly modern creature with Albert and Victoria making sucessful forays into politcs around 100 years ago. this is something not seen since so i would conclude that was the time when the complete constituional monarch occoured circe 1900